Barbarians

[Questdog]

In the thread on policies I mentioned that a large map felt rather empty of Barbarians.

I went back and tried a tiny map with 7.2 to see if maybe you just toned down the Barbs, but by turn 35 my front yard is filled with three Brutes and three archers. You mentioned that you don't usually build much military early, but on a tiny map you ain't doing nothin' with no military. You can't even explore, unless you send two or three Warriors out together; one unit will be quickly turned into sausage. And Barbarian archers are a royal pain in the wazoo for Warriors when 1 shot from them cuts their HPs in half. Find an Archer in his camp and it's an easy pot of gold, 'cause he won't shoot and the warrior can grind him up, but find an archer roaming about and the warriors need to run away and hide! Warriors can't even think about approaching archers for a kill, since two hexes away they lose 5 HP and then the next hex they are dead or left with 2 HP and will be dead next turn with nowhere to run and hide, since in rough terrain he can't move out of range of the archer and in open terrain, 9 times out of 10 he'll run away only to bump into another Barbarian who puts him out of his misery. It takes at least two warriors to take out an archer and you have to sacrifice one of them to do it, but even two usually isn't enough because rarely is the Barbarian archer alone; he nearly always has a few friends by his side.

One complaint about archers (which I am sure has nothing to do with your mod): Many times my archer has been bombarded by an enemy archer that my archer is not allowed to shoot back at. I mean, if he can see me, I can see him, but that is not the case apparently....

That reminds me of one area that Civ V is MUCH better than Civ 4: The AI is excellent at cutting off all retreat for a wounded unit. In Civ 4, you never felt like your units were ever really in danger, because you could always just move them away, but Civ V chases you (at least sometimes, especially if you are wounded).

Anyway, long ramble, but you should try a tiny Perfect World or Continents map and see if you can play without building much military!

 

[Txurce]

The thing about feedback is 1 person speaking up like yourself usually means there's 1000 lurkers silently wishing for the same thing, so I always take feedback seriously.

Then what about the 1000 behind someone who disagrees? Since the logic cuts both ways, I would base my decision on either a desire to try new things that don't seem harmful, or the better argument.

Lowering the barb tech rate sounds good from a "realism" perspective, and makes a generally ineffective opponent more ineffective. That's a mixed bag that could make you tilt either way. My concern is that no one is going to complain about barbs being too easy now. Those who already too easy won't notice that they're even easier, and those who found them oppressive will be happy with the change.

 

[Thalassicus]

Ranged units can fire across tiles at or below their current height. In addition, forests/jungle at the same height as the unit block line of sight.

So for example: an archer on a hill can fire across hills (same height), open flatland (lower), or forested flatland (lower). The archer can not fire across a forested hill (same-height forest). An archer on flatland (lower) cannot fire across hill tiles (higher).


@Txurce
I didn't say the feedback has to be for or against any particular topic.

I'm not sure barbarians are easier. I removed the combat bonus against them, so compared to vanilla our combat bonuses are cut by 45% and camp spawn rate is increased by 100%.

 

[Questdog]

@Questdog
Ranged units obey line of sight.

Are you saying the LOS is something you can control in the XML code or are you just defending the way it happens to be (whether we like it or not)?

Because there is no possible way to draw a straight line from point A to Point B without it also being a straight line from Point B to Point A. In other words, if you can see me then I MUST be able to see you (unless you're invisible or hiding in the bushes....)

I'd be all for a bonus for attacking downhill and a penalty for going up hill, but not something that defies the laws of geometry....

 

[Thalassicus]

Are you saying the LOS is something you can control in the XML code, or are you just defending the way it happens to be (whether we like it or not)?

Neither option... it's not changeable, and physics is physics... there isn't really a way to disagree with or defend gravity.

Because there is no possible way to draw a straight line from point A to Point B without it also being a straight line from Point B to Point A. In other words, if you can see me then I MUST be able to see you.

Arrows don't fly in a straight line.



Both archers can see one another, but due to gravity the blue archer cannot hit the red one.

I'd be all for a bonus for attacking downhill and a penalty for going up hill, but not something that defies the laws of geometry....

Getting shot will lead to death or amputation regardless of how high the arrow was launched from, so I'm not sure a combat bonus would make sense.

 

[Questdog]

So this is not a problem after gunpowder?

And I think the combat bonus for going up or down should be for ALL units, but if you wanted to NOT give them to ranged units I would not argue much. We have that halfway now with the defensive modifier for hills, but there should also be an attack bonus. Every battle between units represents a lot more than just my unit shooting at yours and your unit shooting back. There are charges and counterattacks and retreats and everything all in those little one-on-one battles and having the high ground should be a bonus in every combat.

 

[Thalassicus]

It wasn't until 1870-1880 that indirect fire became practical in widespread use for artillery. This is accurately represented with the artillery unit in Civ.

There's both a penalty for attacking units on hills, and bonus for attacking units on flatland.

 

[Questdog]

It wasn't until 1870-1880 that indirect fire became practical in widespread use for artillery. This is accurately represented with the artillery unit in Civ.

There's both a penalty for attacking units on hills, and bonus for attacking units on flatland.

But the bonus for flatlands doesn't matter where the attacker comes from, which to me is not quite right. Both armies are fighting in clear open terrain so why should the attacker get a bonus (besides the fact that attacking armies usually take a lot more casualties than defending armies regardless of terrain).

 

[Txurce]

 

[Zaldron]

Then what about the 1000 behind someone who disagrees? Since the logic cuts both ways, I would base my decision on either a desire to try new things that don't seem harmful, or the better argument.

I play standard size&speed/king and have never had a problem with barbarians where I thought they needed a nerf, but they definitely made me think about my builds and exploration (and train some archers).

Lowering the barb tech rate sounds good from a "realism" perspective, and makes a generally ineffective opponent more ineffective. That's a mixed bag that could make you tilt either way. My concern is that no one is going to complain about barbs being too easy now. Those who already too easy won't notice that they're even easier, and those who found them oppressive will be happy with the change.

I haven't tried the new beta yet to see if it seems too easy now since I have a current game in progress. Personally the barbarian horses are the hardest to deal with because of their large movement.

 

[Seek]

What about incorporating the "Raging Barbarians" option in advanced setup? Checking the option would negate the recent nerfs. (I admit I haven't played since the changes either, btw.)

 

[Txurce]

Personally the barbarian horses are the hardest to deal with because of their large movement.

What about incorporating the "Raging Barbarians" option in advanced setup? Checking the option would negate the recent nerfs. (I admit I haven't played since the changes either, btw.)

I feel the same way about the horses... that "uh oh" feeling.

I haven't played with the new setup either, but was also keeping the "Raging"option in the back of my mind.

 

[Thalassicus]

I do agree the attacker's terrain should matter in combat... like a melee unit charging down from a hill. There's no way to implement this with our current tools, however. When I started playing Civ 5, for about 2 months I mistakenly thought attacking down from a hill did actually gave a combat bonus!

Double spawn rate I think is the same as the "raging barbarians" option being built into the mod.

 

[Seek]

Would it be possible to mod the Raging Barbs option so that they spawn at tech parity with civs?

 

[Thalassicus]

I change the prerequisite and obsolete tech of each barbarian unit to set when they appear, and it's not possible to change database values in-game.

 

[Questdog]

I think you guys should play with the new barbarians before you complain too much. They are actually tougher, I think, since they are nerfed in power a very small amount (they don't update their units until a few turns later than before and they still get archers from the get go and you don't), and buffed in amount and frequency and also the edge you had in firefights with them has been removed, so that the battles with the barbs are more fair. Try playing on a Tiny Map with no City States and you will not care who the AI opponents are for quite a while as the Barbarians surround your capital with camps before you get your second Warrior out. Literally on turn 35 (Epic) I had 3 Barb Warriors and 3 Archers knocking on my palace door.

I'm currently playing on a large map with the default number of City States and it was not very long before barbarians ceased to be anything but isolated camps popping up. I must say it fell rather tame, but that has nothing to do with the recent changes, City States just seem to take up a lot of the spaces the barbs have to spawn.

I think this will be my last game with City States; they make the game way too easy:

1) They buffer you from the barbarians
2) They make it easy to acquire any resources you want
3) They are no threat to you whatsoever; they will never attack you of their own volition. Only if they are allied with someone else your at war with will they fight.

In the early game, they can get quite a lead on you in the number of units in the field and if they were a threat to attack, they'd be fun to play with. But as it is, it's like all those units your neighbor CS has generated are just free barbarian killers to help you.

 

[jacktannery]

Just a note: I also started disabling city states now that I have stopped playing with Quick Combat (for spoils of war policy), so reason No 4:

4) watching allied city states combat animations is very boring.

 

[Thalassicus]

Even if barbarians had a huge spawn rate I personally wouldn't feel threatened by them, because they have no experience gain, healing, or siege units. I don't see them as a major part of the game (unless playing as Germany). They're more like an extra incentive to always be prepared for attack from any direction. Since Firaxis made the AIs rush-happy though, I typically get rushed by 3 warriors, 3 archers and a catapult before I have three cities up... that's much tougher than barbarians.

 

[Txurce]

Since Firaxis made the AIs rush-happy though, I typically get rushed by 3 warriors, 3 archers and a catapult before I have three cities up... that's much tougher than barbarians.

That's interesting. My sense of the devs' change in early rushing is that it only applies in the pre-2000 BC period - when they have archery at most. That happens roughly about a quarter of the time to me. After that (when catapults are around) circumstances become complex enough that I can't be sure why I'm being attacked... or if I'd call it a rush. You see a link?

 

[Thalassicus]

I generally consider a rush to be any significant military campaign in the Ancient/Medieval eras. It's difficult to both get a strong economy and strong military this early, so I go for economy and start my conquering in the medieval era. AI attacks before this time had a big increase in frequency in that recent patch.