Does anyone know why barbarians dont get any better? Is it just because people find them annoying? Is it to be more historically accurate? In civ2 I think you used to get uprisings with musketmen or a similar unit once you were more advanced to replace out of date barbarians- Personally I think they should at least get a few more hit points in later ages to make them more of a potential threat game wise....
barbarians
- Thread starter phil87
- Start date
Pounder
Phaethon was here
I agree, I think in modern ages for example that they should become terrorists.
Sparrow3
Prince
I agree terrorists would be good.
Maybe a few guerilla rebels around cities where unhappiness is rampant. Maybe one unhappy citizen could create 2-3 rebels, who attack the city. If they capture it, they create their own barbarian civ.
I know too much programming
well for Civ4, then. 
Maybe a few guerilla rebels around cities where unhappiness is rampant. Maybe one unhappy citizen could create 2-3 rebels, who attack the city. If they capture it, they create their own barbarian civ.
I know too much programming
well for Civ4, then. 
Pounder
Phaethon was here
I think that it would be nice if barbs changed and advanced through the centuries. They should be able to use newer technologies, they may not be developing new technologies, but the should be able to use them. I'm sure that a barb could shoot a gun if he got his hands on one.
DragonRunner
Certified Band Geek
Problem is, then you'll be attacked by swordsmen when you have warriors. can you say instant death?
You'd need to wait a while while for the barbs to start appearing.
You'd need to wait a while while for the barbs to start appearing.
Pounder
Phaethon was here
Originally posted by DragonRunner
Problem is, then you'll be attacked by swordsmen when you have warriors. can you say instant death?
You'd need to wait a while while for the barbs to start appearing.
I think that barbs were implemented better in Civ2 than they are in Civ3. Barbs advanced, they could take control of a towns, there were games where a weaker Civs may have lost several towns to barbs, the town continuing to produce barb units.
They could become a force to contend with.
Loaf Warden
(no party affiliation)
In previous Civ games, the barbarians would advance with the ages, and could actually capture and hold cities. They should bring that back, with maybe a little twist.
I think it should be possible for individual barbarian encampments (as distinguished from 'the barbarians' in a more general sense) to advance in technology through 'contact' with civs.
What I'd like to see even more, though, is the ability to set up individual encampments as your protectorates. The barbarians would give you money or resources in exchange for your letting them survive and defending them against other civs. Some encampments would be more trustworthy than others, and you'd have to watch out for discontentment and uprisings, but it would sure beat simply destroying every village you encounter just for a small one-time sum.
I think it should be possible for individual barbarian encampments (as distinguished from 'the barbarians' in a more general sense) to advance in technology through 'contact' with civs.
What I'd like to see even more, though, is the ability to set up individual encampments as your protectorates. The barbarians would give you money or resources in exchange for your letting them survive and defending them against other civs. Some encampments would be more trustworthy than others, and you'd have to watch out for discontentment and uprisings, but it would sure beat simply destroying every village you encounter just for a small one-time sum.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
But by the end of the Middle ages, let alone the Modern era, surely the whole world's owned by one civ or another... so there's no barbarians (of any kind) anyway. If you wanted to make barbarians that advance, you'd also have to make it so encampments can appear inside territories... which kinda defeats the purpose of conquering the land, don't you think?
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Well what's needed is for barbarians to be replaced with partisans/rebels, etc.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
But again, even if they changed their name, they'd still only be able to spring up in unoccupied territory... and if they COULD appear in controlled territory, then what the heck point is there in "controlling" it?
KrikkitTwo
Immortal
- Joined
- Apr 3, 2004
- Messages
- 12,418
Well I mean are 'barbarians' that are generated by unhappy citizens, cities in disorder, resistors, etc.
Barbs definitely should evolve, but I'm not sure into what.
Something very threatening would be more appropriate, to force someone to take the territory.
How about a degenerate zone, where jungle grows on grassland and diseases spread to nearby cities? The units coming out could poison units that come in contact with it.
Something very threatening would be more appropriate, to force someone to take the territory.
How about a degenerate zone, where jungle grows on grassland and diseases spread to nearby cities? The units coming out could poison units that come in contact with it.
The idea of barbarians (rebels) spawned by unhappy or resisting citizens sounds like it would bring an interesting new element to the game.
To cover the barbarian evolution, the barbarian units produced could be based on the infantry units of their respective time periods and civilizations. For example, if your civ can produce pikemen and you have a city in unrest, that city could lose population and pop out one or two barbarian swordsmen. (Perhaps they could be regular swordsmen who, when defeated, are enslaved and turned into workers. This could represent the culling of an uprising faction.)
But if a person pays attention to unhappiness or sets up governor control, riots could be easily avoided. This element could be given more relevence if applied to conquered cities.
If you take control of a city with resisting citizens then there is a chance for producing rebel units in the general area. If you capture an opposing civs city and that civs defensive unit is riflemen, then there is a chance resisting citizens could disappear and turn into rebel riflemen. It would reduce the population, making things easier once control is established, but you'd have to handle one or two conscript or regular units for each resisting citizen. It would be like a forced conscription on captured civ's cities.
This could potentially give opponents a troop advantage in wartime or make a citiy captured once more difficult to capture a second time. Maybe after these rebelling units recapture the city, two or three of them would remain as defence and the rest would rejoin the city population. After all, these aren't military personnel, just ordinary people looking to defend their homes.
So it doesn't give opponent civs and unfair advantage, this ability could apply to the player as well. If a player's city is captured and their are resisting citizens present, there is a chance they will disband and turn into military units under the player's control. I don't think the player should have control over this. The invading civilization would most likely try to break off communication and coordinated rebellious uprisings of any sort. Perhaps the Espionage tech could allow a player to have more control over this action, though. A new option could become available where a player could select resisting citizens in foreign occupied cities and turn them into conscript rebels. These rebel units could be allowed to rejoin the city population after the war. Potentially the rebels could also move to a different city and join the population as refugees.
I didn't play Civ2 too much but now that I think about it this element existed in that game to an extent. Captured cities would produce partisan units some of the time. I don't remember the circumstances that caused this but I know it happened a few times.
Anyway... Barbarian units spawned from cities seems like the type of unexpected thing to make me tear my hair out in frustration. And at the end of the day, isn't this what Civ3 is all about. Increasing baldness in the world.
To cover the barbarian evolution, the barbarian units produced could be based on the infantry units of their respective time periods and civilizations. For example, if your civ can produce pikemen and you have a city in unrest, that city could lose population and pop out one or two barbarian swordsmen. (Perhaps they could be regular swordsmen who, when defeated, are enslaved and turned into workers. This could represent the culling of an uprising faction.)
But if a person pays attention to unhappiness or sets up governor control, riots could be easily avoided. This element could be given more relevence if applied to conquered cities.
If you take control of a city with resisting citizens then there is a chance for producing rebel units in the general area. If you capture an opposing civs city and that civs defensive unit is riflemen, then there is a chance resisting citizens could disappear and turn into rebel riflemen. It would reduce the population, making things easier once control is established, but you'd have to handle one or two conscript or regular units for each resisting citizen. It would be like a forced conscription on captured civ's cities.
This could potentially give opponents a troop advantage in wartime or make a citiy captured once more difficult to capture a second time. Maybe after these rebelling units recapture the city, two or three of them would remain as defence and the rest would rejoin the city population. After all, these aren't military personnel, just ordinary people looking to defend their homes.
So it doesn't give opponent civs and unfair advantage, this ability could apply to the player as well. If a player's city is captured and their are resisting citizens present, there is a chance they will disband and turn into military units under the player's control. I don't think the player should have control over this. The invading civilization would most likely try to break off communication and coordinated rebellious uprisings of any sort. Perhaps the Espionage tech could allow a player to have more control over this action, though. A new option could become available where a player could select resisting citizens in foreign occupied cities and turn them into conscript rebels. These rebel units could be allowed to rejoin the city population after the war. Potentially the rebels could also move to a different city and join the population as refugees.
I didn't play Civ2 too much but now that I think about it this element existed in that game to an extent. Captured cities would produce partisan units some of the time. I don't remember the circumstances that caused this but I know it happened a few times.
Anyway... Barbarian units spawned from cities seems like the type of unexpected thing to make me tear my hair out in frustration. And at the end of the day, isn't this what Civ3 is all about. Increasing baldness in the world.
