Barbarians

[Ballazic]

How about to speed the game up. Barbarians have less but stronger units. I'm thinking high offence, low defence, treating all units as roads units. That would improve things tremedeusly.

This would cut the moving time of ai in the midgame majorly. And improve our game.

 

[Denarr]

I've already played a game that replace barbarian units with stronger units.
This slows down the beginning of the game to an alarming degree. Anyone who's played one of the 'dinos as barbarians' mods, will know what I'm talking about.
This seems like something that would be better left to the creators of the mod packs, for those who want that sort of thing.

 

[Ballazic]

I believe i am misunderstood. What iam saying is that barb armies should have less amount of troops in there armies and more stronger troops. Instead of a horde of 15 weak soldeirs how about an army of 3-4 crack troops. This would take less movement time.

 

[judgement]

I believe i am misunderstood. What iam saying is that barb armies should have less amount of troops in there armies and more stronger troops. Instead of a horde of 15 weak soldeirs how about an army of 3-4 crack troops. This would take less movement time.

But the barb camps at the beginning only churn out a few units, and if those were also crack units instead of 1/1/1 warriors, it would, as Denarr says, slow down the early game, since you'd have to build lots more defensive units to protect your cities, settlers, and workers.

What I suspect you're really suggesting is that barb strength should change as the game progresses, instead of the number of barbs increasing as the game progresses. But unfortunately, that's not what you said in your first post: you just suggested making barbs stronger, which I (and apparently several others) assumed meant making them stronger even at the beginning. Which, as Denarr said, is a bad idea, so we vote "bad idea".

Barbs already do get a bit stronger: at first they're all warriors, but later they're horsemen. I wouldn't mind seeing barb swordsmen coming from areas near iron deposits... is that the sort of thing you're hoping for?

 

[Ballazic]

yes. the reason why i said this is because i have only played civ2.

 

[Gogf]

In real life though, barbarians were quite week. Unadvanced, and without strong weapons, tribes were called "barbarian" because they were defeated. It was those that deated them that called them "barbarians." Therefore, barbarians are inherently weak. In the past, I have considered this, by thinking "Barbarians don't have to defend their homes, so they should have high attack, and weak defense." But, barbarians already get an advantage for not having to defend anything: they don't have to defend anything. Although they have to defend their minor huts, they do this with one unit.

What I would like to see in Civ4 is the abolision of barbarians, and the instatement of "barbaric" tribes that go on raiding and ransacking the rest of the world. This would be far more realistic. Perhaps some civilizations could focus primarily on military, and not science, or growth. These civs would attack the more advanced empires of the world, and wreak havoc. However, the rest of the world could defeat them by technilogical advances. This could easily be done in Civ3 with a modpack (utilizing flavors, and build orders), but cues would not be as strong in Civ3 as they could be in Civ4. I also think that this should be "standard." Obviously, some people will disagree, but I think that there must be some people who share my opinion.

Please read this post. I myself hate long posts, but I strongly encourage you to listen to my idea. You will either love it, or hate it; either way, you will want to respond.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I think a really good barbarian improvement scheme would depend somewhat on what other things make it in the game. For example, if minor/neutral/tribal civs are in, that helps. Likewise, if some of the ideas for guerillas make it in the game (substandard guerillas units for all eras, for example), these can obviously apply to barbarians. I think we could also tolerate stronger barbarians if we had the opportunity to hire them as mercenaries and/or bribe them to go attack someone else.

 

[Gogf]

Well, I presume we can tolerate them, but would it be realistic?

 

[Duke_of_BOOM!]

I think the term barbarian is derogatory, and just depends on which side of the battle-axe you are on... that said there should be tribes of nomads that raid cities (or better yet, have nomads be an early form of government/city style), or agrarian societies engaged in ritualistic warfare.

Anywho, give all the tribes the same chance of expansion, with an early game handicap in technology and a high initial aggressiveness level, get rid of the nuisance attack only people.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I still subscribe to the idea of Goody Huts and Barbarians being replaced by 'Minor Nations'. Your goody huts would now be represented by less agressive, more 'sedentary' minor civs, who progress and expand at a much slower rate than their 'major' counterparts. 'Barbarians', however, refer to the more aggresive minor civs. They focus far less on technology and peaceful expansion, and instead focus on building strong offensive units, and on expanding through conquest. Make no mistake, a minor civ can, eventually, become a major civ if it passes any of the existing major civs in either tech level or city no.
Now, like other civs, minor nations would have culture groups and characteristics and, along with aggressiveness, would determine how easy it is to Deal with them. All of the minor civs would grant some kind of benefit to any major civ that incorporates them, peacefully, into their empire. These might include a Wonder/improvement/unit/tech only buildable by that nation. A bonus to production/science/wealth output within your empire. A bonus to dealing with corruption in your empire. A tech which you don't have yet, but they do, or a bonus to researching certain types of techs.
These benefits would exist mostly to avoid players (or the AI) from merely crushing these minor nations out of hand!
Anyway, just a thought !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Denarr]

Barbarian is a relativistic term that refers to a civilization regarded as primitive, usually without further connotation.

Civilized means: has achieved a culture as a particular people, nation, government, etc.. There are other definitions, but this is the one that applies to the game.

I'm thinking that when we use the term civ, we are referring to one of the Citied Nations, which is what the game does, but the Barbarian Nations, historically, have taken cities, and even have become Citied Nations, themselves, on occasion.

 

[Gogf]

Yes, I totally agree. That sounds perfect!

 

[Ballazic]

I see what you mean. ya i recant. Your right.

 

[BassDude726]

The idea of making the barbarians minor nations brings up the problem of customizing the barbs to your preferences. In civ III, a beginner player can set the barbarian agression level to sedentary or roaming and the experienced players can still set it to raging if they want. with minor nations, the aggression levels would be an integrated part of their cultural characteristics. And when playing on a huge map with a ton of civs, you always end up with "minor" nations anyway that are just prey for the stronger ones.

 

[Jaca]

What I would like to see in Civ4 is the abolision of barbarians, and the instatement of "barbaric" tribes that go on raiding and ransacking the rest of the world. This would be far more realistic. Perhaps some civilizations could focus primarily on military, and not science, or growth. These civs would attack the more advanced empires of the world, and wreak havoc. However, the rest of the world could defeat them by technilogical advances.

I may suggest a compromise. But something which still might support your idea. In history it seems - at least that's what I read - the Chinese have had also a very long and tough time to take care of these units. It's not a coincidence the Great Wall was built in China...

Barbs could pop up randomly as they do now, and more frequently depending on the level of Barbs you have chosen. However, sometimes they pop up in frutile tiles and/or in tiles with or just next to a horse resource. When that happens, the barbarian settlement can grow naturally to become a minor tribe with a lot of horsemen. Once a minor tribe has popped out, it might spread. So you'll better go for the barbs as soon as possible, because they might become too big a threat, or they have taken in frutile settling squares.

Jaca