Barbarians

[Colonel]

This thread should cover what all want changed about them

for example

In the change from civ2 to civ3 i noticed one major defect they got rid of that i thought was somewhat disappointing they cant or dont seem to take cities anymore now i understand some may not care and others did like they could in the first place but that seems more realistic then coming and takein some money and leaveing u would think they would want at least one base of operation although in civ3 they have those camps i dont think they are as good because they dont\cant build stuff really units just pop out every so often

 

[Ant509y]

Here's my view on how barbarians should be: they should be in some ways a sort of 'minor civ' with cultural borders once they gain cities. They could gain cities by one 'group' founding multiple encampments, and after awhile one could become a city, I dunno how. Of course, they can also capture cities, which would allow them to start their own civ-if they acquire five cities, that is.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I would go further than Ant, and repeat what I have said elsewhere. I want to see 'Goody huts' and 'Barbarians' be replaced by a single 'Minor Civ' system. These Minor civs can be 'agressive' or 'passive'; 'sedentary' or 'mobile/nomadic'. The settings you give minor civs in the main screen will effect the number that behave like Goody huts, and the number that behave like 'barbarians'.
For instance, your two minor civ settings would be
1) Aggressiveness: 1 to 5 and
2) Settlement: 1 to 5. At setting 1 on each, you will have almost all of the 'minor civs' being peaceful nomads, rarely building cities, settlers and/or workers. At setting 5 for each, you will have very sedentary, but aggressive, minor civs. They will build lots of cities, settlers and workers AND spew out heaps of offensive units to conquer neighbouring towns and cities!

The thing about minor civs, though, is that they should all have some kind of unique 'characteristics'-special abilities which could be of great use to any major civ that can bring them into the fold. Such 'characteristics' could be bonuses to science (generally or in a specific field), culture, food and shield production. Access to technologies which either only THEY have, or which are well ahead of the current tech level, and access to units/improvements that only THEY can build.
The trick is that the abilities will only function as long as the minor civ exists. If they are all killed and/or assimilated, then they are lost FOREVER!!

Anyway, just my thoughts!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Punkymonkey]

I think that the minor civs are just the civs that you meet early on and crush. Same basic principle.

 

[Colonel]

punkmonkey i dont think u understand i would more i would more less think that we would want minor civs in the later stages of the game not an actual civ just gettin destroyed

 

[Ant509y]

Ohh, I like your thoughts, Aussie-Lurker! I've been trying to think of how exactly I would want them, and I like yours! I'm gonna use that one from now on!

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

In all fairness, Punkmonkey, YES you could just crush minor civs from the get go, but then you will never recieve any of the benefits that they have to offer (and they WILL have benefits to deliver). Just so you know, my idea was lifted from 'Birth of the Federation', where it is used to great effect-in that I have RARELY seen any of the major powers try to actively destroy a minor civ, merely try and bring them into their fold and make them a part of their respective empires. Whether a 'conquered' minor civ should grant you benefits or not, I'm not sure, but if they disappear as a nationality (through assimilation or destruction), then their special abilities should be lost forever!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Some real-life historical 'Minor Civs' might have the following settings:

1) The Huns: Settlement 1, Aggressiveness 5. They rarely, if ever, capture cities-instead limiting themselves to pillaging, looting and razing of cities and their surrounds. They might 'capture' a city around 1 time in 10. They start the game with LOTS of foot and mounted units, and probably some workers to build 'fortified encampments'. They would have 1-2 settlers, that can be used to build a city-if the conditions are appropriate!
The benefit this type of 'minor civ' might provide are highly mobile and powerful foot and mounted units.

2) Minoans: Settlement 4-5, Aggressiveness 2. They almost ALWAYS build cities, and would probably start with 3-4 cities. They would probably focus most of their time building improvements, workers and the occasional settler.
This Minor Civ might grant a bonus to research and/or wealth.

Another setting you can have for minor civs might be a 'frequency' setting, ranging from none to lots!
My big issue is that, between minor civs and civil wars, you can have an incredibly dynamic Global playing field. With small nations growing into large nations-or being assimilated into larger nations, large nations declining and collapsing into one or more smaller nations, and large and small nations alike having a chance of fading into oblivion!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

 

[Cashie]

Great ideas, Aussie_Lurker. Was pretty much what I had in mind with the barbarians. Perhaps they could also be hired as mercenaries (I'm sure 50 trillion other people have suggested this). I think it says on the box for Civ 3 that they'd put in 'minor nations' or some rot like that, but naming barbarian tribes doesn't really count.

Although it was pretty damn annoying, having cities taken over by barbarians was quite 'interesting' I guess. Actually, scratch that - it was damn annoying - being pilliaged by barbs is far more realistic / historical.

 

[mitsho]

good idea, aussie lurker. I just have to add one quotation:

"simplify, simplify, sipmlify"

Kick that scale system out, just have 'passive' and 'aggresive'. Most of these tribes were nomadic (the minoans for example came from the north), so they shall all travel around (with settling down on places for about x turns). Give them a small tech tree of their own. Let them develop. At the end of their tech tree, they should be made into full great civilizations.
What benefits should the passive ones give? The same as they do now, but they should stay, should not be killed by the first sight of a greater civilization. Of course, you can't just wait there with a unit and get a benefit every turn.

mfG mitsho

 

[t3h_m013]

im confused as to how to get the benifits if you cant take them over? Also i think advanced tech is rather unrealistic. i think extra culture (multi ethnic) or something would be better

 

[naf4ever]

Barbarians still exist today you know. The south pacific in the countries that have tons of islands yet not very strong navies,, the Philipines, Malaysia, etc. Ships still to this day get boarded and taken every once in awhile. So perhaps we should have pirates too....

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Hi T3H,

You could 'assimilate' them into your nation through diplomacy-at least, that was one of the ways you did it in BotF. You should also be able to get the abilities via conquest, but not complete destruction.
Remember that, by their very nature, minor civs will usually have NO MORE than about 3-4 cities (often with VERY small populations). Their populations, unit/building production and research rates will also be almost stagnant. This means that gaining these minor civs through military conquest will be frought with danger, as you risk wiping them off the face of the Earth!
The big issue, though, is Assimilation-that is, you only retain their special ability as long as they retain their 'cultural identuty'. For instance, if your Macedonians become Greeks, then any special abilities they granted their Greek rulers will be lost! In my model, though, their are ways of increasing/decreasing the rate of cultural assimilation within the game!
As for WHAT benefits minor civs would grant, again I feel that BotF gives the answer. They had several TYPES of benefits-a Wonder or improvement that only THEY could build, a unit which only THEY can build and, lastly, a bonus to research in a particular field-for example, a +50% bonus to researching cultural techs.
Anyway, just some ideas.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Punkymonkey]

I think it would just be better if you can take the unique units from a civilization you have fully conquered instead of this minor civ business. Unless the minor civ acts like barbarians i really don't see the point. If it acts like a regular civ then it should just be a new civ. If you mean to say they just harass other players like barbarians but have a city to operate from, it really doesn't do them justice. I think they should just make it so that every terrain that is not within a national border(not just line of sight as now) can be a barbarian spawn point and so tiny one tile islands would teem with barbarians till you came by and have to reinforce you borders at all time. Also i agree that barbarian AI needs an overhaul to create more and diverse forces and try to keep up until at least the industrial age and evolve in unit type like in civ2 where partisans could rise up against you. That was cool to me.