barbs should "upgrade"

I wrote this for the "ideas for civ 4" thread but I felt it applied here

I think it would make sense to combine culture happyness culture flipping and inefficency into one dynamic. I think the way it is now there are a lot of problems, one being that a city that's celebrating "we love the king day" can still culture flip. Then what would make sense to me is have the percentage of shields that are lost not to crime but to the underground resistance slowly build up and eventually insted of getting a message saying that a city wishes to join your empire it says that a group of loyalist geurillas has taken to the hills around X, and look it even covers the geurilla effect for when you capture a city in civ 2, and of course you could choose to support the geurillas or not. but it would have to work slightly differently if the two contries were at peace. maybe the city producing workers who defect to your side... and they do need a system for culture flipping that goes not to an existing civ but to indepandance
Click to expand...

so if those shields to inefficency aren't going to any particular civ, but just being wasted, then you get those fanatics, geurilla uprisings and independance movements who procede to take over the cities
it makes more sense and is more fun than just having a resistor on the city, and this way you have to fight all the garrisoned units.

:ar15:

then the penalty for overextending yourself is more "barbarians"

but I don't see any reason why these uprisings shouldn't be able to start their own civs...
 
Originally posted by sealman


I get them everynow and then, especially when I start razing cities.
Click to expand...


that could be a good reason for barbarians in moder ages, :)

but if we talk about terrorists in moder ages they arent in unhabited areas, they're INSIDE any country.
they shuold be an independent tile in your coutry borders.

but then they will be easy to locate and destroy and its pretty unrealistic.

:p
 
I like the idea of a counter terrorism window, but I was thinking that in civil disorder, serious civil disorder(sumthing like when the unhappy-contnt ratio is two to one) then terrorists have a chance of springing up. It might be a pretty radical idea, but they could take temporary control of a city(well, full control if you don't stamp it out) and gradually start killing citiznes( a citizen every two turns perhaps?) all this may be a matter of preference, but I rckon it lead to some cool fights and your infantry(as picking up on an earlier posts you don't use tanks to fight terrorists).
Also, drug lords and drug cartels and things like that would add some more....empire feeling....as you try to intercept them coming in(they make one citizen happy and two thre others unhappy)
All this may be rather topical, but it all be good fun.
 
Drug lords and cartels make the citizens happy, not unhappy!
 
Originally posted by sabo10




There is NO exuse for killing 3.000 innocent people

Click to expand...

Remember that sentence when you read about collateral damage in Afghanistan or Iraq or elsewhere.
 
Originally posted by The Templar
Industrial age "barbarians" could be called 'luddites' or 'anarchists'.

As for modern age terrorists - they should not use tanks and helicopters. Rather guerillas are more appropriate. Maybe even terrorist cells that cause havok in cities and can only be fought in the espianoge window?
Click to expand...

They could be also called "Independentists"
No tanks, no choppers for the modern ones, as you say
 
Originally posted by sabo10


There is NO exuse for killing 3.000 innocent people

you are obviously a brain washed uninformed individual, wake up!!
Click to expand...

Let's stick to Civ guys, and don't debate politics here, pleaaaaase!!!
 
Originally posted by Bretwalda


Remember that sentence when you read about collateral damage in Afghanistan or Iraq or elsewhere.
Click to expand...

You mean the collatateral damage that was cause by two planes exploding on the WTC? yes, I will feel so awlfully sorry for those poor bastards that are dying in afganistan because of those two planes.

How come all you bleeding heart liberals don't have any feelings for the 3,000 innocents that died on Sept 11? Oh that's right because they're Americans and they deserve to die.
 
Modern Barbs should have nuclear weapons. :satan:

THAT would make for some late-game excitement. :mwaha:

As for you guys discussing "politics" in this thread, please take it to the OT.
No one is interested, and I'm known to hit the report to mod button "accidentaly" from time to time...
 
I think a good point is raised though in that if we are going to advocate including a "terrorist" unit, we have to realise that in reality terrorists exist as a reaction to a perceived injustice - right or wrong - and so a terrorist unit in Civ would have to reflect that, and therefore should not affect a civ that has never been to war and just sits inside its little island oblivious to the world. However if your civ goes around attacking and conquering around the world then your civ would be more likely to be affected by terrorism (in the game).
 
Well back on the topic at hand. I like the idea of barbs around all time, from ancient to modern, I want barbs! Well barbarians to me represent simply groups that nobody controls, simple as that. But the way barbs are represented in Civ3 after the ancient age is ridiculous! I was playing as the Egyptian 's and fighting the Germans, the last civ in the game other than myself and I was going to for a Military victory, well anyways the Germans are on a very big island to themselves, seeing as I accidentally left domination victory on I had to burn down every city I got. While my modern armour and mech infantry where on a rampage throughout the german countryside, suddenly out of nowhere comes a BARBARIAN WARRIOR!!!! WHAT THE HELL IS GOING ON!?!?!? It was pathetic, actually it took me completely by surprise and sereing as they where popping uo from behind my lines they managed to kill some straggling recently captured german workers. I sent some modern armour to kill the idiots (gah, I'm playing on Monarch so not only are they conscripts ut they are fighting modern armour and I have an advantage over them due to my monarchly-ness), by the time the Germans where completely dead, I had dispered 9 barb camps
 
You are wearing blindfolds. Innocent people live also elsewhere, not only in the States, they deserve _equally_ no death as your fellow Americans.

Exactly as YOU said: There is NO exuse for killing 3.000 innocent people Even if those innocents do not speak English, nor have American passports, just happen to be in Kabul or Badhdad.

And I quit here being off topic, this should really be about civ3 that I love much

Originally posted by sabo10


You mean the collatateral damage that was cause by two planes exploding on the WTC? yes, I will feel so awlfully sorry for those poor bastards that are dying in afganistan because of those two planes.

How come all you bleeding heart liberals don't have any feelings for the 3,000 innocents that died on Sept 11? Oh that's right because they're Americans and they deserve to die.
Click to expand...
 
Actually some barbarian activity would be great after ancient times, maybe doing it with a switch-off possibility in game setup. But I would not go that far as nuking cities by barbs... maybe some advanced units, occasionally horse, even more rarely mech units...
 
Many great ideas!! :) But instead of a defeated civ to respawn, barbarians should respawn throw an up raise, and became some of the other supported civs in the game. Ex. You play with 16 civs. You kill one of them, and later one of the other supported 8 civs should appear, first as barbarians/flip, then into the target nation.
 
Originally posted by Bretwalda
You are wearing blindfolds. Innocent people live also elsewhere, not only in the States, they deserve _equally_ no death as your fellow Americans.

Exactly as YOU said: There is NO exuse for killing 3.000 innocent people Even if those innocents do not speak English, nor have American passports, just happen to be in Kabul or Badhdad.

And I quit here being off topic, this should really be about civ3 that I love much
Click to expand...

My point is who started it? Did you expect the US to just back off without a response after sept 11? I'm sure that kind of response would surely stem the tide of terrorism (sarcasm),

I don't get it, you people all talk about all those poor illiterate talibans, but had they not shot at us first this would never have happened. Dont blame the US blame the Taliban, they brought this on by themselves.

I can't believe all you people are so ignorant that you don't know who started it all. From your post I take it you are all for some foreign country killing your people but in America we have a simple equation. "you don't kill us, then we won't kill you"
 
gugalpm, sabo, bretwalda:

Please take your off-topic arguments to the Off Topic forum!


On Topic: I was all for having barbs upgrade with the ages, until I read xavitor's post. Now I'm not sure. I guess it all depends on what you think barbarians represent...
 
sorry sparrowhawk I just get so riled at people saying we are "wrong" for being in afganastan when the simple fact remains had they not killed us we wouldn't be over there killing them.
 
Say if your civilization reaches to over 50% more than the optimal number of cities, "freedom fighters" start to become a problem. They should be rather weak in attack, but strong in defence, since they know the terrain. They go around pillaging and being generally disturbing, like they can sell information to your enemies for better units. Just as you can buy information from theese "freedom fighters" (I would have called them guerrilas but that name was already taken) about troop positions and stuff. Should be a little cheaper, but with a bigger rep hit than just stealing them. So then when the world is nuclear you can have fun little cold wars. Now theese "freedom fighters" don't just harass you for fun, they have a certain objective, i.e a small border city or a few squares of territory (5-15?) and they contact you every now and then demanding this land for a stop to their actions. This would mean that you would get a sort of Chechznia(sp?) cituation and would have to commit many soldiers to keep the rebels down.

Any thoughts?

Disclaimer:
If anyone have mentioned this before, then feel free to call me stupid.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Alternative campaign-the Mongols
2 3
Replies
52
Views
3K
kaskavel
K
M
A Few Theoretical Situations That Need Answering
2
Replies
21
Views
3K
MPorciusCatoCivver
M
K
Alternative campaign-The English
Replies
5
Views
735
Fergei
Fergei
sTAPler27
Can we Speculate a Potential 4th Age from Civ 6's Era system?
3 4 5
Replies
94
Views
7K
Krikkit1
K
Predator145
Early Modern Fortifications
Replies
2
Views
823
Predator145
Predator145
Back
Top Bottom