barbs should "upgrade"

I get them by disallowing cities in tundra, deserts and jungles.

Be nice to see them advance to some extent.
 
I agree with Knas except that these freedom fighters would only come up in situations of bad management (maybe he meant that too). In extreme or completely neglectful managment, entire cities should be overthrown and a new civilization started. I know this is a little extreme, but it's more realistic. You could have a real civil war! That happened all the time throughout history. I love Knas' idea of other countries funding these revolutions, it adds much more depth and realism to the game.
 
Yea, bad managment, unhappiness, corruption and too many cities would be the trigger to this.
Now they are not going to ask for major production centers (unless you've REALLY neglected the area) just smaller, more or less useless cities. And if you really invest in culture, and happiness and stuff like that in the cities around the newly formed nation, they could flip back to you. Also when this freedom fighters start appearing, you too get some para military forces to pursue the guerillas. The para military units should not be able to be built, they appear only in cities with police stations near the are. And the more PD's you have, the more likely it is for theese to appear. Para military units should be rather weak though but with bonuses against freedom fighters.


PS. It is very possible that this is the first time someone actually NOT despised one of my ideas ;)
 
Evolving Barbs sounds like fun / maybe 4-6 MA with 4-6 Mech Inf and 2-4 Arty just popping out of some transports that weren't there prev. turn ?

I liked the barbs in Civ 2

most every mod I play I edit it so the barbs are swordsmen and adv barb is knight and their ship is privateer. makes it more interesting I think. Warriors and spearmen can defend but I'd make sure you have 3-4 in your cities and build walls. Also means if you find barbs in your neighborhood you need to take them out ASAP. When they form the horde it can get brutal.

Those of you who are not content with the basic barbs as it is may want to give it a try.

:goodjob:
 
well on regent not too bad but on higher diff when the bonus vs barb is lower presents more of a challenge
 
only time anyone might have problems is those huge maps, most times barbs still dont have a chance. I've been playing a lot on a huge map of the world. No sightings of barbs possible in western Europe since one or two cities by civs fill the place up. North-East Asia you can see some but by middle of middle ages they're all gone. There's a couple barbs on islands that people hadn't found yet which makes me think that barbs should be able to load up on galleons and take over nearby cities which are possibly weakly defended anyway.
 
Originally posted by sabo10

There is NO exuse for killing 3.000 innocent people
Tell that to the people of Chile, or Nicaragua, or - should I go on?

I don't think this is the time or the place folks, but there's blame on both (or usually all) sides.

except for Gandhi - he seemed pretty nice (in real life at least):)
 
In modern age they should have been called rebels only. And the unit should be an upgraded guerrilla.
I don't like terrorism, and it should NOT been a part of this game. This is a good game, and such kind of evils has nothing to do in this game. As I see it, it is not a regular military unit eather.
 
(Off topic)sabo10, I salute you

(On topic)I like the idea of a barb upgrade to something similar to a guerilla....maybe not as powerful...just something pesky
 
Originally posted by Dragon67
I don't like terrorism, and it should NOT been a part of this game
What about nukes, razing cities, pillaging, and sending slave workers to work in the uranium mines? :evil:
 
Originally posted by Dr Jimbo

What about nukes, razing cities, pillaging, and sending slave workers to work in the uranium mines? :evil:

This is a military based game, right?

Nukes-Military weapon
Razing Cities-An act of war
Pillaging-An act of war
Slave workers- Somethime an act of war
Terrorists- An act of terror

Thats the different

We also hve a option to sabotage production in the game, so I do not see any point of it.
 
Originally posted by Dragon67
We also hve a option to sabotage production in the game, so I do not see any point of it.

Sabotaging is kinda "legalized" terror, huh?

I do not agree that we should call them Terrorists, but rather Independentists, Anarchists, etc - no hard feelings for whomever.
 
I've started several threads on this. I really miss the Civ II idea of "peasant revolt". For those who have only played Civ III, the peasant revolt would occur most usually at the fringe of your civilization far from your palace. A random number of equal age type units would appear. So at late game a genuine barbarian threat of mostly guerilla units might rise up in protest against your culture. This forced the player to maintain a military during those games when he held near dominance.

It was fun because it was an added challenge that didn't cause too much harm. You got to use your cool modern warfare units without a major war. It had a logic - you could pretend it was a civil war, or a religious sect, or the mafia, or terrorists. Remember in Civ II if Barbarians got your city - they took it and used it. :eek:

In an Apolyton chat with Firaxis they said they could not change the way the barbarians operate in CIV III or PTW.:cry:
 
Originally posted by Dragon67


Razing Cities-An act of war

Terrorists- An act of terror

im sure if someone burnt down my town id be pretty scared, and terrorfied. Why isnt that terrorism? Terrorists are only considered terrorists by thier "victims", they themselves see them selves as waging "acts of war", s they should be part of the game.,

one last point. if Nukes are "military" weapons can you ensure me that the nuke iwll only hit 100% military targets?
 
Originally posted by Pod


im sure if someone burnt down my town id be pretty scared, and terrorfied. Why isnt that terrorism?

I agree with you, but it still happens, because of war. And it has happened many times in the history.

But to include Terrorist as a unit in this game is just silly.

If they see themselves or not, as an act of war, does not mean anything, they are still terrorists. The word terrorist is just a bad word, of something evil. But that kind discussion does not belong here (off-topic), so I don' t want too discuss it.


"if Nukes are "military" weapons can you ensure me that the nuke iwll only hit 100% military targets?"

Absolutely not, actually no kind of weapons. But still it is a military weapon, if we like it or not.

"Sabotaging is kinda "legalized" terror, huh?"

Oh sorry, sometimes an act of war....
 
Originally posted by Dragon67

This is a military based game, right?

Not entirely - there's diplomatic, cultural and science (space)-based victories. A rich palette. And I think nuking or razing cities runs contrary to generally accepted standards of cunduct in war - the whole civilian versus military casualties thing. Now, I know that opens a whole can of worms, but for instance, nuking a city to kill all its military defenders, and colaterally killing half its population, just to make a military takeover easier wouldn't be very nice in real life, eh? Just like acts of terror. But it's a game.
 
Originally posted by Dr Jimbo


Not entirely - there's diplomatic, cultural and science (space)-based victories. A rich palette. And I think nuking or razing cities runs contrary to generally accepted standards of cunduct in war - the whole civilian versus military casualties thing. Now, I know that opens a whole can of worms, but for instance, nuking a city to kill all its military defenders, and colaterally killing half its population, just to make a military takeover easier wouldn't be very nice in real life, eh? Just like acts of terror. But it's a game.

What is so realistic to fight against Terrorists on the battlefield? The only place that has taking place is in Afghanistan. Most of those "units" are trained to blow up planes and shopping centre, that’s all.

To make it more sense.... The guerrilla unit should have a new name, commando soldier. The name Guerrilla units should has been an upgraded barbarian. In that way we can also have another option. If the "barbarians" manage to create several guerrilla camps, they could have the option to respawn a dead Ai, if you have activated it in the game. That make it more realistic, rather then fight against a Terrorist at the battlefield, they look more like a guerrilla unit to me.
;)
 
Originally posted by Dr Jimbo


Not entirely - there's diplomatic, cultural and science (space)-based victories. A rich palette. And I think nuking or razing cities runs contrary to generally accepted standards of cunduct in war - the whole civilian versus military casualties thing. Now, I know that opens a whole can of worms, but for instance, nuking a city to kill all its military defenders, and colaterally killing half its population, just to make a military takeover easier wouldn't be very nice in real life, eh? Just like acts of terror. But it's a game.

I agree, i'm not a barbarian you know. ;) All kind of war's is horrible, someone always suffer......
 
Back
Top Bottom