Better Barbarians

[SemperFi2382]

My wife and I play Hotseat often, and her biggest complaint is that Barbarians are, well one minded. Myself, I prefer Raging Barbarians, because regular seems too boring.

So, what I'd like to see from BNW is "better" Barbarians, and not just better, but almost rival civilization-esque.

What I mean by this is that camp you ignored, it grew to a city, with cultural borders. Now, you have to beat them back, or see a horde (at random) pour across the map. Yes, you could have the Huns, or Mongols but it isn't the same.

I want to feel like fighting barbarians while growing my civ is an important challenge. They don't mindlessly try to pillage, steal workers/settlers, and kill scouts. I want to see a formidable army (aside from the AI needing a boost there too).

What does everyone else think? Are Barbarians just free XP/Gold, or should they be a more challenging random element?

 

[Colmar]

I think for the AI's sake, they're better as they are now. It often annoys me to be scouting far away to only run into barbs all over my opponents' assumed lands. Seeing how they handle barbs now, I'm worried that I wouldn't even have to do the defeating of the AI when barbs are perfectly able.

 

[AriochIV]

I wish there was better integration between Barbarians, City-States, and regular Civilizations... and maybe if the lines between them were less distinct. I liked in Civ IV that if you let the barbarians have free run of an area for long enough, they'd actually found cities. I also wish that there were more varied City-States, a few of which behaved more like barbarians.

A better connection between City-States and Barbarians might also allow for later-game piracy and the like, of which there's almost none now. Unfortunately, the boardgame-like role of City-States in the current Diplomatic victory doesn't allow much flexibility. It would be nice if the changes to Diplomacy also changed that... but I doubt it.

 

[Lose]

Barbs forming cities would be awesome

 

[g3istbot]

I wish there was better integration between Barbarians, City-States, and regular Civilizations... and maybe if the lines between them were less distinct. I liked in Civ IV that if you let the barbarians have free run of an area for long enough, they'd actually found cities. I also wish that there were more varied City-States, a few of which behaved more like barbarians.

A better connection between City-States and Barbarians might also allow for later-game piracy and the like, of which there's almost none now. Unfortunately, the boardgame-like role of City-States in the current Diplomatic victory doesn't allow much flexibility. It would be nice if the changes to Diplomacy also changed that... but I doubt it.

Piracy would actually be a welcome sight as opposed to what we currently have, and who knows maybe we'll see something like that in Brave New World when they introduce trading. For example, in EU3 you could have pirates which when occupying a tile would set up a blockade; you would suffer penalties from things like colonization and over seas income, and really the only way to combat pirates was to actively have your ships patrolling the area.

I don't really like barbarians as they are, but for some reason I like the idea of pirates and having to ensure safe passage of cargo and wrestling them from the seas.

 

[Novu]

I agree with what has been said about integrating City-States and Barbarians. The Barbarians that invaded Europe were not exterminated but transformed into the small kingdoms of Europe in the Early Middle Ages. The Franks were considered barbarians until Clovis united them declared himself King of France. The Vandals, Lombards, Visigoths also founded small kingdoms. Some of the Huns stayed in Europe and founded the Magyar state which eventually became Hungary. Overall Barbarians should be more than just settler harassers.

A Barbarian revamp could have three tiers of of barbarian types.
- Stage 1 (Barbarian camps) Similar to current barbarians that periodically spawn units

- Stage 2 (Barbarian village and tribe) After a number of turns a camp will turn into a village with its own tribal faction example: the Vandals, the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths, the Lombards, the Avars, etc. The barbarian village would be a 1 population city with no solid boarder. Stage 2 Barbarians will fight off generic stage 1 barbarians.

- Stage 3 (Barbarian city and Kingdom) After a number turns the village become a city state with a boarder. Example the Ostrogoths founded the city of Ravenna. Civilizations are at war with them by default but a diplomatic mission can be sent to them to establish peace and trade. After pacified they would be just be a regular city state and allied to who ever first established diplomacy with them.

 

[Deggial]

This is an idea I posted some month ago. I still would like something alike:

Barbarian city states
- Barbarian CSs may exist from the beginning of the game like any other CS. Maybe, they might upgrade out of a babarian encampment, if it existed for a certain (long) time.
- Barbarian CSs will produce more units than usual camps. These troops will amass until a certain threshold is reached. Then they will launch an attack on a nearby mayor civ or maybe another CS. The "attacking distance" will be way bigger than that of a "normal" CS during war.
- Players on 'friendly' with barbarian CSs will not be targeted by these raids.
- If 'allied', he may choose a target civ for their raids. There will be no resources or other benefits due to the alliance.
- There will be no diplomatic penalty, if a babarian CS is conquered! There even might be a positive modifier, if the CS is razed, rather than kept.
- Barabrian CSs don't have the usual G&K quests. Culture and great people are meaningless for them! However, they may be payed or pribed with resources they request (gain influence for a certain resource they demand - but lose this resource for 30 turns (based on game speed)).
- Barbarian CSs do not vote at UN elections.

 

[kaspergm]

I think Barbs could use some tweaking. I remember in Civ4, they were a lot more of a challenge because they would build more advanced units quickly - a barbarian Axeman could actually do some damage, whereas now they only come with Brutes and perhaps a Spearman, but that's hardly a problem either, and the Archers aren't really a threat either since they come without assistance.

On the other hand, Barbs forming cities can be a bit cheasy, particularly now that we can puppet cities. Catching Barb cities were already a pretty effective way to save yourself the trouble of building settlers in Civ4, and if Barbs will just turn into free puppets if you let them stay, I see some serious abuse options.

I can see some potential in the idea of Barbarian city states, but one would have to think carefully on how to implement it in a way where it remains balanced.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I don't see the need for barbs to form cities. That's what City-States are for these days. I wish they had hordes triggered at appropriate times (rather than only appearing if you leave them alone, have like 10 units spawn at once randomly and go on a rampage) and they actually used horsemen, but those are my biggest complaints.

 

[Deggial]

I don't see the need for barbs to form cities. That's what City-States are for these days. I wish they had hordes triggered at appropriate times (rather than only appearing if you leave them alone, have like 10 units spawn at once randomly and go on a rampage) and they actually used horsemen, but those are my biggest complaints.

The main difference between the "standard" CSs and a barbarian CS would be the diplomatic penalty (or it's absence) when attacking and conquering the respective CS. I think it could be fun to have two or three "fair game"-targets to head for.

Your mentioned horsemen-hordes would exactly be what I proposed. I think, this could be quite interesting!

 

[Luckystrike77]

I wouldn't like barbs to found cities (all kinds of balance issues and they are barbarians after all), but it would be cool if they conquered cities.

We have seen a screenshot of a barbarian axeman. They might get a replacer for the brute earlier now. Watch out!

 

[Leugi]

Horsemen-hordes for the win!

Also, and thinking up with the new systems... It would be interesting if they could raid and rob some of your great works (note: not "destroy", but rob, they would be at the Barbarian Camp or something)...

And also if there were some late "Barbarians", who would tie up with ideologies... Like guerrilla camps or something...

 

[Loaf Warden]

I don't see the need for barbs to form cities. That's what City-States are for these days. I wish they had hordes triggered at appropriate times (rather than only appearing if you leave them alone, have like 10 units spawn at once randomly and go on a rampage) and they actually used horsemen, but those are my biggest complaints.

I agree with this. City-States are a better version of the barbarian cities from Civ IV because you can interact with them diplomatically, trade with them, protect them, etc. I wouldn't mind if barbarians could capture existing cities again (and you could then liberate them), but I don't think they need to form their own cities. And I also heartily agree that larger hordes should be triggered occasionally. In Civ III, massive barbarian uprisings would occur every time someone advanced to another era. I don't think that should be the trigger, necessarily, but it would be interesting to have barbarian camps occasionally "unite" under a great leader, as it were, and send out a massive horde of units concentrated on one area in a one-time-only mass invasion.

After all, that's effectively what the Huns were. They were a bunch of barbarian nobodies until Attila came along, then they pillaged their way across Europe, made the Romans wet their collective togas in fear, and then just as abruptly became nobodies again when Attila died. Barbarians in the game should be able to do that. Think of it; you've got a number of barbarian camps out in the hinterlands, mostly not doing anything of note, and then suddenly you're notified that a charismatic and ambitious new chieftain has appeared. Shortly thereafter, a massive wave of barbarian units come thundering out of the encampments, with a Great General--or even better, a Great General replacement called a Great Chieftain. As long as they have the Chieftain, they concentrate their attack on a relatively small area, pillaging as much as possible and trying to take a few cities. But take out the Chieftain, and they lose focus. The camps stop spawning, the units get weaker, and the wave ends. I think that could be pretty cool.

 

[D0MIN1C]

I agree with what has been said about integrating City-States and Barbarians. The Barbarians that invaded Europe were not exterminated but transformed into the small kingdoms of Europe in the Early Middle Ages. The Franks were considered barbarians until Clovis united them declared himself King of France. The Vandals, Lombards, Visigoths also founded small kingdoms. Some of the Huns stayed in Europe and founded the Magyar state which eventually became Hungary. Overall Barbarians should be more than just settler harassers.

A Barbarian revamp could have three tiers of of barbarian types.
- Stage 1 (Barbarian camps) Similar to current barbarians that periodically spawn units

- Stage 2 (Barbarian village and tribe) After a number of turns a camp will turn into a village with its own tribal faction example: the Vandals, the Visigoths, the Ostrogoths, the Lombards, the Avars, etc. The barbarian village would be a 1 population city with no solid boarder. Stage 2 Barbarians will fight off generic stage 1 barbarians.

- Stage 3 (Barbarian city and Kingdom) After a number turns the village become a city state with a boarder. Example the Ostrogoths founded the city of Ravenna. Civilizations are at war with them by default but a diplomatic mission can be sent to them to establish peace and trade. After pacified they would be just be a regular city state and allied to who ever first established diplomacy with them.

Yes, please.

 

[bcaiko]

I'm not a fan of the idea that Barbs should build cities. Their encampments are fine as is. But some tweaking would be welcome. They're not much of a challenge right now on normal. Even on Raging Barbarians they stop showing up by the midgame, making things like the Honor opening policy and part of Germany's UA useless.

I'd like to see them transition from barbarians to pirates to rogue statists. I also like the idea from previous posters that if you ignore a camp, they become an exponential threat.

 

[Callonia]

Just because they can develop cities, it doesn't mean they always settle in good locations lol. I've razed quite a few barbarian cities back in civ 4 xD

 

[Spry]

Rather than barbarian camps evolving into city states, maybe hostile city states should simply be ... well ... hostile.

 

[SemperFi2382]

Think of it; you've got a number of barbarian camps out in the hinterlands, mostly not doing anything of note, and then suddenly you're notified that a charismatic and ambitious new chieftain has appeared. Shortly thereafter, a massive wave of barbarian units come thundering out of the encampments, with a Great General--or even better, a Great General replacement called a Great Chieftain. As long as they have the Chieftain, they concentrate their attack on a relatively small area, pillaging as much as possible and trying to take a few cities. But take out the Chieftain, and they lose focus. The camps stop spawning, the units get weaker, and the wave ends. I think that could be pretty cool.

That.

Would be awesome.

It would be great to see that popup, which would mean you had to at least figure out an actual response. Especially if that "Great Chieftain" had some sort of hidden agenda, like "Sack Rome". He'd have to be more resilient though, to avoid cheese like just going only for him.

With a hidden turn timer for existing, or "until death". Add in a random trait like, siege specialist, etc to see different unit compositions. Later Eras could alter them to rebels, etc.

 

[Leugi]

+1 for Great Chieftains... Really, if Firaxis would add something like that, Barbarians (and rebels, and guerrillas, theoretically) could become an amazing part of the game, and progression...

It would be interesting if Great Chieftains in each era behave differently aside from only looking different.

 

[AriochIV]

I don't see the need for barbs to form cities. That's what City-States are for these days. I wish they had hordes triggered at appropriate times (rather than only appearing if you leave them alone, have like 10 units spawn at once randomly and go on a rampage) and they actually used horsemen, but those are my biggest complaints.

Whether the barbarians form cities or whether the city-states occasionally act like barbarians, it amounts to the same thing. I think systems work better when there are fewer arbitrary distinctions between them.