Better Barbarians

[HeraldtheGreat]

I remember an entire continent of barbarian cities.

Now that I think about it, they could get out of hand when left alone for long. Like once, when I settled a solitary colony on an isolated continent, and I swear to god every turn it was being bombarded by barbs. Thank god they were two eras behind, and my machine guns could hold them off until reinforcements came.

 

[Bevel Lemelisk]

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?

My neighbor and I play Hotseat as well (of the 1000+ hours played over 500 has been hotseat at his place). I think some of these ideas are pretty darn cool. However with them becoming an almost rival civ i think the cap on xp should be lifted. Also some tweeks would be to not have them run off into the water and ...well somtimes stay there for the rest of the game (say a lake tile).

 

[SemperFi2382]

...well somtimes stay there for the rest of the game (say a lake tile).

Unfortunately, that is more the AI being, well the AI.

I am not sure the XP boost is really the problem, because each unit can only get so much XP off of barbarians. I mean, even set at raging, barbarians really are not all that scary.

 

[Olleus]

Read all the suggestions and i really like them, but there's a few things I'm not sure about. Hordes sound like fun, but in practice it means that there is 1 civ that gets unlucky in the early game and, even if they defeat them, do so at such a cost that it really hurts them in the long run. But they are fun...

Barbarian cities also don't really seem to work, they're not barbarian any more when they start building cities? And if those cities can do nothing but build units, it seems a bit of a misnoma to even call them cities. Can also get very gamey and encourage the player to let them spawned to caputer them. I like barbarian villages which act as a stronger (more heavily fortified and with faster spawning) version of camps though.

So, I'll throw my hat in the ring and suggest this:

• Barbarian hordes can appear, with ~20 turns notice telling you roughly were they will be and what there target will be. Their initial target can only be a CS (so its not unfair if you get picked on). The CS has a beefed quest asking everyone to help defend against the horde, giving twice the normal influence for killing barbs. If the horde manages to take the CS, the horde receives reinforcements, and everyone who has met the CS loses influence with it for not helping it. The horde then moves on to it's next target, always getting reinforcements for taking a city. This makes hordes dangerous, fun, but without penalising any player unduly as it gives them time to defend themselves or the city state.
  
  
• Barbarian Villages can appear after a camp has been there for ~30 turns. Villages are like camps except that they give +100% defence (rather than +50%), spawns units more often, and slightly more advanced ones; and barbarian units inside and adjacent to it can heal like normal units. This is to give an incentive to players to wipe out encampments quickly lest they grow into something difficult to deal with - without encouraging the player to let juicy barbarian cities appear. Villages have nothing good for them and just cause trouble.
  
  
• Modern Barbarians are very rare because, like all barbs, they can only spawn in territory hidden from everyone. As there is very little of that post classical, they generally stop spawning. Ways to change this are to increase the spawn probability as the number of unseen tiles diminish, allow camps to spawn within sight, but not adjacent to, units and reduce the time it takes for a camp to become a village.

These three together should make a pretty good change at making barbarians dangerous and interactive, rather than just a source of gold.

On a slightly different note about city states and making them more like minor civilizations. From the renaissance onwards, city states should be allowed to build settler and cities. I've already seen singly city states with several cities in the game, from when they capture them. Allowing them to build one settler in the renaissance and another after the start of the industrial age would be good. Make them a bit less of a push over and fill up some gaps in the map.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I believe it was Civ3 where hordes only appeared after advancing to the next era. That might be a more fair way. If you're the first Civ to reach the Middle Ages, they appear (maybe a smaller one for the classical era a la the Sea Peoples). That way, you're more prepared. It's also a check on technological growth. I'd prefer it attack a Civ just because it's more fun that way. It also feels more historical (we're talking Fall of Rome type situation). I think the trick is to reward winning as well, though. Civ2 had a Barbarian leader you could capture and ransom for a lot of gold, for example.

 

[TheSovietMuffin]

Barbarians should be like city states only in a very different manner

Pirates (Maritime Type) - If allied can disrupt trade routes of other civs so you can have no political detriments to relations with the same civ. It can also protect trade routes if offered a sum of money.

Thieves Den (Mercantile Type) - If allied can have a chance to take gold from a civilization/city state.

That's all I got xP. These barbarians should also have factions and war with another.

 

[God of Kings]

Looters (Cultural type): gain ability to steal other civs' great works (without diplo penalty) or protect your own

 

[Necrotaur]

I think they are more or less fine the way they are, but a mechanic mimicking the Mongol/Hun invasions in Crusader Kings 2 could be interesting. Rumors spread that a horde of godless heathens has appeared in X direction, then a few turns later they hit you. Have it happen once or twice per game.

 

[bison21]

I don't understand how adding tons of content around the barbarians equates to fixing them. Surely they could get a few tweaks such as upgraded camps with each era and a little more sophisticated fighting rather than (1) capture civilian (2) protect camp (3) run around.. but barb cities? armies?

My partner and I play Civ5 almost entirely in hotseat, and aside from the too-rigid prioritizing of the barbs I cannot see any need for so much content that just bloats the game.

 

[Loaf Warden]

I don't think they're really broken, per se. I just don't feel any real sense of threat from them as they had in previous games, largely because all they do is plunder improvements without directly attacking cities (which can pick them off even if you have no units nearby), and kidnap the occasional civilian. I think having an occasional Great Chieftain lead a horde whose actual goal is the capture of a city might restore some of their relevance.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I know there's an achievement for having a city captured by barbarians. Has that ever happened to anyone?

 

[MARDUK80]

I know there's an achievement for having a city captured by barbarians. Has that ever happened to anyone?

Not even once even after almost three years of playing the game...

It should happen at least in every other game, IMO.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Well, I suspect you would need overwhelming barbarian numbers or a complete lack of defense for it to actually work.

 

[blackcatatonic]

In a game I started this weekend, my second city was knocked well into the yellow health bar by a barbarian Trireme, Archer and Warrior. I was amazed - this NEVER happens! Unfortunately I didn't know about the achievement, so I killed the Warrior with my city bombard and the other two gave up after that.

I agree that it would be interesting if barbarians attacked cities more often, but if there are improvements/unguarded Workers or Settlers around, they always target those.

 

[Hans Castorp]

Yes, but only because I deliberately set up a deity game with raging barbarians and refused to fire on them. Even then they took quite some time to work up the courage. They never actually take the city if they get it down to 0 health, just your gold. I have never seen them come even close in normal circumstances, even against a city state.

 

[Arachnofiend]

Honestly the barbs are more dangerous by just waltzing up and pillaging all your luxuries than they are actually attempting to take a city. I keep myself sufficiently prepared to prevent a major civ from taking any of my cities, don't see how some barbs are going to do it.

 

[blackcatatonic]

So I managed to get the achievement...

Even with a very early-game, and wall-less (although admittedly quite large) city, it took four barbarian Archers, one Warrior (who killed himself attacking the city over a river - lol) and one Spearman five turns to "take" it. They made off with 199 gold from my treasury I gotta say, it was pretty underwhelming.

 

[IkM]

I know there's an achievement for having a city captured by barbarians. Has that ever happened to anyone?

once, a bunch barbarians attacked my city but they couldn't take it.

 

[blackcatatonic]

I was a little disappointed when I realised they don't actually take the city! Just knock it down to 0 health...

 

[IkM]

I was a little disappointed when I realised they don't actually take the city! Just knock it down to 0 health...

Really? lol