City Control for Barbarians

[aeldrik]

I know it is way to late to change this in Conquest, but who knows... I think reallowing (as it was in CIV2) Barbarians to take over Cities would be a lot more realistic, and would solve a lot of the problems I've been reading in other threads about revolutions, and Colonies revolting. One major change to CIV2 would be necessary, the Barbarians city should be able to develop, they should have the technologies for example of the least advanced player, and not be allowed to build settlers or signed diplomatic agreement, but should be able to biuld City Improvements (no wonders) and all available units...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Yes, yes, YES!!!! Yet another fantastic idea for making barbarians a much more IMPORTANT part of the game !!! You're probably right that it won't get into conquests, but I feel certain that there will be a new expansion this time NEXT year too !!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Metacomet]

That's a wonderful idea, I really think that a barbarian cities could fit really well in a few historic scenarios. Like one with the mongols in war with everybody. Really sweet.

 

[EddyG17]

will babarians fight other tribes?

 

[aeldrik]

they should, they should fight anyone, but since it would probably be harder to code, I'd allready be happy with having just having them....

 

[gozpel]

How about converting barbs? If you attacks a barbarian, there is a slight chance you convert him instead of killing him?

 

[Kryten]

I agree entirely....having barbarians take over cities is a very good idea.

In fact, I think it would be a nice addition if a city 'flipped' to barbarian control if deliberatly starved or if there was too much unhappiness.
This would be a very simple way of representing rebellions & revolts, and force you to either retake the city or allow the rebellion to spread by having barbarian units from this city capturing other nearby cities.

As for EddyG17's suggestion of having barbarians fighting other barbarians....I wouldn't bother.
Just assume that they are fighting each other, but the animation is not shown (in other words, ALL barbarians form one 'faction', right across the map, which cannot be negotiated with).
I also dislike gozpel's suggestion to 'convert' barbarians instead of killing them....they are useless enough as it is in Civ3, let's not make them weaker!

Of course, as aeldrik said, for all this to work we need barbarians to be able to upgrade and build new units throughout the ages, like they used to in Civ1 & Civ2.

 

[Kev1916]

Very good idea surprised and slightly disappointed that its not
been included in yet another extension pack ,

maybe next time.

 

[EddyG17]

if they have cities they should fight each other to keep them a minor faction, you wouldn't want half the world under barbarian rule under a single crown

 

[Kryten]

Originally posted by EddyG17
if they have cities they should fight each other to keep them a minor faction, you wouldn't want half the world under barbarian rule under a single crown

I still don't think that this is necessary. After all, they would be no more than a 'crippled civilization', as they couldn't expand by building setters, they couldn't build workers to improve the land, couldn't build roads to gain resources (so would be limited to the relatively bland 'resourceless' units), would have no diplomacy, couldn't trade with anyone, and so on.
Anyway, it would make the game more interesting if when you reached a new continent you find that it has already been overrun by a mass of barbarians....or if you were on a large land-mass and a continuous wave of barbarian units were heading your way.

 

[Pirate]

I don't like the idea - they are not different enough from normal civs. Say you set your number of civs at 5, but with lots of barb activity you would suddenly be playing a game of 16 civs, 11 of which you can't negotiate or trade with and who are constantly attacking you? IMHO barbs are meant to be an annoyance that provide temporary setbacks and random challenges, but shouldn't have the power to completely upset your overall strategy.

 

[Kryten]

Oh, I don't know. It could make some very interesting situations if all the white barbarian units were controlled by the 'white faction'.

I can imagine games where people would laugh as their neighbours lose several cities to the barbarians....and then curse as they begin to cross into their own territory and start attacking THEM, forcing the forging of a 'right-of-passage-agreement' so that they can advance and eliminate the threat themselves

You will always have the option of turning off the barbarians of course.
Or (dare I say it), adapt your strategy.

 

[aeldrik]

Since the barbarians would always be scientificaly backwards, and won't be able to really coordinate they attacks, or build army, or anything that requires a strategic ressource in more than one city, I don't really thing they'll be such a great threat, that they could take down an AI or human player....

 

[alpha wolf 64]

barbarians should raze most towns, and severely damage cities by destroying most improvements. I'd like to see towns far far away from the capitol be taken over by barbs. As is, the barbs aren't very realistic by emptying a civs treasury from some frontier town then apparently commiting suicide. They should live until killed.

 

[aeldrik]

no, they don't comit suicide, they go to the french riviera to retire....

 

[Pirate]

The whole point of barbarians is that they are BARBARIANS! They do not have the resources to manage even a city of size 1 or else they wouldn't come from small encapments. I just don't see barbarians taking and HOLDING a city, especially one of a decent size, filled with civilized resistors. If they had the capacity for the agriculture that could support a defined city, then they would be considered civilizations already. As is they are nomadic or hunter/gathering societies and raids are historically authentic.

Bottom line - Raze small cities, Raid big ones and retreat.

<edit> You know, they probably wouldn't even raze small cities. Why burn a village down that consistently provides you with food and other goods ripe for the taking. Raid it, take what you want, they rebuild, you raid again. All the benefits without all the annoying hard work of actually producing your own food and supplies. Unless it's really close to the barbs own territory, I'd say just raid and retreat.

 

[Packer-Backer]

Maybe the city should turn into some kind of advanced Barbarian village that when taken back turns into the city that was raided. It should only happen like one out of every ten raids because I have only seen a barbarian enter my cities four times. That barbarian city should only produce military units like this. Lets say can research cavalry and for some weird reason a barbarian takes over your city. You know that the advanced barbarian unit is the horseman so the horseman they would produce in the city but because it was your city they build knights so that they have something more advanced but not as advanced as you.

And if you have only researched Chivalry than they build something like a swordsman because that is one up of the basic warrior and one down of the Medieval Infantry. Or incase they just took an undefended city early in the game they might just build archers because those are better warriors but weaker than swordsman. And for barbarians fighting barbarians, how about a new barbarian tribe is made consisting of that city and all barbarians who come from that city will be part of that barbarian civ. That barbarian tribal civ should not be part of one big barbarian chiefdom but should be able to attack other barbarians once they have captured a city.

It's just a thought.

 

[EddyG17]

IMO barbarians should be able to built settler and workers ( at a higher cost x10 ) but the unit cost should be lower and gain technologies the 2 weakest nation have, now if a kingdom becames + 5-10 cities it will become a civ only if a civ has already been destroyed, now this barbarians will become a civ selected at ramdom... I now, i like to dream