Does anyone else miss animal barbarians?

[blasto]

There was something cool about having your settler eviscerated by a lion, bear or wolf. I miss that.

 

[headcase]

Me too. They were also practical for providing XP for scouts.

 

[durian]

Nah, not really. I actually prefer the way that Civ V deals with barbarians in that they spawn only around camps and not just anywhere there is fog of war. Though I miss how barbarians can capture and control cities in Civ IV...

 

[PhilBowles]

Nah, not really. I actually prefer the way that Civ V deals with barbarians in that they spawn only around camps and not just anywhere there is fog of war. Though I miss how barbarians can capture and control cities in Civ IV...

Agreed on both, and I always thought barbarian animals were a bit stupid at Civ scale - it's not Age of Empires, and having quite so many homicidal animals was pushing it in that game.

As for the scouts, in Civ V they can take on Barbarian Archers reasonably well or a barbarian Brute that's already been damaged, and since they can survive a barbarian attack rather than the battle going on until one or the other is dead, they can gain experience as defenders.

 

[fat_tonle]

HELLS NO.... I get that it sort of represented the "elements of nature" that man had to overcome in the earlier days. But it was unrealistic dying off to some random grizzly bear. Warriors should not die to wild animals. Maybe scouts, but I get pissed when a warrior that represents 1000 men dies off to some freaking wild animals.

However, I am not opposed to losing HP % ending turns in jungle, desert, tundra, ice type land scape. That is more realistic.

 

[tetley]

These aren't just any animals. They are Narnia animals, led by the White Witch.

 

[Kaosprophet]

Nah, not really. I actually prefer the way that Civ V deals with barbarians in that they spawn only around camps and not just anywhere there is fog of war.

The camps still spawn spontaneously anywhere there is fog-of-war, and come with a barb already inside. I prefer having the barbs show up spontaneously, and settling into 'camps' (or cities of their own) than having the camps themselves pop out of nowhere.

 

[FeiLing]

When I look at a settler, I see a bunch of folks with a lot of supply, not a single guy. Seems unrealistic to me, that any animal can eliminate such a large group of people (while of course harm could be done).

Concerning barbs... Destroyers? Seriously? Da fuQ?!

 

[Kaosprophet]

When I look at a settler, I see a bunch of folks with a lot of supply, not a single guy. Seems unrealistic to me, that any animal can eliminate such a large group of people (will of course harm could be done).

To be fair, it's not just "an animal" either, it's a pack (or pride, as appropriate.) Taking the abstraction a bit further, they're likely not wiped out either - just beaten and scattered to the point where the 'settler' can no longer function as a unit. (Similarily, when two military units fight and one is destroyed, that's accounting for every possibility that could take a military unit out of the fight - true elimination, scattered and routed, surrendered, others I may have forgotten.)

Also, one turn is representing a number of years, dependant on era (tho animals crop up in the early ones where it's still at max) and game-speed.

Concerning barbs... Destroyers? Seriously? Da fuQ?!

Modern barbs are likely more akin to terrorist cells or somesuch. Adjusting the name as the eras pass to more seemingly appropriate terms could probably be done, if someone was so inclined, but it doesn't seem worth the effort to me. I'm tolerant of genericism.

 

[guczy]

Modern barbs are likely more akin to terrorist cells or somesuch. Adjusting the name as the eras pass to more seemingly appropriate terms could probably be done, if someone was so inclined, but it doesn't seem worth the effort to me. I'm tolerant of genericism.

While i agree that modern barbs = terrorists (/pirates) it is still pretty stupid that they have destroyers, i don't think that since the age of piracy in the Carribean any renegade group had a larger boat than a tug (except when they commandeer a cargo ship, but those aint exactly capable for war)

 

[nitevision]

While i agree that modern barbs = terrorists (/pirates) it is still pretty stupid that they have destroyers

Wait till they get their hands on paratroopers. I don't know how the Barb AI gets Paras.

 

[headcase]

Yeah, destroyers and paras sounds a little overboard when barbs could stick to simple melee units such as rifles and infantry.

 

[PhilBowles]

The camps still spawn spontaneously anywhere there is fog-of-war, and come with a barb already inside. I prefer having the barbs show up spontaneously, and settling into 'camps' (or cities of their own) than having the camps themselves pop out of nowhere.

The camps will usually spawn/respawn in one or two fixed locations. Plainly barbarians have to spawn somehow or they'd become extinct too soon. I envisage a camp representing an existing tribal settlement that only becomes visible to the player when it becomes a threat.

Modern barbs are likely more akin to terrorist cells or somesuch. Adjusting the name as the eras pass to more seemingly appropriate terms could probably be done, if someone was so inclined, but it doesn't seem worth the effort to me. I'm tolerant of genericism.

Civ II (and if I remember correctly, Civ I) did exactly that - later-period Barbarians were renamed Partisans.

 

[Lone Wolf]

They were not renamed Partisans, but they spawned Partisan units ("Barbarian Partisan").

 

[Mahi]

Barbarian destroyers are probably the most authentic barbarians in the modern era since, for me they represent Somalia pirates. I know they don't have ships as big as a destroyer but they are certainly a thread to random boats sailing by them self.

 

[headcase]

They were not renamed Partisans, but they spawned Partisan units ("Barbarian Partisan").

VEM (edit: or CiVUP) for Civ5 does this kind of thing too. Not sure about Partisan, but other names like "Instigator", etc.

 

[therottweiler]

I absolutely miss the animals and also the barbarian cities.

 

[spider1]

I miss the barbarian cities. In Civ IV I would just find a small island in the beginning of the game and create a city for them just to see how far they could take it.

 

[FeiLing]

Barbarian destroyers are probably the most authentic barbarians in the modern era since, for me they represent Somalia pirates. I know they don't have ships as big as a destroyer but they are certainly a thread to random boats sailing by them self.

A Somalian pirate however will never have a ship that could sink any military ship. They're armed on some little boats to capture unarmed tourist and more so cargo ships. They'll never be able to capture/destroy a destroyer of yours. Or a battleship, carrier, cruiser and most definitely not one of your submarines.
Of course a barbarian in CiV is supposed to do something. If the barbarian destroyers would be replaced with barbarian fishing boats, they'd not do anything. However instead of unrealistically making them spawn modern battleships they should have just been given crap little motor boats, whose gameplay purpose is not to sink your battleships but instead A) cause a ZoC and B) pillage coastal tile improvements and destroy embarked civilians/work boats.

 

[blasto]

I absolutely miss the animals and also the barbarian cities.

Yeah, and that too. I always thought that it would have been really cool if barb cities eventually became a normal Civ if left alone long enough. (with option to disable of course) That would have added a neat element of needing to keep barbs squashed across the map.