Early vs Late difficulty balancing

[rhammer640]

If they were serious enough threats then i dont think it would feel whack a mole, but more of the 'oh crap' moments like in the early game when i try to go with too few units and the barbarians show up at a city with no defense. I find this fun as it is more than just 'which culture building should i build next' etc on peaceful games.

 

[Thalassicus]

That's my thinking as well rhammer. It wouldn't be as frequent as normal barbarian spawns... more like a rare but dangerous occurrence.

 

[rhammer640]

If you'd be interested in giving them a bit of flavor i could go through and create a list of names and general dates of historical 'barbarian' invasions and the names given to them? Not that the exact dates would match but maybe the general order that they occur in could match throughout the course of a game.

 

[mitsho]

Yes, but if they really appear out of nowhere, they are just annoying, because they then would just be a negative event/opportunity. The Random Number Generator God punishing you for - you don't know what.

You could argue that Wide Civs would be suffering more from them as they have a larger land era = more points for the barbs to spawn. I'd say no. Tall Empires usually don't fill out all the land the territorial "ressource" generator gives to them which means more unrevealed land for the barbs to spawn. And I do think these rebellions should target Wide Civs more or even Tall civs should protect you from them (say every national wonder decreases the chance of them appearing near you).

Barb Camps can only spawn in unrevealed territory anyways, right? However by the time these rebellions arrive, they will be in far away lands not targetting your home base or even resulting in islands filled up with barbarians.

Or am I missing a point here?

EDIT: I do like rhammer640's proposal of flavour in naming the rebellions: Attila's Hordes, the Ostrogoths, the Vandals, Toltecs, Apaches, and so on

 

[Thalassicus]

I agree with that too mitsho; that's why I tend to avoid introducing random bad luck into the game. It'd be great if we can find a way to make barbarians more important in the late game without it feeling like random punishment.

 

[rhammer640]

It might be tricky to balance but I think its worth giving it a shot to work out the details through actual play tests.

Wouldn't want it to feel like random punishment but there are a lot of events that happen in the game that you have no control over as a player that are still fun, imho, Barbarian attacks early game, when the ai decides to attack, etc.

 

[Txurce]

Agree on both points, and really like the general rationale for creating choice regarding rebellions. For example, high happiness and/or culture limits them.

This approach favors tall empires, and provides a strategic choice that affects whether a common (not random) historical negative occurrence happens: guerrilla warfare.

 

[rhammer640]

Id rather have it be some building or something that reduces the risk of barbarians so that its a specific choice you make.

I am a big fan of tall culture games but i like the idea of having to be wary of attacks, although it still wont effect my empire as much cause any army i have will be much closer to defend than a wide empire with the army far away.

Historically empires that were happy/high culture were invaded just as much if not more than warlike empires.

 

[bwoww78]

This approach favors tall empires, and provides a strategic choice that affects whether a common (not random) historical negative occurrence happens: guerrilla warfare.

Good point. Agreed.

(whoo hoo - I'm glad the idea is getting traction!)

If I had anything else to contribute it's that you could potentially scale the quantity/quality of the "late-spawned barb unit opportunity" based on empire size or other factors (deployed away from your military strength in wide empires, a concentration of highly survivable pillaging units near tall empires etc.) I'm not sure what the coding limits are here.

Personally, I think barb units at the mid/late stages should always be up-to-date (i mean, within limits, so no Robotic Death Machines... unless we want to create a Terminator scenario) and definitely be promoted to survive. Maybe with the March promotion?

 

[Txurce]

Id rather have it be some building or something that reduces the risk of barbarians so that its a specific choice you make.

I am a big fan of tall culture games but i like the idea of having to be wary of attacks, although it still wont effect my empire as much cause any army i have will be much closer to defend than a wide empire with the army far away.

Historically empires that were happy/high culture were invaded just as much if not more than warlike empires.

I think maintaining a threshold level of culture or happiness to reduce the likelihood of barb invasions would be a choice. You'd use buildings already there, but perhaps sooner than you would otherwise. The idea of a dedicated anti-barb building doesn't make realistic sense to me.

 

[Thalassicus]

Id rather have it be some building or something that reduces the risk of barbarians so that its a specific choice you make.

Freedom fighters could spawn near Puppet States. Building a courthouse would convert it to an annexed city, which would not spawn guerrillas. The danger from guerrillas could depend on city size. The puppet/annex choice would be:

Puppeting

• Good for small cities.
• Needs military support.

Annexation

• Good for big cities.
• Needs economic support.

 

[rhammer640]

I think maintaining a threshold level of culture or happiness to reduce the likelihood of barb invasions would be a choice. You'd use buildings already there, but perhaps sooner than you would otherwise. The idea of a dedicated anti-barb building doesn't make realistic sense to me.

True....I would be ok with happiness being the deciding factor as long as there is still a base chance of it happening regardless, just less throughout one game. Would have to make the choice between selling those extra luxuries etc and possibly getting attacked. I wouldn't like the idea of culture being the deciding factor as that favors cultural victories inherently.

If we use happiness it could make wide civs think twice about those extra cities they are conquering. If you had low/negative happiness and the attacks happend significantly more that would slow down expansion even more unless you were prepared to both attack and defend etc.

@thal I'd rather it not be tied just to conquest which barbs spawning near puppeted cities would do because i think it would be a fun mechanic for all play styles throughout the game. But I might be in the minority about this.

 

[Txurce]

Freedom fighters could spawn near Puppet States. Building a courthouse would convert it to an annexed city, which would not spawn guerrillas. The danger from guerrillas could depend on city size.

True....I would be ok with happiness being the deciding factor as long as there is still a base chance of it happening regardless, just less throughout one game. Would have to make the choice between selling those extra luxuries etc and possibly getting attacked. I wouldn't like the idea of culture being the deciding factor as that favors cultural victories inherently.

If we use happiness it could make wide civs think twice about those extra cities they are conquering. If you had low/negative happiness and the attacks happend significantly more that would slow down expansion even more unless you were prepared to both attack and defend etc.

@thal I'd rather it not be tied just to conquest which barbs spawning near puppeted cities would do because i think it would be a fun mechanic for all play styles throughout the game. But I might be in the minority about this.

Agree with all of this, but think Thal's idea works well - just not as the sole source of unrest. (I don't think that's what you menat, right?)

 

[Seek]

Freedom fighters could spawn near Puppet States. Building a courthouse would convert it to an annexed city, which would not spawn guerrillas. The danger from guerrillas could depend on city size. This would make the puppet/annex choice into:

Puppeting

• Good for small cities.
• Needs military support.

Annexation

• Good for big cities.
• Needs economic support.

I was going to suggest this! Additional benefits: it's controllable and has flavor.

 

[rhammer640]

Agree with all of this, but think Thal's idea works well - just not as the sole source of unrest. (I don't think that's what you menat, right?)

Well if its not the sole source of unrest than I agree that it makes sense as part of an overall scheme of things, I was under the impression that was the only area the new barbs would spawn.

 

[Txurce]

Yes, it wouldn't work very well if it were the only source. For openers, tall civs usually have zero puppet states.

 

[wobuffet]

Freedom fighters could spawn near Puppet States. Building a courthouse would convert it to an annexed city, which would not spawn guerrillas. The danger from guerrillas could depend on city size. The puppet/annex choice would be:

Puppeting

• Good for small cities.
• Needs military support.

Annexation

• Good for big cities.
• Needs economic support.

Count me in favor too!

 

[rhammer640]

As far as implementing a happiness factor is could go something like

At end of every turn:
where happiness is possitve -> 10/x (where x is happiness)% chance of barbarian raids. That way at:

1 happiness: you have a 10% chance of invasion
5 happiness: you have a 2% chance of invasion
10 happiness: you have a 1% chance of invasion
20 happiness you have a .5% chance of invasion

At 0 happiness it could just be 10% chance

At negative happiness the formula could be 10+2(|x|)

at -1 it would be 12% chance
at -5 it would be 20% chance
at -10 it would be 30% chance
at -20 it would be 50% chance


Or something along those lines....not sure if that is anywhere close but it might be a start. It makes it so there is always a chance but it gets exponentially larger as you go to negative happiness

 

[Thalassicus]

I'd like to keep it simple, like the 1 = 1 in the capital. I don't like Firaxis' threshold system - it makes gameplay too volatile. "Puppets create freedom fighters" is a simple concept and could have a dramatic effect for conquest players like myself. I'd like to identify something straightforward like that for peaceful players. The two guerrilla mechanisms (conquest/peaceful) would work independently.

So the question is... for peaceful civilizations, what's the most likely source of rogue hostiles in the modern era? It's probably not unrest. These empires are happy and peaceful! However, they do tend to have smaller borders. Perhaps some Wild West theme? Outlaws in lawless territory robbing and pillaging at the fringes of society...

 

[wobuffet]

I know Thal generally doesn't like cutoffs, but to avoid benefitting tall civs too much and to keep things simple/understandable, maybe 0% chance of Freedom Fighters at 10Happiness, and +3% chance (for each puppet city) for every point below 10? A Social Policy could reduce this chance in Puppets with Garrisons or something.

Would this be for all players, or only humans, Thal? I can see arguments both ways.

edit: Typed this before seeing Thal's reply, d'oh!