Fending off barbarians

[Kallikrates]

Obviously the raging barbarians option excluded.
And some more barbarian activity on higher levels makes sense. But in my experience up to Emperor the effect is not that huge and depends, probably indirectly on the map: If there is not so much space and the available space is settled quickly, there will not be too many. As mentioned, I think I have not seen any barb axes in a long time. I saw more of them as a beginner on Noble, because I didn't settle quickly enough. Of course, some nasty maps with lots of tundra/ice regions that will not be settled soon may be an exception...

 

[Willem]

But in my experience up to Emperor the effect is not that huge and depends, probably indirectly on the map:

Not indirectly, Barb activity depends entirely on the map. They can only appear in areas where there's a fog of war, AI civs included, and can't spawn within a 5 tile radius of any unit, again AI civs included. So the less free space there is, the less Barbs there will be. It also depends on whether they spawn a city or not. If there's a Barb city somewhere in the area, you're much less likely to see wandering Barbs in the area. While the city will produce units to send out and harass nearby civs, they do so less frequently than if they were to spawn within the fog of war individually. There's a very large random factor when it comes to Barb spawning, sometimes they'll swarm a particular civ in large numbers, sometimes there will hardly be any at all seen.

Personally I find the default values, which can be found in the GameInfo/HandicapInfo.xml file BTW, to be too high overall. I've lowered mine so that, even though I play on Noble, they'll appear at Settler level. I just find it really annoying when I end up getting swarmed by Barbs, which can happen sometimes since I play on a slightly larger than Huge map. So there's usually lots of space for them to appear.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes, but they die too easily so they typically end being wasted Hammers. The only unit worse than Warriors in that regard are Scouts. An Archer might cost a few more Hammers to build, but they stand a far better chance of surviving for awhile, making that Hammer investment far more cost effective. One Axeman and the Warrior is toast in no time, but an Archer might have a chance of surviving the encounter. If it's on a wooded hill, it most likely will. I recall one game where I had an Archer on a hill and it managed to survive attacks by about 6 or so Barbarians of various types. He gained enough XP to get a couple ranks of Guerrilla in one turn alone, making him even tougher after that. There's no way a Warrior would have been able to hold out like that.

I'm not sure why you have enemies attacking central cities in your empire + your capitol, but you should probably try to avoid that, and spend defending cities that are actually attacked.

 

[Willem]

I'm not sure why you have enemies attacking central cities in your empire + your capitol, but you should probably try to avoid that, and spend defending cities that are actually attacked.

Quite often I won't establish cities in a nice, neat circle around my capital. If I have a neighbour that's close by, I'll try to develop the area near him/her in order to control that territory. Or there might be a resource I want a little further out. Which will leave a backdoor open for the Barbs until I manage to secure my other border(s). I don't normally have stacks of defenders in any cities that aren't under any sort of threat though, usually just a single Archer, maybe 2 if I have Hereditary Rule and a fairly large city. I suppose I could have a few Warriors in them instead, though it's usually not too long before I can't build them anymore anyway. And I don't like having obsolete units hanging around, especially later in the game. Archers are OK for that role right up until Gunpowder, when I start feeling the need to update my defenders. They aren't that far removed from Longbowman after all, just a weaker version of the same type of unit. In the early game I typically have an Archer, Axeman and Chariot in any city that might be under threat from a Barbarian attack, then fill those out with other units like Spearmen in cities that are near another civ.

 

[capnvonbaron]

That depends on what you mean by settings. If you select the Raging Barbarians option in the Custom Game screen, that certainly is quite different. Also, the difficulty level has an effect. Barbs will be more numerous, and spawn earlier, at Emperor level than they would at Chieftain.

also, marathon speed makes barbs a pain, since they spawn at the same rate, but since AI expansion is slower (turn wise) and it takes longer for you to build defensive units, barbs are often more numerous for a longer period than you can handle if you are surrounded by lots of open land. In addition, if they pillage your improvements you are facing a lot of worker turns wasted.

 

[Manco Capac]

^
IIRC, in fact, the spawning odd is bigger by itself. Not relatively to cities or other factors and that is the main reason why marathon is overkiller for barbs. Though units are cheaper being 2x instead of expected x3.

 

[capnvonbaron]

Right, I meant at the same turn rate. So in a given stretch of "Time", more barbs are able to spawn and mosey your way. Those first turns that they are given the "rush cities" command is often quite painful if you are underprotected or metal-less. True, units are cheaper than expected, but the barbs coming from all sides can make it tough to cover all the angles. Even worse if you suffer some unfortunate RNG (barb spears mosey in and you only have chariots, barb archer wins a 30% battle, etc)

 

[Willem]

Aaah, that would explain why I was sometimes being raped by Barbarians. I feel totally justified in using the Settler values now. At least I find myself with enough time to develop some defence against them, that wasn't always the case before.

 

[Kallikrates]

o.k., I play normal speed, standard size maps, so this might be a factor that barbs are not such a huge problem, because most of the map is settled to quickly. Especially not axes, because if these appear at all, I will have axes or chariots myself.
Admittedly, there is a time window where bad luck with barb archers could be a problem, because I lacked horses or copper nearby. But in such a case it might be a good move to research archery anyway, not for fear of barbs, but the AI.

BTW are there barbarian "pirates" apart from galleys? It would be cool (and make exploring more dangerous) to have barb caravels or privateers on the high seas, not only coastal plundering. Or why not raids from the sea? This could be quite dangerous in Civ II where barb ships would pop out of nowhere and endanger coastal cities. As with many things (in most Civ games) I slightly dislike that a feature as barbs can make the early game hell while being almost completely irrelevant later on...

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Quite often I won't establish cities in a nice, neat circle around my capital. If I have a neighbour that's close by, I'll try to develop the area near him/her in order to control that territory. Or there might be a resource I want a little further out. Which will leave a backdoor open for the Barbs until I manage to secure my other border(s).

This is why players spawnbust.

I don't like having obsolete units hanging around, especially later in the game. Archers are OK for that role right up until Gunpowder, when I start feeling the need to update my defenders.

Spending money or on smoke and mirrors defense (and a single defender in a city is certainly smoke and mirrors regardless) is not solid play. Better to actually defend cities that can be threatened with significant force, and otherwise economise usage as much as possible. Playing more like the AI won't help you.

In the early game I typically have an Archer, Axeman and Chariot in any city that might be under threat from a Barbarian attack, then fill those out with other units like Spearmen in cities that are near another civ.

I incur maybe 1-2 barbarian attacks on a city in a game, if that. Only unusual map scripts like highlands or raging barbs would be an exception.

Understanding spawn mechanics and positioning units well >>> spending 1-2 settlers worth of hammers to accomplish less.

also, marathon speed makes barbs a pain, since they spawn at the same rate, but since AI expansion is slower (turn wise) and it takes longer for you to build defensive units, barbs are often more numerous for a longer period than you can handle if you are surrounded by lots of open land. In addition, if they pillage your improvements you are facing a lot of worker turns wasted.

There is a lot of flawed analysis in what I'm quoting. Mara worker turns are actually less expensive than faster speeds for example. It's true, however, that because barbs spawn the same way regardless of speed but our own units cost more that they're at their most challenging on this speed (unlike absolutely everything else). Of course, preventing them from being able to spawn in an area where they'd go for your cities in the first place is still doable, and in fact the cost in units is cheaper than other speeds, so much depends on how you set things up. You do have to be more mindful of them though.

Right, I meant at the same turn rate. So in a given stretch of "Time", more barbs are able to spawn and mosey your way. Those first turns that they are given the "rush cities" command is often quite painful if you are underprotected or metal-less. True, units are cheaper than expected, but the barbs coming from all sides can make it tough to cover all the angles. Even worse if you suffer some unfortunate RNG (barb spears mosey in and you only have chariots, barb archer wins a 30% battle, etc)

Early on, throw a few warriors onto forests or hill forests and fortify them to block spawns. Don't delay archery too long and you can easily have archers out there shredding the few things that do go your way after you block nearby spawns. Don't put archers on forest hills though because barbs don't have enough attack courage to fight at those odds.

If you understand the "barbs can't spawn within 2 tiles of a unit" rule they're usually easy to deal with using only warriors on any difficulty, barring larger/more open maps.

 

[Drakarska]

o.k., I play normal speed, standard size maps, so this might be a factor that barbs are not such a huge problem, because most of the map is settled to quickly. Especially not axes, because if these appear at all, I will have axes or chariots myself.
Admittedly, there is a time window where bad luck with barb archers could be a problem, because I lacked horses or copper nearby. But in such a case it might be a good move to research archery anyway, not for fear of barbs, but the AI.

BTW are there barbarian "pirates" apart from galleys? It would be cool (and make exploring more dangerous) to have barb caravels or privateers on the high seas, not only coastal plundering. Or why not raids from the sea? This could be quite dangerous in Civ II where barb ships would pop out of nowhere and endanger coastal cities. As with many things (in most Civ games) I slightly dislike that a feature as barbs can make the early game hell while being almost completely irrelevant later on...

Yuppers. I've ran into caravels and galleons. What's really nasty is when a barb frig shows up on your coast. As a side note, I play modded BTS, so barb frigs in vanilla BTS I don't really remember if they showed up or not.

 

[Willem]

Spending money or on smoke and mirrors defense (and a single defender in a city is certainly smoke and mirrors regardless) is not solid play. Better to actually defend cities that can be threatened with significant force, and otherwise economise usage as much as possible. Playing more like the AI won't help you.

But spawnbusting costs money as well though, in the form of higher maintenance. As soon as your spawnbusting units leave your cultural boundaries they start costing you more to maintain compared to ones that might be parked in a city. I've tried the approach you're suggesting and found that I'd quite often lose a lot of gold trying to support them. I feel it's just more cost effective having a few units in my cities to deal with any barbs that come my way than sending out into the wilderness. It's also good training for my city defenders. One thing I do like to do though is place an Archer on a hill tile where I plan on building a city at some point. I dot map my empire beforhand using the BUG tool so I can see right away where those spots are.

 

[lymond]

But spawnbusting costs money as well though

That's pretty negligible really, especially when compared to the possible loss of worker turns/hammers/production and commerce from letting barbs enter your borders. The idea behind spawnbusting is to prevent that from happening entirely. And if you know what you are doing you can do that with a fairly small amount of units, sometimes only 1 or 2.

At one city, it takes several units before you actually go into deficit...relative to level...at 1 city. Once you settle a second city then binary research comes into play so costs are relative at that point.

Archer

Question is..why do you have an archer in the first place? While there are some cases in which Archery might be worth teching, especially on Deity, I try to avoid this dead end tech as much as possible. Warriors are more than respectable early game to fend off or prevent barbs in many cases.

 

[Willem]

That's pretty negligible really, especially when compared to the possible loss of worker turns/hammers/production and commerce from letting barbs enter your borders.

That too is pretty negligible. I might lose one turn of these things if a Barb strays into one of my cities. With just the three units I mentioned, I can take of any threat I may face, and my city defenders gain XP for doing so. Occasionally the Barb gets lucky and takes out the unit that's attacking it, but that usually doesn't happen.

The idea behind spawnbusting is to prevent that from happening entirely. And if you know what you are doing you can do that with a fairly small amount of units, sometimes only 1 or 2.

Maybe on Normal maps, but it usually takes quite a few units to effectively spawnbust on Huge ones. In my experience more than it takes to have just a few units parked in any city that might be threatened. And at a much higher cost to maintain than having them within my cultural borders. I tended to bleed myself dry, and fall behind in research, when I tried to use the spawnbusting strategy that's being suggested. I just needed too many units in order to do it effectively.

Warriors are more than respectable early game to fend off or prevent barbs in many cases.

And the first Barb Axeman that comes along your city is toast. Having units parked in the wilderness to spawnbust is no guarantee that some Barb won't wander in from outside that 2X2 area. If you have a neighbour that has built the Great Wall, the odds of that happening are even greater. A single Archer fortified in a city is usually enough to fend of any Barb attack, even from a Swordsman, but you're taking a real chance by only using Warriors. Not to mention that they usually aren't around for all that long anyway. As soon as you go for Bronzeworking they're no longer buildable, at which point the Archer becomes the cheaper unit, and better geared towards city defence since Axeman can't get City Garrison.

 

[ChaosSlayer]

question:

back in Civ1 a barbarian trireme of frigate would pull up to my coast and unload ground troops to attack me in the most unexpected place.
Does anything like that ever happens in Civ4?

 

[Pisskop]

I wish.

 

[Willem]

I've never seen barbs use ships to transport troops at least. That's not to say it can't happen though, it might just be extremely rare.

 

[ChaosSlayer]

it was more like a spawn - like in civ4 you get random land and sea spawn - it was a random spawn that was 2 in 1 (so it wasn't that barbs were transported from some other land)

 

[Doshin]

Barb cities can build ships, and they will occasionally load these with units:

Spoiler :

They do not spawn like this though.

 

[Kjotleik]

and in fact the cost in units is cheaper than other speeds,

As I have read your comments for a couple of years now, and seen that you have a very good grasp of how this game works, I would be interested in how you would regard Marathon gamespeed if you changed the <iTrainPercent> from 200 to 300 (eliminating the discount on units) in CIV4GameSpeedInfo.xml?

How much more would I have to do in order to make the difficulty of Marathon comparable to, say Normal Speed? I will also note that I have seen that in CIV4GameSpeedInfo.xml Golden Ages and Anarchy turns are at 200 (only double of Normal) instead of 300, and Barbarians are actually more numerous as they are four-times more likely to spawn as on Normal (<iBarbPercent> = 400).


What I usually do is this:

ONE - Remove discount on Units (as stated above).
TWO - Changed cultural city defense to (POOR 2% - doubling each step up to LEGENDARY 64%).
THREE - Increase the Peace Treaty length from 10 to 30 turns.


I hope that some experienced high-level players can tell me if this is going to be a step in the right direction. Or if it is simply way too little to make Marathon comparable to Normal, in terms of difficulty (achieving a Victory Condition).

What other ways to make Marathon COMPARABLE to Normal is there? (in terms of difficulty, that is. I don't really want to actually play Normal, as it is way too fast for my personal taste. I play to enjoy myself, not trying to beat other player's victory-dates!)



Yours Sincerely

Kjotleik of Norway