Functional Barbarians

[Rhye]

is there anything of this in Conquest?

 

[Furius]

Probably not, although it is possible they might do something in a conquest, I guess.

 

[Starving Poet]

You know, my experience studying barbarian invasions into growing civilizations is that the Barbarians create a synthesis with what the people they take over. Now how would this be implemented in civ3? Quite simply. Now if a Barbarian comes upon an undefended city you lose production of an item and he disappears. No peeps die and unless you were 1 turn away from the Great Library - why is that city undefended anyway? - who really cares.

I think if a barb comes across that undefended city, well now you have a barbarian state that has the same production capabilities that you had in that city. He can't add anymore buildings, but he can exploit whatever you had in there. Kind of like my Succession post, but with different AI masters.

 

[casual_moose]

good idea i also think barbarians should be more powerfull maybey in the fall of rome scenario barbarians will be more powerfull.

 

[kring]

Originally posted by Starving Poet
You know, my experience studying barbarian invasions into growing civilizations is that the Barbarians create a synthesis with what the people they take over. Now how would this be implemented in civ3? Quite simply. Now if a Barbarian comes upon an undefended city you lose production of an item and he disappears. No peeps die and unless you were 1 turn away from the Great Library - why is that city undefended anyway? - who really cares.

I think if a barb comes across that undefended city, well now you have a barbarian state that has the same production capabilities that you had in that city. He can't add anymore buildings, but he can exploit whatever you had in there. Kind of like my Succession post, but with different AI masters.

You can lose population from Barbarian attacks. I have had a lot of Civ3 and PtW games that suffered population losses from Massive Barbarian Uprisings overcoming my defenses. A good reason to not defend a city is to avoid the loss of the unit(s) defending. It can be worth it, in some instances, to allow the sacking of the city and not losing the defender(s).

According to Firaxis a long time ago, Civ3 Barbarians can't have cities. It would be good to have them get stronger as the Eras progress, and it would also be nice to have them be able to take over cities. One way you could mod Barbarians to be able to take over cities would be to create another Barbarian civ which could build cities and other stuff. You would have to add a new civ or rename one of the other civs. The original A Barbarian Chiefdom do have to stay in the game, so the new civ could be named something similar to Barbarians.

 

[Pirate]

If barbarians were civilized enough to be able to run a city, then they wouldn't be barbarians, would they? In ancient times, barbarians are those tribes that have not moved past simple subsistence - hunter/gatherers whose agricultural knowledge was limited at best. Ancient barbarians should raid, pillage, harass, enslave, loot, and raze, but they should not be able to control cities!

The argument for later barbarians as guerillas, terrorists, etc... would be better served by allowing revolutions and civil wars as discussed in other threads. This way uprisings are tied directly to your skill at maintaining a happy, well protected empire and not by some random occurance.

I'm a firm believer that barbarians are barbarians. Period.

 

[BomberEscort]

Make them autoraze cities, now I'd like that!

 

[alpha wolf 64]

Originally posted by Pirate
If barbarians were civilized enough to be able to run a city, then they wouldn't be barbarians, would they? In ancient times, barbarians are those tribes that have not moved past simple subsistence - hunter/gatherers whose agricultural knowledge was limited at best. Ancient barbarians should raid, pillage, harass, enslave, loot, and raze, but they should not be able to control cities!

If barbarians were allowed to own cities, but could not control production (ie, none) then the barbarians would simply be occupying the city, not controlling it.

 

[Furius]

I'm a firm believer that barbarians are barbarians. Period.

But all the barbarian tribes have names and what you discribe is not true to all their names (Or even to all "barbarians" of history).

 

[Commander Bello]

Originally posted by Pembroke


Now that's an idea!

Barbarians can capture cities and a captured city thereafter pumps out one barbarian unit every turn. As to giving barbarians more modern units: how about using the rule that barbarians have access to the best defender, the best attacker, and the best attack naval unit that at least two real civs can build? That way they would keep pace with the general level of technology. The barbarians could also build them without access to resources (they are assumed to raid them from other civs )

Maybe this way you could even end up with an entire barbarian continent if a weak civ is completely conquered by barbarians.

Then you better watch out in the late game when two real civs have reached the nuclear tech level... Talk about terrorist nations!

I like the idea of barbarians having access to the best units available.
Nevertheless, this should be limited in some way, since it really looks strange, if you would have to encounter a barbarian tank brigade later in the game.
But, if barbarians conquer a city, it could loose one pop (due to uprising / fighting in the streets) and then turn into a new civ's initial town. This could have some effects upon your nation's mood as well....
Barbarian camps could produce their units at a higher rate, and as stated by [edit: Pembroke], would not be dependant on the ressources for these units. Furthermore, each barbarian camp should be more fortified, thus making it harder to get rid of them.