Immersion Breaking Barbarians.

[Shoobs]

I have not seen high level barbarians for the date in some time and I've made it to Medieval.

 

[raxo2222]

Not to nit pick but are these Barb high tech doom stacks ever going to be removed? Toffer's fix sadly no longer works as I killed 20 musket men in a stack and 14 more spawn around the same area 20 turns later to destroy my AI neighbor.

Check if someone isn't in renaissance.
That is barbarians are tied to tech leader.

 

[Sakura Matou]

3 of us are but not all Civs are, thanks that explains it.Can I just request an option that Barbs only Spawn from their cities or that they spawn at the Civ with Lowest AI tech level so they don't destroy weaker civs?

 

[Joij21]

I feel that barbarians should spawn with the technology level of the current tech loser not the tech winner. I mean barbarians are supposed to represent more primitive peoples that lack sophisticated culture, a desire to learn, and are mostly rapists (though some may be good people ). But seriously there is no reason to have them be at the level of the tech leader. And in my opinion barbarians in the modern era basically represent terrorists who if you know by real life don't exactly have the level of technology that the U.S. has (they still use AKs and in some cases leftover artillery and explosive ordinances from WW2). In the past it was no different, the barbarians were almost always regarded as the more primitive ones needing to be "civilized". Now while you could use the whole "barbarians defeated Rome" argument, that doesn't really matter as the only reason the Romans lost to them was because of rampant military corruption and a strained economy (mostly due to political corruption). The only exception to this would probably be Attila the Hun who used more advanced cavalry tactics and employed archers on horseback against the Romans. However that could simply be simulated by a random event with maybe a cinematic cutscene of Attila (like from Total War Attila) and then spawn in a stack of units that are specific to the Huns and much stronger than the average barbarians that one would normally encounter for that era. The same could be used for other notable barbarians that were "innovative" in history (that is if there were truly many). In fact those should be the only OP barbarians, the rest should just be a technological backwater who we don't negotiate with (you know because they're terrorists ).

 

[Sakura Matou]

I feel that barbarians should spawn with the technology level of the current tech loser not the tech winner. I mean barbarians are supposed to represent more primitive peoples that lack sophisticated culture, a desire to learn, and are mostly rapists (though some may be good people ). But seriously there is no reason to have them be at the level of the tech leader. And in my opinion barbarians in the modern era basically represent terrorists who if you know by real life don't exactly have the level of technology that the U.S. has (they still use AKs and in some cases leftover artillery and explosive ordinances from WW2). In the past it was no different, the barbarians were almost always regarded as the more primitive ones needing to be "civilized". Now while you could use the whole "barbarians defeated Rome" argument, that doesn't really matter as the only reason the Romans lost to them was because of rampant military corruption and a strained economy (mostly due to political corruption). The only exception to this would probably be Attila the Hun who used more advanced cavalry tactics and employed archers on horseback against the Romans. However that could simply be simulated by a random event with maybe a cinematic cutscene of Attila (like from Total War Attila) and then spawn in a stack of units that are specific to the Huns and much stronger than the average barbarians that one would normally encounter for that era. The same could be used for other notable barbarians that were "innovative" in history (that is if there were truly many). In fact those should be the only OP barbarians, the rest should just be a technological backwater who we don't negotiate with (you know because they're terrorists ).

So much this. The perfect fix.

 

[tmv]

I feel that barbarians should spawn with the technology level of the current tech loser not the tech winner. I mean barbarians are supposed to represent more primitive peoples that lack sophisticated culture, a desire to learn, and are mostly rapists (though some may be good people ). But seriously there is no reason to have them be at the level of the tech leader. And in my opinion barbarians in the modern era basically represent terrorists who if you know by real life don't exactly have the level of technology that the U.S. has (they still use AKs and in some cases leftover artillery and explosive ordinances from WW2). In the past it was no different, the barbarians were almost always regarded as the more primitive ones needing to be "civilized". Now while you could use the whole "barbarians defeated Rome" argument, that doesn't really matter as the only reason the Romans lost to them was because of rampant military corruption and a strained economy (mostly due to political corruption). The only exception to this would probably be Attila the Hun who used more advanced cavalry tactics and employed archers on horseback against the Romans. However that could simply be simulated by a random event with maybe a cinematic cutscene of Attila (like from Total War Attila) and then spawn in a stack of units that are specific to the Huns and much stronger than the average barbarians that one would normally encounter for that era. The same could be used for other notable barbarians that were "innovative" in history (that is if there were truly many). In fact those should be the only OP barbarians, the rest should just be a technological backwater who we don't negotiate with (you know because they're terrorists ).

cough ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War

 

[Joij21]

cough ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soviet–Afghan_War

Again I feel like that is an exception that could simply be represented by a random event that would give you the option to pay gold to spawn in a bunch of terror units within the borders of a nation that your rival (the game uses "worst enemy" to represent this) is currently at war with.

Plus to simulate nations like Iran, a new military civic called "state sponsored terror" would be created that would enable one to train terror units and build terrorist compounds at the expense of a huge diplomatic penalty. After all as it is right now anyone can build terrorist compounds in their cities regardless of civics, which personally to me doesn't quite make much sense. I live in America and as far as I know we don't have ISIS compounds in our backyards sponsored by the government(unless you believe in some crazy conspiracy theory).

 

[Noriad2]

State sponsored terrorists (which may have the latest equipment) are represented by hidden nationality units, not barbarian units.

 

[Joij21]

State sponsored terrorists (which may have the latest equipment) are represented by hidden nationality units, not barbarian units.

True, but not all terrorists are state sponsored. For these non state sponsored terrorists you would simply have these hidden nationality units spawn in and be gifted to the barbarian faction. And not all civilizations should have the ability to train state sponsored terrorists, only those who run a brand new civic called "state sponsored terror".

Now while the U.S. did train Afghan terrorists, they were trained on foreign soil not domestically(and they later turned on us so it makes no sense to have them on the same faction). These would simply be represented by a random event allowing you to train them on foreign soil without having to adopt the "state sponsored terror" civic. Once trained they would spawn in a huge stack, be gifted to the barbarian faction, and spawn within the borders of the nation they were trained in.

 

[Toffer90]

Plus to simulate nations like Iran, a new military civic called "state sponsored terror" would be created that would enable one to train terror units and build terrorist compounds at the expense of a huge diplomatic penalty. After all as it is right now anyone can build terrorist compounds in their cities regardless of civics, which personally to me doesn't quite make much sense. I live in America and as far as I know we don't have ISIS compounds in our backyards sponsored by the government(unless you believe in some crazy conspiracy theory).

Iran supports shia Hezbollah in Libanon, the Houthis and Hamas, the first two are mostly supported because they are shia-muslim organizations in a sunni Muslim region, and can hardly be called terrorist organizations when compared to the sunni muslim organisations like al Qaeda, IS, al-Nusra, Boko Haram, al Shebab, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the sunni Hezbollah in Turkey etc. etc..

Saudi Arabia (SA) supports terrorist organizations more than Iran imo. When the Houthies almost succeeded in driving al Qaeda and IS out of Yemen (which was the main goal that motivated the houthies to wage civil war there), SA became furious and started bombing Yemen to smithereens with support from the west.
It is well known that those sunni organizations that I mentioned finds much funding and support from within SA.
Shia Hezbollah and Irans fight against IS in Syria was/is mainly criticized by the west because SA placed pressure on the west to do so; probably because SA wants greater influence in Syria, something they would get even if IS had occupied Syria completely.
It's the great power struggle between sunni and shia influence, with SA at the front for one side and Iran at the front for the other side. IS is doing the dirty work for SA in this power struggle and the west is their useful idiot on the side.

Israel is a third party in the region, they dislike SA and Iran pretty much the same, and simply want both sides to hurt each other as much as possible without getting dragged into the crossfire themselves.
Even though Hamas is a sunni muslim organisation Iran supports them, maybe because they can't watch the injustice committed against the Palestine without doing something, or maybe because they see them as the lesser threat than Israel.
SA supported Hamas as a resistance group until 2001, and had always objected to western attempts to isolate them, one might imagine why they suddenly threw the palestines under the bus at that point in time, probably a trade off they made to avoid any hostilities between themselves and the US.

At last, to put thing at a bit of nuance: Iran certainly did support some terrorism under the reign of Ayatollah Khomeini back in the eighties, in the days of revolutionary shia islam.
Though, when comparing contemporary history between Iran to SA in that regard makes Iran look almost innocent.
Shia terrorism may be as rare as Christian terrorism.

Damn, I did it again... I don't want a long discussion on this. ^^
I'm just tired of hearing the mantras of the west over and over again, those that paint us as Heroes in shining armor that is on a holy mission to slay the dragons of the world.
Turkey, a NATO country, had ISIS compounds within their country for a long time during the early Syrian civil war, Iran has no such thing.

 

[Joij21]

Iran supports shia Hezbollah in Libanon, the Houthis and Hamas, the first two are mostly supported because they are shia-muslim organizations in a sunni Muslim region, and can hardly be called terrorist organizations when compared to the sunni muslim organisations like al Qaeda, IS, al-Nusra, Boko Haram, al Shebab, the Muslim Brotherhood, and the sunni Hezbollah in Turkey etc. etc..

Saudi Arabia (SA) supports terrorist organizations more than Iran imo. When the Houthies almost succeeded in driving al Qaeda and IS out of Yemen (which was the main goal that motivated the houthies to wage civil war there), SA became furious and started bombing Yemen to smithereens with support from the west.
It is well known that those sunni organizations that I mentioned finds much funding and support from within SA.
Shia Hezbollah and Irans fight against IS in Syria was/is mainly criticized by the west because SA placed pressure on the west to do so; probably because SA wants greater influence in Syria, something they would get even if IS had occupied Syria completely.
It's the great power struggle between sunni and shia influence, with SA at the front for one side and Iran at the front for the other side. IS is doing the dirty work for SA in this power struggle and the west is their useful idiot on the side.

Israel is a third party in the region, they dislike SA and Iran pretty much the same, and simply want both sides to hurt each other as much as possible without getting dragged into the crossfire themselves.
Even though Hamas is a sunni muslim organisation Iran supports them, maybe because they can't watch the injustice committed against the Palestine without doing something, or maybe because they see them as the lesser threat than Israel.
SA supported Hamas as a resistance group until 2001, and had always objected to western attempts to isolate them, one might imagine why they suddenly threw the palestines under the bus at that point in time, probably a trade off they made to avoid any hostilities between themselves and the US.

At last, to put thing at a bit of nuance: Iran certainly did support some terrorism under the reign of Ayatollah Khomeini back in the eighties, in the days of revolutionary shia islam.
Though, when comparing contemporary history between Iran to SA in that regard makes Iran look almost innocent.
Shia terrorism may be as rare as Christian terrorism.

Damn, I did it again... I don't want a long discussion on this. ^^
I'm just tired of hearing the mantras of the west over and over again, those that paint us as Heroes in shining armor that is on a holy mission to slay the dragons of the world.
Turkey, a NATO country, had ISIS compounds within their country for a long time during the early Syrian civil war, Iran has no such thing.

Ok that was kind of a long rant. However that's not what I'm talking about. I'm simply proposing to make a new civic called "state sponsored terror" in the military category that would now be required for one to build terror compounds and terrorist units. I'm not trying to be political but if it makes you happy than Arabia can have "state sponsored terror" as their new favorite civic.

P.S. and I want to have the barbarian's tech level to be determined by the tech loser(no longer the tech leader), create more specialized; scripted barbarian events, and allow the barbarian faction to receive terror units during the information era.

 

[Raven Destroyer]

I believe Arabia as portrayed in the Game is based on the Kingdom around the time of Harun Al-Rashid, Which would've meant that they're the Arabian Kingdom that got Shafted by the Sykes-Picot Accord which allowed SA to conquer the region, and in turn also got us in this mess in the middle east to begin with, just pointing out things how they are

 

[Joij21]

I believe Arabia as portrayed in the Game is based on the Kingdom around the time of Harun Al-Rashid, Which would've meant that they're the Arabian Kingdom that got Shafted by the Sykes-Picot Accord which allowed SA to conquer the region, and in turn also got us in this mess in the middle east to begin with, just pointing out things how they are

Well then someone could make a custom civ to represent the Saudis and have "state sponsored terror" be their favorite civic.

 

[Galadrion]

There's no need for (another) civic representing state-sponsored terrorism; Banditry already represents this. I can also confirm both of the following: this is a very effective strategy for crippling other civs (exporting crime and hidden-nationality fighters), and the AIs do have some idea of how to use these tactics effectively, or at least comparably to their competence with military units.

I would argue quite strongly against this kind of development unless steps were taken to sufficiently distinguish this hypothetical new civic from the already well-developed Banditry civic. It strikes me as a variance without distinction.

Now, the idea of basing barbaric tech levels on someone other than the tech leader strikes me as something worth examining. I don't necessarily think it needs to be the least-developed contender, but it shouldn't always be the most-developed one either. What would make the most sense to me would be for barbaric units to be somewhere around the middle of the current tech level, or perhaps distributed on a bell curve between the least and most sophisticated civs at the time.

 

[Joij21]

There's no need for (another) civic representing state-sponsored terrorism; Banditry already represents this.

Well currently Banditry only kinda represents this. While you certainly can build bandit hideouts only through Banditry, anyone can build terrorist compounds(regardless of civic choices). If we don't need to add a new civic then I would instead propose to have terror compounds require Banditry as a prequisite in order to build. I believe the rebel camp could also use militia as it's prequisite because currently it doesn't have one either(and again not every civ has rebels for an army).