I've had it with Barbs!

[blitzkrieg1980]

^^^I completely agree. I always turn barbs off, b/c when I have them on, I seem to focus entirely on them until the first century AD. What a waste!!! And for those of you who think this is cheating, you can just enjoy building your armies to fight off the barbs, I'll build my wonders and take over the next door neighbor. While you guys get some cheap XP i'll be getting mine from a more usefull fight!

 

[AncientPlayer]

I turn barbs off. I don't see a point to them. All they do is slow down the early part of the game. This stops me from building more cities and other usefull things.

The point is that they slow everyone down, not just you. And add lots of reasons to need a good military early on. Civ without the barbs would, for me, be a lot less fun. To each his (or her) own.

 

[AfterShafter]

The point is that they slow everyone down, not just you. And add lots of reasons to need a good military early on. Civ without the barbs would, for me, be a lot less fun. To each his (or her) own.

You've pretty much spelled out why I don't like them... With other civs, diplomacy is an option, and you can play a diplomatic game. With barbs in game, you're forced into the military game to some degree. I like the option, and a no-barbs game has certain difficulties associated with it that aren't present in barb games... Computer civs expand faster (I find) and playing diplomatically is itself a way to up the difficulty level (if you ask me).

 

[PedalPower]

I think barbs are a fun and realistic addition to the game, but I think there are some bugs or design oversights in determining how often and how many appear. The way they are set up in the stock files, barbs can be virtually non-existent or ridiculous. The variables in the handicap xml files seem to be straightforward, but longer game speeds seem to have far too many barbs as has been pointed out on these forums.

I find this odd looking at the barb multiplier in the game speed files. For marathon, the speed I play, the multiplier is 400, which is actually larger than the typical 300 multiplier for most other things in the file, so it would seem reasonable that marathon games would be somewhat lighter in barbs than normal. But this is obviously not the case. I have played games where I would have an average of two barbs coming out of the fog every turn with only three cities founded and a total army of less than 10 units. In some games it is impossible to defend your cities and improvements and bust fog all at the same time. And I wouldn't count on the barbs wearing down AI opponents as much as yourself. The AI gets huge bonuses against barbs, which may explain their preference for human players. Besides that, the AI does very well in the early game and doesn't need help there. They need help mid game and later when they start to fall behind the human player's better planned and better managed empire.

IMO, if you are having too much frustration with barbs, it is perfectly reasonable to adjust the barb variables to the type of games you like to play. I like large maps, marathon speed and somewhat fewer civs. The reason I like these settings is that all the empires get to grow large and I would rather build than war in the early game. Unfortunately, the standard barb settings can and sometimes do make this type of game nearly unplayable, so I doubled the variables in the handicap xml file and halved the game speed barb variable, which should help compensate for doubling the others. With these settings I find barbs to be about right. They are a threat and a nuisance without being so numerous they are a bad joke. In my current game with these changes I lost more units to barbs than I did making a powerful neighbor a vassal, and there were a few barb cities that lasted into the industrial age. One was size 11, had a huge cultural border, a bunch of fully developed towns, etc. It was so big and powerful, the AI civs wouldn't touch it. I finally sent an army to take over and it is now an excellent addition to my empire. Barbs can be fun, but too many are definitely un-fun.

 

[Armorydave]

I consider raging barbs to be a player advantage at least at Monarch level. They also make the early game more fun IMO.

 

[Snerk]

I have the oposite problem. I think its too few barbs! I like to play on crowded maps and then barbs looses places to spawn very quickly. I ofcourse enable raging barbarians but its still not enough.

 

[Charles 22]

automator: I think the fogbusting technique is a failure, or to be more precise, able to work but only in limited situations. My strategy works in virtually any situation, and I have expounded on it at least 2-3 times in this forum, and it seems nobody else does it. In any event you're in the worst position against barbs you can possibly be in.

The first thing to do is realize that you have to shrink the territory of spawning, which you are attempting to do with the mythic fogbusting. I do it on another basis. I don't so much bust fog as to advance cities, and then defend them. Probably at least 40%-50% of the barbs are slain as a result of their trying to take my outer cities. It's quite simple. When you're about to the point of making that 4th city, though you have been improving the founding city from the start, you really want to concentrate the improving to that city and the 2nd one pretty much (except for roading the other cities to help counter-attacking). You are improving where no barb will go. On the outer cities you put two archers with city defense promotions, and then see your invincibility. You don't improve on the outer cities simply because it gives the barbs more targets to pillage. About the time you get horse-archers you can really work the outer cities over with improvements. If there's a key gold tile then perhaps you can make an exception for that, but it will make defending just that much tougher.

The rest of your units are primarily axemen and maybe a couple of chariots if you can manage the horse resource.

The main opponent you have here is using axemen for defense when they should be attacking for the most part, and then your best defense unit, the archer, is under-used at his better defensive position of cities. Naturally there are times when it's better not to attack with axemen, such as letting their axemen attack yours with a river between them.

Now all this ties together. You need to bust fog by means of advancing cities. The decision has to be yours as far as what direction you start the advancing cities. Personally I kind of favor being attacked from all directions, as backwards as that seems, because then I can more easily protect the easily assailable 1st and 2nd cities, which I might staff with 1 archer and some counterattack minions. So if such a strategy suits you, and I'm guessing it don't, then you can either build the cities towards the other civs or towards some shores which would make at least one direction where you don't have to worry about them coming to get you. If you go towards the other civs, then some of them will be directed their way but you just won't have any totally safe zones. As time goes by, and you build something that will build your culture in each city, to at least progress to the fat cross stage, you are letting your city territories do all of your fogbusting and then defending them. In most cases you won't lose a unit because the backup archer in each city is good enough to survive at least the first attack after you best defending archer got roughed up.

I needn't tell you that the nations which are more boxed in, are probably going to do a number on you with respects to your trying to get a lead, but the problem exists for any system you use because even with slight losses you will have to do a lot more producing of units in order to hold off the barbs. I think by the time I get to horse archers, assuming I don't make a beeline for it, I usually have 2 archers in each outer city. Maybe at most 6 total axemen and maybe 2 chariots. that can pretty much handle anything, but course any losses will need to be maintained. Another strength of this system is that not only are your units recovering quicker, because the vast majority of you fighting is in your own territory, but also that the barbs recover slower than if you were out in the middle of nowhere fogbusting, and the speed at which you can send reinforcements is yet but another strength.

 

[Reg Pither]

I'm of the same opinion as most here - barbs are fun, but only in moderation. A sliding scale would be a nice option, IMHO.

I always rush to get The Great Wall, and I must admit, if someone else beats me to it I usually just start a new game as I don't want to put up with those pesky barbs.

 

[kcbrett5]

And for those of you who think this is cheating, you can just enjoy building your armies to fight off the barbs, I'll build my wonders and take over the next door neighbor. While you guys get some cheap XP i'll be getting mine from a more usefull fight!

So it gives you an advantage over the standard game that you feel is superior. How is that not cheating?

To beat barbarians, simply build 2-3 chariots. They run all over the place and can kill any barbarian units for the first few thousand years. If you still have too many barbs after that, you didn't expand fast enough.

 

[Rexflex]

It's not cheating to turn barbs off in the game. It is a game option after all, and your score will reflect turning them off.

But it is my preference to leave them on. Barbs are the game's way of saying that you are expanding your empire beyond your military's capability to defend it.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

So it gives you an advantage over the standard game that you feel is superior. How is that not cheating?

To beat barbarians, simply build 2-3 chariots. They run all over the place and can kill any barbarian units for the first few thousand years. If you still have too many barbs after that, you didn't expand fast enough.

So that I feel superior? Bro, I love the game, but I have a life. I don't need a game to make me feel superior, I have bar-chicks for that!

As to the barbs, how is it an advantage to turn them off if all I have to do is build 2 - 3 chariots? Isn't it more of an advantage to have well promoted units early in the game so easily? I don't have decently upgraded units usually until just before A.D. I like to expand at my own speed, thank you very much. I like to have cash in the coffers and have my research at 100%. I find 3 - 4 cities MAX by A.D. is more than enough.

It's a matter of how you play and what's fun to you. It's a game for crying out loud. I find barbs to be annoying, and very NOT-fun. It's my opinion, you keep your barbs on, I'll keep mine off. There we go.

 

[kcbrett5]

So that I feel superior? Bro, I love the game, but I have a life. I don't need a game to make me feel superior, I have bar-chicks for that!

As to the barbs, how is it an advantage to turn them off if all I have to do is build 2 - 3 chariots? Isn't it more of an advantage to have well promoted units early in the game so easily? I don't have decently upgraded units usually until just before A.D. I like to expand at my own speed, thank you very much. I like to have cash in the coffers and have my research at 100%. I find 3 - 4 cities MAX by A.D. is more than enough.

It's a matter of how you play and what's fun to you. It's a game for crying out loud. I find barbs to be annoying, and very NOT-fun. It's my opinion, you keep your barbs on, I'll keep mine off. There we go.

We can agree to disagree but you have to agree to read more carefully.

First, I did not say it makes you feel superior. I said that turning the barbs off gives you a superior advantage. I worded it differently but that is what I said. So please spare me your fish stories about drunken bar conquests. If shallow women pump your ego up, thats your business.

Second, you said yourself it was an advantage to turn barbs off so you can't immediately turn around and argue that it isnt.

you can just enjoy building your armies to fight off the barbs, I'll build my wonders and take over the next door neighbor.

Correct me if I am wrong, but that says that you have the freedom to build more wonders and conquer more land instead of fighting with barbarian nuisances.

Now go back and re-read it until you see that I am right, then make a coherent argument. OK, bro?

 

[BeefontheBone]

I suspect you'll find he meant that he feels superior TO bar chicks. Could be wrong, though.

You've not seen barbs until you've played Raging Barbs in Fall From Heaven 2 - Orthus is a truly scary unit to have popping up near you

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

We can agree to disagree but you have to agree to read more carefully.

First, I did not say it makes you feel superior. I said that turning the barbs off gives you a superior advantage. I worded it differently but that is what I said. So please spare me your fish stories about drunken bar conquests. If shallow women pump your ego up, thats your business.

Second, you said yourself it was an advantage to turn barbs off so you can't immediately turn around and argue that it isnt.

Correct me if I am wrong, but that says that you have the freedom to build more wonders and conquer more land instead of fighting with barbarian nuisances.

Now go back and re-read it until you see that I am right, then make a coherent argument. OK, bro?

We will be going back and forth on this, so my bad for not mind reading. I can only deal with what you said and not what you meant. Okay. Second, my bar conquests have everything to do with this as it points out the existence of a life outside of Civ, which it seems you may not have. It was pointed at your first mis-stated statement. So if you miscommunicated, then you can disregard that statement. Third, I never said it was any more of an advantage, I happen to enjoy building wonders and conquering other civs which is one advantage. You enjoy gaining experience in the early game, which is another type of advanatage.

There's my coherent argument. Now you can get over yourself and get a girlfriend while you're at it.

 

[kcbrett5]

I suspect you'll find he meant that he feels superior TO bar chicks. Could be wrong, though.

Well he certainly will say that now that you planted the idea in his head. But that isn't any better. People who need to put other people down (whether verbally or simply mentally) to feel superior are not really superior at all.

 

[kcbrett5]

We will be going back and forth on this, so my bad for not mind reading. I can only deal with what you said and not what you meant. Okay. Second, my bar conquests have everything to do with this as it points out the existence of a life outside of Civ, which it seems you may not have. It was pointed at your first mis-stated statement. So if you miscommunicated, then you can disregard that statement. Third, I never said it was any more of an advantage, I happen to enjoy building wonders and conquering other civs which is one advantage. You enjoy gaining experience in the early game, which is another type of advanatage.

There's my coherent argument. Now you can get over yourself and get a girlfriend while you're at it.

I didn't realize mind reading was a necessary skill now for figuring out the meaning of words on a page. It was always sentence comprehension when I learned it in the 3rd grade. I mis-stated nothing. I only restated it because you had trouble understanding it in the first place. I was trying to simplify it for you but I guess I didn't simplify it enough as you are still confused.

Please avoid putting down my life as you have no possible way to know the first thing about it. It is not a very effective arguing style to immediately resort to insulting people when you don't feel like addressing what they said. It comes across as inferior. And we already know what a complex you have about that so you should probably avoid it altogether.

It is not a crime to admit that you misread something and were wrong. Its ok. We all know it anyway, its written right on the page. Go ahead, you will feel better.

 

[automator]

So I had a completely different barb experience in a game last night. Again it was me with a big area unavailable to the AI, but this time I had ONE barb warrior come at me in the entire period from 4000BC to 1000AD. And I didn't do anything too different. Just my normal ring of warrior fogbusters and new cities at 1900 and 1200BC. Something is crazy in the barb programing.

 

[Lord of Civ]

hmmm...

Kcbrett5 was trying to mock Blitzkrieg1980 and Blitzkrieg1980 was trying to rile Kcbrett5...


Kcbrett5 >>> V.S. <<< Blitzkrieg1980



Please Stop fighting people! Peace...

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

I didn't realize mind reading was a necessary skill now for figuring out the meaning of words on a page. It was always sentence comprehension when I learned it in the 3rd grade. I mis-stated nothing. I only restated it because you had trouble understanding it in the first place. I was trying to simplify it for you but I guess I didn't simplify it enough as you are still confused.

Please avoid putting down my life as you have no possible way to know the first thing about it. It is not a very effective arguing style to immediately resort to insulting people when you don't feel like addressing what they said. It comes across as inferior. And we already know what a complex you have about that so you should probably avoid it altogether.

It is not a crime to admit that you misread something and were wrong. Its ok. We all know it anyway, its written right on the page. Go ahead, you will feel better.

You know what, I really don't care if I get banned for saying this. You're a real as*hole.

Once again, I don't need this game or these little spats on the game's forums to feel superior or inferior or anything of the sort. It seems, however, that you do. I feel a lot better knowing that I will probably have another "bar conquest" (which I was just joking around with at first, but you took quite seriously)as you put it , and you will be jostling on about this forum to argue such rediculous "points" or whatever. Goodnight and have fun with your life

Oh and Lord_of_Civ... Hey, where did you get those emoticons?

 

[Charles 22]

hmmm...

Kcbrett5 was trying to mock Blitzkrieg1980 and Blitzkrieg1980 was trying to rile Kcbrett5...


Kcbrett5 >>> V.S. <<< Blitzkrieg1980



Please Stop fighting people! Peace...

"Gentlemen you can't fight in here! This is the war room!." - Dr Strangelove