Should Barbarians be required to be on?

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Hall of Fame Discussion' started by Shillen, Jan 9, 2006.

?

Should Barbarians be required to be on?

  1. Yes. Playing without barbarians takes a major strategic element out of the game.

    81 vote(s)
    51.9%
  2. No, it should be the player's choice.

    75 vote(s)
    48.1%
  1. Shillen

    Shillen Deity

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2003
    Messages:
    2,122
    Location:
    MA

    It should be set to turn, not date. The dates between game speeds do not correlate to how far into the game you are whatsoever. Take a look at DaveMcW's graph in the beta gauntlet 3 thread for evidence. Now I'm not saying they should show up on the same turn number, but they should show up on the same % of game completed. I don't know how to convert your dates to turn numbers so I can't say if that's the case or not myself.

    As for the technology issue, the barbs do not have the most up to date techonology. The only time that may be the case is when they have axemen. But that's not unrealistic at all. It doesn't take a smart man to wield an axe. I have never seen a barbarian tank. Also, in a normal game there will be no barbarians left once you're halfway through the game and the entire world is settled, just like the planet earth. If you conquer the world and leave just one other civ and lots of unsettled land, I can make some very valid and realistic arguments for there being a lot of barbarians.
     
  2. Moonsinger

    Moonsinger Settler Retired Moderator

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2002
    Messages:
    4,374
    Location:
    Iowa
    True! Even a monkey can wield an axe. However, it does take a smart man to mine the raw materical (such as copper or iron), then to forge those raw matterial into an axe. I don't know about you but I have never seen a barb's mine before. Where on earth did the barbs get their raw material from?

    May be you should check out this thread:
    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=153891

    Although they don't have steath bomber, tank, or battleship, they do have a lot of powerful unit. If you are playing at Deity, the barbs usually have riffleman before you have yours.
     
  3. Svar

    Svar King

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    615
    Location:
    China Lake, Ca

    When any people behave like the Civ 4 barbarians, which is don't trust anyone and either run from or attack strangers there is no chance for any exchange of information. That is why there are still 'uncivilized' people left on Earth. They either run from or attack strangers and are still in the stone ages. The Auca from Equador still use wooden spears on people and blow guns for small game but these are very primative people and will attack strangers much like the Civ 4 barbarians. Any stone age people that would peacefully trade with invading cultures quickly learned their technology. That is what happened with the American indians. That doesn't mean that the former stone age people don't get angry at times and attack the invading culture. That happened all the time but if all a stone age people are going to do is attack and ask questions later they stay in the stone ages.
     
  4. Svar

    Svar King

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2003
    Messages:
    615
    Location:
    China Lake, Ca
    I'll have to go back to convert the turn numbers but what I think I'll find is that on turn 7 animals can show up. It doesn't matter if there are 1200, 660, 460, or 320 turns total. I looked at the huge world dates and 1750 BC for marathon is turn 125 out of 1200 so 10.42% of the game has been played. Turn 840 BC for epic is turn 98 out of 660 so 14.85% of the game is complete. Turn 625 BC for normal is turn 90 out of 460 so 19.57% of the game is complete. It looks like they tried to adjust it but why they didn't do the same thing that they did for building and researching is beyond me. I think it needs to be fixed. If archers should show up at 19.57% of game complete then the marathon game would have them showing up on turn 234 instead of turn 125.
     
  5. Chris105

    Chris105 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    Messages:
    21
    Location:
    Woburn, MA
    This just isn't correct. Moonsinger dominates the deity table right now and she plays with barbs on. Forcing barbs on just creates one more advantage for military style vs. management style and right now military style already has way too many advantages on higher levels. If you really want to be restricted in your choices force barbs on and watch every slot fill up with Praet rush games.
     
  6. jesusin

    jesusin Ant GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2005
    Messages:
    4,135
    Location:
    Madrid
    When I understood that barbs off meant animals off, I started to send settlers and workers unescorted. It was a very sad thing to do, I prefer to force them.
     
  7. Pentium

    Pentium Digital Matter

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2004
    Messages:
    2,673
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Ljubljana, Slovenia
    First, it's Moonsinger, and second, it's a she.;)

    But I agree with your point. If you try to go extreme science or cultural way, you'll get overrun by barbs. So you build military, and while you already have military, why not use them on your neighbours when the barbs are not a threat anymore? And that really favours Conquest and Domination victories.
     
  8. Chris105

    Chris105 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2005
    Messages:
    21
    Location:
    Woburn, MA
    Ooops. :) Just went and fixed that. And damn, that's means I'm getting beat by a girl! :blush:
     
  9. superslug

    superslug Still hatin' on Khan Moderator Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Messages:
    11,374
    Location:
    The Farm
    Well at least you've got something in common with the rest of us. :D Have you ever looked at the III Hall of Fame and the Quartermaster's Challenge? She practically danced on the heads of everyone in one big cerebral conga dance...

    EDIT: And she's not a girl. She's a goddess.
     
  10. nano2

    nano2 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 13, 2006
    Messages:
    11
    I voted for barbarians, even though i am a peaceful player(usually). I am somewhat dissappointed because unless I set the game to raging barbarians I don't get that many
     
  11. mandrian

    mandrian Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 22, 2006
    Messages:
    5
    imo its called Hall of Fame! only the best should get a place there, dont they?
    barbs should be turned on anytime. it makes the game harder and requires a different strategie. turn em on. always.

    i also think there should be some more rules regarding settings in games like:
    No City Razing Any
    No City Flipping From Culture OFF
    City Flipping after Conquest ON
    No Barbarians OFF
    Raging Barbarians ON
    Aggressive AI ON
    Random Personalities OFF
    No Technology OFF
    Permanent Alliances OFF
    Always War ON
    Always Peace OFF
    One-City Challenge MAYBE (for duel size ON)
    Permanent War or Peace OFF
    New Random Seed on Reload (1.52 only) OFF
    No Cheating (1.52 only) ON

    just my 5 cent
     
  12. Kalleyao

    Kalleyao Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    483
    Location:
    Europe
    I vote no. It should be the player's choice. If turning them on support your strategy do that, if turning them off support your strategy do that.
     
  13. Shadowsong

    Shadowsong Rumour

    Joined:
    Jan 16, 2006
    Messages:
    147
    Location:
    Earth
    Yep I agree. :agree:
     
  14. Kalleyao

    Kalleyao Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2006
    Messages:
    483
    Location:
    Europe
    Seems like it paid off. Barbarians will be the player's choice in permanent hall OF.
     
  15. superslug

    superslug Still hatin' on Khan Moderator Hall of Fame Staff

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2003
    Messages:
    11,374
    Location:
    The Farm
    I think the issue was debated heavier in public than amongst the staff, which is somewhat unusual. :lol:

    I do understand the idea that requiring barbarians makes games achieve more respect and status, but we try to formulate rules that forment a fair yet fun environment. Mandating barbs didn't really seem like it was needed in order to ensure a level playing field, yet would perhaps hurt the fun element.

    On the other hand, having barbarians enabled will result in extra points and standing in the Quatromaster's Challenge, so there is a bit of compromise on the subject. :D
     
  16. unhealthyman

    unhealthyman Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 20, 2006
    Messages:
    24
    Well, its irrelevant really. If its decided they should be on, then fair play, that makes sense, but equally, if its decided they can be off... then theres also benefits and disadvantages from that as well... If the official rule of the HOF is that barbs must be on, then theres no area to complain - thats just the rules. But until that is the case, then its totally up to the individual - its just different play styles.
     
  17. JungleIII

    JungleIII Master

    Joined:
    May 14, 2006
    Messages:
    370
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Minyama, Queensland - Australia
    I have to go with the "not forced on" theme...

    They are very usefull for certain types of games, but nice to not have them for other types, and if you don't know how to utilise them then that's your loss if you always turn them off.

    The player should have the choice - not dictated as so many other issues are.
     
  18. Asake

    Asake Chieftain

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2006
    Messages:
    11
    I'm for off for a simple reason: I've just been attacked by a stack of 5 Archers and 7 Axemen in a Settler game on Marathon. I hadn't even selected raging barbarians. :confused: Those barbarians are stronger than all of my opponents together and don't even bother to attack them for a change. Something is terribly wrong with those guys.
     
  19. theimmortal1

    theimmortal1 Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 25, 2006
    Messages:
    539
    This one is easy for me. For MP and HOF games barbs must be turned off. This is because we are playing against humans, not the AI. In other words, we all can minipulate a map to get the best start we can, but theres no way we can know if we are in in the middle of a barb stronghold. Just look at the Earth map, some civs have tons of barbs have none. I'd hate to play a better HOF than someone, but lose on points because he had 5x less barbs than I had. Barbs off levels the playing field.

    If you are playing for personal enjoyment, then barbs shoudl be on.
     
  20. godotnut

    godotnut Inverted Unicycle

    Joined:
    Oct 26, 2005
    Messages:
    477
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Brooklyn, NY
    Players' choice.

    The deck is already stacked way, way in favor of aggressive strategies. Already, it is utterly impossible for a peaceful builder to compete in score or fastest finish time in relation to aggressive games. Forcing all of us to play with barbarians on just further loads the deck for aggressive strategies. And when Warlords get released, I have a feeling the deck will be stacked that way even further.

    Plus, the GOTMs are all already "barbarians on." This balances things a little and preserves a place for "no barbarians" games.

    Would I would be in favor of -- and what I propose as a compromise -- is more Gauntlets that require "babarians on" -- and even "raging barbarians." That would add some cool variety. But HOF should remain players' discretion.
     

Share This Page