Should we have the barb "classification" ?

[poom3619]

In previous civ game. Barb alway consider as "barb". Barb is Black civ which is having nothing to do except destroy any civ in sight. But I think the barb should divide by ethic. The distant space or distant landmass make barb in west side are differ from the east.

I think we should making them. Bigger, Stronger force. But barb city should act like separated tribe. They kill each other 'till we come. We can either ally them and then annex or destroy them. And Firaxis could make 6 more leader, each with 2 different costume, So we could feel like negotiate with AI civ. Ethic Barb as I think is:

1. European Barb. Combition of Goth and Viking
Colour: Navy.
Unit: Berserker or something like that.
Like to fight for prosper land.
Stronger when razing building, town.

2. American Barb. American Native.
Colour: Brown
Unit: Blowgunner.
Like to joining force when threatened.
Can capture and slaving enemies.

3.1. Asian Barb #1. Tibetan
Colour: Dark Gray.
Unit: Nothing
Like to make allies.
Stronger economy with many allies.

or

3.2 Asian Barb #2. Mongol tribe
Colour. yellowish-brown
Unit: Keshik?
Like to fight for prosper land by cavalry.
Stronger when razing building, town.

4.Sub-Saharan tribe.
Colour. yellow-black
Unit: Err.. Zulu Spearman?
Like to joining force when threatened.
Get food production bonus.

5. Sahara or Mid-east barb.
Colour. golden-black
Unit: Saracen or something like that.
Like to fight in unity.
Get double golds from raiding road.

6.Pirate. (FfH 2 Lanun's Theme could fit)
Colour: Black
Unit: Get an name for every ship built.
Like to attack naval transport.
Double experiences from fighting.

Comment please.

 

[Ahriman]

Barbarians are barbarians. If you can negotiate with them, have them advance in tech, have them unique bonuses, or have them fight with each other, then they're a civilization (or a city state).

Barbarians need to remain as a military threat, and not much else.

 

[cccv]

I think we should making them. Bigger, Stronger force. But barb city should act like separated tribe. They kill each other 'till we come. We can either ally them and then annex or destroy them. And Firaxis could make 6 more leader, each with 2 different costume, So we could feel like negotiate with AI civ. Ethic Barb as I think is:

They're already doing something like that, it's called city-states.

The unique flavors of barbs (to go along with the unique art for different continents) is almost a good idea, but that would randomly put the civs near a warlike barb at a disadvantage in early game.

 

[Xzylvador]

Wait, I voted no but now I'm not sure if I voted "no, leave them as they were" or "no, don't leave them as they were".
So what I wanted to vote was: leave barbs be barbs. Otherwise they'd be civs.
There are some great mods that make it so barbs can turn into civs if you don't wipe 'em out quickly though, great fun to play.

 

[awesome]

i wouldn't mind it if the city-states had a unique unit, i guess. i'm just wondering what you mean by "stronger when razing"?

 

[Ahriman]

i wouldn't mind it if the city-states had a unique unit, i guess

I'd be very surprised if this wasn't the case, particularly for the more militaristic ones. I think half the point of militaristic city states is to let their allies recruit their UU.

 

[need my speed]

Well, I'm almost sure they won't have unique units, because we would have heard of that in my opinion.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I like barbs, but you're describing city states more or less. Barbarians shouldn't represent minor civilizations, they should represent the roaming hordes that disrupt empires. Think Vandals sacking Rome. Granted, these tribes settled down, but they came to people's attention when they were in the attacking stage.

What I would argue for is bringing back the Civ2 barbs. They appear on the map, they cause havoc, and they're then hopefully defeated. I would argue they shouldn't even have cities unless they take a city. They also shouldn't really advance on the tech tree. They're an ancient nuisance, not a modern one.

EDIT: Piracy should also exist. Especially with free naval transports, they need to force you to build an escort if you want a naval invasion.

 

[Ahriman]

I thought they had said something like; if you ally with a city state they can give you access to special units? Or something like that.

Maybe I misremember and it was just "and they might give you units".

 

[need my speed]

Well, perhaps they indeed said 'special', although I thought they didn't, but I will have to recheck that sometime...

 

[awesome]

I like barbs, but you're describing city states more or less. Barbarians shouldn't represent minor civilizations, they should represent the roaming hordes that disrupt empires. Think Vandals sacking Rome. Granted, these tribes settled down, but they came to people's attention when they were in the attacking stage.

What I would argue for is bringing back the Civ2 barbs. They appear on the map, they cause havoc, and they're then hopefully defeated. I would argue they shouldn't even have cities unless they take a city. They also shouldn't really advance on the tech tree. They're an ancient nuisance, not a modern one.

EDIT: Piracy should also exist. Especially with free naval transports, they need to force you to build an escort if you want a naval invasion.

i'd say we still have barbarians today, it's just that they're more technologically advanced than the ancient barbarians, just like almost everybody else.

 

[Schuesseled]

My guess is that barbs are out and angry city-states are in. But i don't know, don't much care either way, barbs are both cool and annoying.

 

[PeterWimsey]

i'd say we still have barbarians today, it's just that they're more technologically advanced than the ancient barbarians, just like almost everybody else.

That's right - anyplace with a weakened government is likely to have "barbarians" even today, although we typically call them "warlords." This is the case in Somalia - and even Pancho Villa might be a good example of a barbarian raid on the 20th C. US.

 

[Louis XXIV]

i'd say we still have barbarians today, it's just that they're more technologically advanced than the ancient barbarians, just like almost everybody else.

We have groups that could be represented by barbarians, perhaps, but they aren't the same thing as the migrating populations of the past. Piracy, yes. Groups taking actions not sanctioned by an organized state, yes. The closest thing we have to barbarians are refugees and illegal immigrants, imo.

 

[cccv]

My guess is that barbs are out and angry city-states are in. But i don't know, don't much care either way, barbs are both cool and annoying.

City States are said not to expand beyond one city, so I doubt even the militaristic city states will be attacking your cities. Plus there'd have to be a militaristic city state on every continent if that were the idea, otherwise only a few civs in each game would have to put up with them. We haven't heard anything about barbs yet, but city states don't seem to be a replacement for them.

 

[Schuesseled]

City States are said not to expand beyond one city, so I doubt even the militaristic city states will be attacking your cities. Plus there'd have to be a militaristic city state on every continent if that were the idea, otherwise only a few civs in each game would have to put up with them. We haven't heard anything about barbs yet, but city states don't seem to be a replacement for them.

raising isn't expanding. They could raise a city or two or three to infinity and become a real pain in the bum.