Some thoughts about the barbarian setting

[morchuflex]

Hello.

I hate the whole barbarians concept, at least as it stands in Civ3. While it may seem realistic, it just turns out to add randomness to the game, and I dislike randomness.
So, I was very happy when C3C added the possibility to completely put them off the game.
But... after playing for a while, I started to wonder why expansionistic civs so often sucked in my games. And I realized removing barbarians was very unfair to them, since the best part of this trait is not the scout in itself, but the ability to pop a couple techs and maybe an additional settler early in the game.
So, I reinstated barbarians...
But now, I'm wondering about what level of barb activity to select.
More barbarians, in a way, could favor the human player, because humans are better when it comes to military tactics.
However, I've read that, on advanced levels, the AI has a great RNG advantage against barbs. And indeed, I still have to see an AI civ losing even one unit to barbs... Furthermore, since the AI gets tons of extra, support-free units at the beginning, it seems unlikely that even "raging hordes" will ever pose a real threat to them. Not true for humans!

So, what do you think is fair?

 

[budweiser]

I wonder the same thing myself. I've been playing on demi-god and I see the ai stacks seeking out and destroying barbs all the time. I'm sure they benefit from the extra 25gp per hut. It must help them afford tech trades. Pretty soon, after I get a bit better I am going to try and send out a warrior and archer of my to try and score some quick cash and upgrades. I think a militaristic civ can prosper here. But, I often get burned more times than not when a barb horse picks off a worker or manages to ransack one of my new cities. More barbs make spearmen more important and slow your growth a bit. I'm always trying to get as much land in the opening as I can with as few warriors as I can manage. I guess the answer is to play with as many barbs as you can stand until you can tolerate the highest setting. That should hinder you and help the ai.

 

[IbnSina]

I play with barbs set on "roaming". Higher settings hurt too much and drive me crazy, and lower settings don't provide enough interest. ... and I -have- seen AI warriors lose to barbarians, but not as often as I do. I don't know whether they get a break on the RNG, but the point about all their extra units is well taken.

 

[rajwhitehall]

I agree with you - more barb activity adds more randomness, and realism.

I like as much realism as I can get ( which isn't much! ) so set it to raging hordes every time. It forces me to think first about security. It adds some real tension when getting the barbarian activity message - will this be an attilla the hun style wave of barbarians?

I also like THIS KIND of randomness. The thought of a world that is less in your control, where the wildest things can happen unexpectedly, appeals to me. There is additional skill required making sure you are prepared for them.

Yea, it sucks when your army is off attacking the Persians and some heretofore insignificant tribe explodes and pillages your cities, but that happened all the time throughout history.

 

[morchuflex]

I checked the editor, and it tells nothing, apparently, about rigging the RNG in favor of the AI against barbs. My mistake.
But, the AI DOES get a huge bonus to help getting rid of barbarians: on emperor level, the one I'm playing on, AI civs start the game with 4 additional defensive units and 2 offensive units. They are also granted an overall 8 unit support and 2 more per city... Considering these advantages, it would take no less than Attila and Genghis Khan together to intimidate them!

As for realism, I'd tend to agree. But as we all know, realism doesn't always mean good gameplay. On higher levels, You are fighting against so unfair odds that you really don't want to add in a barbarian threat that will only affect you!

 

[punkbass2000]

The AI always fights barbs at the Regent bonus. IIRC 200%, but I could be wrong.

 

[rajwhitehall]

...As for realism, I'd tend to agree. But as we all know, realism doesn't always mean good gameplay. On higher levels, You are fighting against so unfair odds that you really don't want to add in a barbarian threat that will only affect you!

I have only played up to Monarch so far. If I ever advance to a higher difficulty, I could change my tune.

 

[dgfred]

I play with barbs set on "roaming". Higher settings hurt too much and drive me crazy, and lower settings don't provide enough interest. ... and I -have- seen AI warriors lose to barbarians, but not as often as I do. I don't know whether they get a break on the RNG, but the point about all their extra units is well taken.

Same here Ibn! The problem I have is not the barbarians themselves but
the tendency for them to show up at the worst possible time and place . It seems to me that the barbarians pop up at that certain unseen and unprotected place as if they can 'see' the whole map much as
the AI civs do , and 'know' the area is weakly protected. Raging, etc..
can produce 18+ horseman at your doorstep , makes me furious.

 

[IbnSina]

Yeah, I hadn't thought about that, but that's -another- advantage the AIs have with respect to barbs: they can see them from far away, and maneuver toward or away from them. Aargh!

 

[The Last Conformist]

I always play with them as raging. They usually achieve diddly squat.

 

[morchuflex]

They usually achieve diddly squat.

Uh? Would you be so nice as to translate that in standard English?

 

[Tomoyo]

Diddly squat = Jack

 

[punkbass2000]

= nothing much = something of little value = are harmless, in this context.

 

[morchuflex]

Thanks!
I always have a hard time with slang. In French schools, they'd rather teach you Shakespearian English than everyday's colloquial American expressions...

 

[Tomoyo]

I would hardly call jack diddly squat a colloquial expression...

 

[Desertsnow]

I usually play with the barbarians set to Roaming or Restless. Less than that is too quiet and really unrealistic, and I still think Raging barbies can overwhelm a n00b like myself.

 

[BasketCase]

More barbarians means more targets on which your soldiers can practice in order to promote. No leaders, admittedly, but the practice fights leave you with a large number of elite troopers ready to spawn leaders the minute another civ decides to go to war with you.

I usually play with barbarians on "raging", and have only rarely had them screw up my game.

The problem with barbarians in Civ3 is that they don't advance with the passing ages, as they did in Civ1. Partway through the Medieval Age, barbarians cease to be any kind of threat.

 

[morchuflex]

BC,

I'm not sure the advantage you mention sets off the disadvantage of a slower expansion. You have to escort your settlers with, at least, spearmen, for them to be safe. This is immensely detrimental on higher levels. Furthermore, being elite hardly improves the performance of outdated troops. If you start the game with warrior code or get it through an early trade, it may be good: getting a handful of elite archers can indeed make a difference in a subsequent war. But in my XP, the prize isn't worth such a hazardous game, especially for non-militaristic civs.

 

[punkbass2000]

Nah, they don't need escorts if you scout reasonably well. I usually play Restless/Raging at DG+ and, as BC says, rarely have them mess up my game in any way. The worst, I find, is they pillage a border city that is nearly done its Temple or Courthouse.

 

[Desertsnow]

That's another reason I like to have at least some barbarians (restless, at least)--promotion opportunities, so I can be ready to take on the other civs' armies, if I have to.