The barbarians are easier in FfH!

[Nefelia]

I find that the barbs are too backward to be a threat. The first 400 turns of my games are dominated by barbarian Goblins and Orc Spearmen, which never really pose a threat.

By the time the higher tiered barbarians prepare, my units are 1-2 tiers higher and have promotions in place to make short work of them.

Two ways to deal with this are:

1) Allow barbarians to build any unit that at least 2 civs have access to

2) Spawn barbarians with promotions as the game progresses, as someone already suggested). Maybe assign random combat-oriented promotions.

Other ideas:

- Barbarian cities start with two immobile archers, regardless of tech progression of other Civs. Barbarian Cities would spawn with 2 Longbowmen once at least ONE Civ learns Bowyers.

- All Barbarian cities have a 5%/turn chance of spawning a Skeleton that would roam about and attack other Civs (Skeletons to be upgraded with Civ tech progression

- Acheron increases the chance of spawning Skeletons by 5%

The above two suggestions would give players incentive to get rid of barbarian cities, but make it much more difficult.

...

Of course, if the AI cannot handle Barbarians as they are now, they will have absolutely no chance of handling tougher Barbs. Increasing the AI's bonus against Barbarians would be a quick fix, but the AI would have to improve its playstyle. In one of my recent games the Mercurians were wiped out as Basium was hunting Barbarians at my border (at least 20 squares away from his closest city).

 

[Sarisin]

I think your last paragraph says it all when it comes to playing a raging barb game. Improving the barbs will just make it EASIER for you to win a Conquest victory as the expansionist AI civs get wiped out one by one.

I guess the way around this would be just play against the barbs, but what fun is in that.

I think the only time the barbs can be problematic is when it is just you and a few other civs, maybe one or more with the BAR trait. Then, they tend to gang up on you sending large stacks of barbs. Even mid-level barbs in stacks of 8-10 can be tough to defeat unless you have tons of defending units - and that really kills your gold in late-game as the maintenance adds up.

I am in yr. 1725 of a marathon game with 6 other civs left. It is rather easy defending my 7 city civ as the other civs are shielding about 60% of my borders. Even with the occasional stack showing up (with a few Tier IV units), they are easily defeated by moving my strongest defenders quickly to intercept them. Having ArchMages helps!

 

[Chandrasekhar]

Making the barbs stronger doesn't necessarily have to kill the AI. Remember that what units the barbs get is based off what units the AI gets. Get the AI to make early axemen, and you'll get early barbarian axemen. The AI should have no problem with this, as they'll also have axemen. Right?

 

[Bad Player]

I liked Kael's thought that perhaps 25% of all civs should die in the early game to barbarians. It makes the world feel more hard core!

 

[Bad Player]

Also it would make the leaders with barb traits more popular (I think they are generally underplayed). I'm thinking of rolling with Malhala instead of Charadon.

 

[marioflag]

I totally agree with Chandrasekhar barbs in FfH2 are too easy to kill and unbalaance a bit the game.
The main problem in my opinion is that promotions have effect doubled, you get xp faster and the limit of xp which you can earn from killing barbs is 100 which is huge.
This create situations highly exploitable because in my gaming experience as soon as you get 3-4 units with 6-7 promotions not only your borders are protected from barbs but you can also unleash your fury on other civilizations.
In all my games i am able to destroy at least 3-4 civilizations with just 3-4 experienced units which is not fun.Barbs also should begin to attack after a certain time also with more powerful units because Orc Spearman as soon as you get Archer or Hunter become obsolete.
XP from barbs should be also capped at 20 or 25 because having 3-4 units which have 80-90 xp can totally destroy everything on your path and AI doesn't seem capable to take advantage of it.
Barbs attacking with more units will make game only more easy IMO because AIs will be crushed soon while your units become experienced easily.

 

[EvilBohdran]

In contrast, I actually enjoy having a handful of powerful units that have been around since the beginning of the game. I usually give cool names like "Duke of the North Wind", and scream in frustration when they die ("lost with 99.9% chance against a goblin,WTH?").

Perhaps if the cap were based on the current turn, like Max_XP = (Turn / 2). Then at turn 200 the limit would its normal 100, but later in the game you could still earn experience from barbs (turn 400 the limit would be 200xp). Scaled by game speed of course.

Another thought would be to have the barb spawn rate start at a very low level initially, but increase (exponentially?) over time. In this senario there would be very little early barbs to defeat, allowing for more rapid expansion, but you'd be in a race to consolidate your position before the spawn rate increase caused you to be overwhelmed by them.

Maybe a barb "golden age" that triggers at random, that triples their spawn rate and allows them to build units one tier higher for the duration. A message like "The barbarian's have found enlightenment, and are coming to share it with you".

 

[Nefelia]

As Sureshot mentioned before, the current XP system is one of the more fun elements of FfH. I'd rather not see it nerfed any time soon, especially when more creative/fun solutions to the Barbarian problem can probably be found.

 

[Sureshot]

ya, i prefer adding multiple new barb heroes and special barbarian situations, those are fun and add challenge.

barbarians add a general pressure, you can deal with it, but if they didnt exist youd be playing a much easier going game.

 

[Rhymes]

Barbs are well blanced as it is right now imo.
They are definitely more problematic then in vanilla civ4 and most other mods I've tried. Of course, like Sarisin keeps mentionning, a good player can easily prevent serious barbarian damage from his civ, but in my point of view, playing civ isn't about defending against barbs, it's a lot more about playing against other civs on the map.
It's cool if barbs become a significant aspect of the game, but not if they become your #1 preocupation for most of the game.

The thing I wouldN,t like about multiple barb heros is it's gonna raise the "luck" factor of the game, especially in multiplayer games. If the 3 early barb heros appear in the same area of the world, it's gonna change the shape of the game until the end and no one coulf have done nothing about it. I like the players to be as much in controle of what's happening as they can.

 

[Nefelia]

Orthus and Acheron are great successes, but it is true that adding more Orthus-like Barbarian heroes may be too much. But I don't see why there couldn't be a few more immobile Barbarian world units like Acheron, but with different roles:

- Lich King can spawn in a city and churn out a skeleton/turn (a real challenge to anyone nearby). Maybe even upgrade them with 2 movement.

- Bob the Lizard could spawn upgraded Lizardmen (4 str).

- Etc, etc.

Maybe they'll have a bonus for those that conquer the city, such as with Acheron. Or maybe just getting rid of the nuisance would be reward enough.

Another more generic suggestion would be to allow normal barbarians to gain XP as adepts do, so that the longer they roam about, the stronger they will get. Apply this to animals as well.

Hmm, so many options.

 

[Chandrasekhar]

The thing I wouldN,t like about multiple barb heros is it's gonna raise the "luck" factor of the game, especially in multiplayer games. If the 3 early barb heros appear in the same area of the world, it's gonna change the shape of the game until the end and no one coulf have done nothing about it. I like the players to be as much in controle of what's happening as they can.

That's my biggest opposition to Sureshot's system. Though I must admit, having some unexpected and massive changes to a game's development can be... interesting. This sounds like a good time for a shameless plug for Sureshot's Svartalfar mod. Look at her sig. Tech tree design significantly helped by me, of course.

 

[Rhymes]

That's my biggest opposition to Sureshot's system. Though I must admit, having some unexpected and massive changes to a game's development can be... interesting. This sounds like a good time for a shameless plug for Sureshot's Svartalfar mod. Look at her sig. Tech tree design significantly helped by me, of course.

You mean "her" as in "girl modder" ??????

 

[Sarisin]

I have to qualify my comments about Conquest Victories being so easy to attain with the AI such that it is vs. barbs.

I am speaking only about Raging Barb games. I think that is where you run into the problem with the AI civs expanding willy-nilly and not thinking about defending.

In a FFH game without the raging barb option selected, I think it works out pretty good. Yes, the barbs can be an early nuisance, but as the world becomes populated as it will (even on huge maps), the barb threat is reduced and you pay more attention to competing with the AI civs.

Also, I think the addition of barrows and ruins have made the early game a bit tougher. Exploring at the higher levels is very tough now with very little payback from the goodie huts.

I think the barbs are fine, but in raging barb games, the AI of other civs needs improvement.

 

[Bad Player]

Orthus and Acheron are great successes, but it is true that adding more Orthus-like Barbarian heroes may be too much. But I don't see why there couldn't be a few more immobile Barbarian world units like Acheron, but with different roles:

- Lich King can spawn in a city and churn out a skeleton/turn (a real challenge to anyone nearby). Maybe even upgrade them with 2 movement.

- Bob the Lizard could spawn upgraded Lizardmen (4 str).

- Etc, etc.

Maybe they'll have a bonus for those that conquer the city, such as with Acheron. Or maybe just getting rid of the nuisance would be reward enough.

Another more generic suggestion would be to allow normal barbarians to gain XP as adepts do, so that the longer they roam about, the stronger they will get. Apply this to animals as well.

Hmm, so many options.

Lizard king!

 

[Sureshot]

That's my biggest opposition to Sureshot's system. Though I must admit, having some unexpected and massive changes to a game's development can be... interesting. This sounds like a good time for a shameless plug for Sureshot's Svartalfar mod. Look at her sig. Tech tree design significantly helped by me, of course.

i gotta say the tech tree changes have helped enormously, the AI all seem to get atleast 1 tier 2 unit before me on Monarch O_o

about the barb heroes, while getting orthus is dangerous, it comes with rewards. i tried to avoid making the additional ones early, and the ones ive added all have positives. 3 of them come when you build a wonder which is a benefit in itself, plus theyre kinda like early Avatar of Wraths you can use to unleash a hell on someone in a gamble since it could be you, 2 of which will kill a city and then stay there pumping out summons usually, 1 of which you get a nice reward if you beat him since he joins you. 1 comes with a project, and killing it gives you something nice.

basically i like the extra historical markers barb heroes create, its usualy good in some ways and gives the barbarians their time to shine, which can't be all the time or the world would be all barbs heh

 

[Gamestation]

I have to qualify my comments about Conquest Victories being so easy to attain with the AI such that it is vs. barbs.

I am speaking only about Raging Barb games. I think that is where you run into the problem with the AI civs expanding willy-nilly and not thinking about defending.

In a FFH game without the raging barb option selected, I think it works out pretty good. Yes, the barbs can be an early nuisance, but as the world becomes populated as it will (even on huge maps), the barb threat is reduced and you pay more attention to competing with the AI civs.

Also, I think the addition of barrows and ruins have made the early game a bit tougher. Exploring at the higher levels is very tough now with very little payback from the goodie huts.

I think the barbs are fine, but in raging barb games, the AI of other civs needs improvement.

Okay, honestly I can't seem to see how raging barb games are messing up the AI. I tried a monarch, raging barbs game and around year 200 there was barely anywhere for the barbs to appear from (checked with worldbuilder because this was a huge map). At that point I don't think the AI is becoming more vulnerable to a conquest victory by the player. For some reason the AI actually builds MORE units when on a raging barbs game and uses search parties to explore (scout + warriors). If anything, I guess the AIs are getting affected by that because for some reason on turn 13, every AI decides to choose the pacifism civic which probably wreaks havoc on their research rate because of all the military units they have running around. Go to war with the AI too early is actually doing them a favor because then they switch to nationhood and can start lowering their unit costs by suiciding.

 

[Unser Giftzwerg]

You mean "her" as in "girl modder" ??????

I'm pretty sure she just modifies Civ, but she could be into gene splicing too.

 

[eerr]

mmm, base xp for barbs, based on the average xp of all the units in the world?

 

[Sarisin]

Okay, honestly I can't seem to see how raging barb games are messing up the AI. I tried a monarch, raging barbs game and around year 200 there was barely anywhere for the barbs to appear from (checked with worldbuilder because this was a huge map). At that point I don't think the AI is becoming more vulnerable to a conquest victory by the player. For some reason the AI actually builds MORE units when on a raging barbs game and uses search parties to explore (scout + warriors). If anything, I guess the AIs are getting affected by that because for some reason on turn 13, every AI decides to choose the pacifism civic which probably wreaks havoc on their research rate because of all the military units they have running around. Go to war with the AI too early is actually doing them a favor because then they switch to nationhood and can start lowering their unit costs by suiciding.

I think it is safe to say in a raging barb game there are more barbs. Yes, how many depends on the size of your map and the number of civs playing.

If you have a huge map with 10-11 civs in the game, I have found you usually have 90 - 100 barbs in the game.

The AI civs who go into the "build settler expansionist mode" rather than research and produce defender mode get creamed by the large number of barbs.

In a non-raging barb game, the expansionist mode works pretty well, although you still might see a civ go down or at least a city or two. I'm not sure how many barbs you get in this game, but I think it would be less.

Less threat equals easy expansion.

That is my point. If you have a threat, in this case numerous raging barbs, you prepare for that threat, not expand. This is where, IMO, the AI doesn't get it.

Again, I still enjoy playing the raging barb games, but if you use the turtle up strategy, you cannot lose.