The No Barbarians Club

[DripInc.]

SOOOOO if you read below, my attempt at justifying my lame playing style by creating a club has been met with a general consensus. Instead, I encourage you to go here, where perhaps we can learn how to play this game in a more dignified fashion.

 

[xenex]

It seems kind of boring to be honest.

I mean a exact same game but just without barbs doesn't seem different enough to warrant a whole "stragety"

Now if the game was for example a isolated start for everyone (everyone has their own continet/island) and always war, it might be interesting.

Simply playing without barbs makes the game too easy, way too easy to expand, no need for escorts and not caring where your worker of settler is walking, not just for the player but also for the AI if you just have free reign on where to move expansion becomes easy and the AI for one will go crazy with that.

Or maybe instead of isolated a very cramp pangea map with no barbs and always war, that way you dont have to worry about barbs but cant just send your settler 20 tiles away without escort.

 

[Cam_H]

Cross-post with xenex

Best of luck with the series. I'd just kick off a game and see what happens.

I always play with Barbarians on, so don't have much anecdotal observations to offer, but it would seem that tribes that start with Hunting (Scout) and traits conducive to rapid expansion (REX) would be more favourable here when compared to regular starts. Catherine (Hunting, Imperialistic, Creative) to me stands out as a well suited choice, but Joao and Cyrus are others that would flourish in a Barb-free environment.

I do worry for the series, that after 150 turns the games become 'generic' civ games ... that doesn't really help with your other issue, in that you abandon games in the Industrial Age, indicating to me that you haven't chosen a victory condition to aim for.

 

[Ataxerxes]

I'd have to agree. I like the game with Barbs. Admittedly I'm a fan of the Great Wall, but only partially for the barbs. It would be boring without them. They provide free XP's and gold from getting their cities. They actually seem to place their cities better than the other Civs so I often keep their cities - better more military than another settler if you get a city either way.

You bring up a point, however. I wonder how many play with Barbs off. I don't think many do.

 

[DripInc.]

The general idea (I suppose I should've added in the original post, but it seemed to be getting a tad lengthy) is to do a few things:

1. Show good REXing strategies, without barbs means civs will expand faster.
2. The game is easier without barbs, so people can play higher difficulty levels and try to get a better sense of the advanced AI's expansion without the hassle of barbs.
3. Play higher levels and test your REXing skills against other REXing AI.

I dunno, might not seem any more tantalizing, but...whatever.

 

[Hodory]

I think a large part of REXing has to do with your ability to deal with the barbarians while expanding and developing your empire. I think that barbarians play a large role that turning them off completely makes the game meaningless.

It is still your choice though. Post a thread with your starting save, play a set of turns, and post what you did while you played. You never know until you actually start one yourself.

 

[MikNuggetz]

for me it's satisfying to settle a new city, and have waves of barbs attack your city, only to hold off wave after wave by quickly whipping archers and whatnot. Only to have them eventually stop. I feel a sense of pride, playing without barbs would be a completely different experience for me. But, I suppose I could try it.

 

[ABCDPuppies]

Truthfully, I tend to agree with those who are skeptical that "no barbs" represents a really distinctive type of game. But I'll try anything once .

 

[lymond]

I see no point in this really and don't see it adding any value, but do what you will. I think the game was meant to be played with barbs and I refuse to play without them. They are easy to deal with (unless you change settings) and force you to build units that you should be building anyway. Plus, they give your units experience. Playing with or without them would not dramatically change my expansion plans either.

I think your comment about "historically incorrect" is a bit off-base. Unless you explain that thinking further, just make the comment in a vacuum as a supportive point doesn't seem to work and there were many more tribes in history than just Goths or Huns.

 

[Zx Zero Zx]

No Barbs make the game a whole lot easier. They add a lot of depth and strategy to the game by having to worry about them. I only play with them off on low level HoF games where the difficulty level is already so low that they are just a hinder of good times.

 

[i_imperator]

Barbs are XP huts,they can help you get HE on Monarch+ and they are not that bad if you know how to fogbust. You don't even need GW.

 

[plasmacannon]

Barbs are XP huts,they can help you get HE on Monarch+ and they are not that bad if you know how to fogbust. You don't even need GW.

Great Wall is still good for the Great Spy it generates, and the +100% Great General points within cutlural borders.
Especially, if your leader is IMP, like Augustus.

About No Barbs, yea, that would make the game easier. IMP leaders could create settlers and send them out without protection.
Now, if the game was Always War, maybe, they wouldn't be needed, but, then again, I like them there too, especially, Raging Barbs.

 

[Clam Spammer]

If you want a different game experience without barbs, how about No Barbs + Always Peace? With those settings, you can leave cities, workers and settlers undefended with no risk at all. Maybe you could use these settings to get an advantage over the AI (since they still build military), and use other settings or difficult maps to compensate?

 

[CivMonger]

I normally play with barbs on, but after a couple rainforest maps where I was looking at 1 axeman and 1 spearman appearing every three turns on my borders, for about 20 turns, I opted for a barb-free next game.

When you have 3 cities, no production, and HUGE multitudes of barbarians, its nice to have a game where you don't lose a settler in the jungle because it only has 3 archers protecting it.

 

[plasmacannon]

I normally play with barbs on, but after a couple rainforest maps where I was looking at 1 axeman and 1 spearman appearing every three turns on my borders, for about 20 turns, I opted for a barb-free next game.

When you have 3 cities, no production, and HUGE multitudes of barbarians, its nice to have a game where you don't lose a settler in the jungle because it only has 3 archers protecting it.

Try it again with an empire good at Barb control, such as:
Malinese, Babylonians, Native Americans, Persia (vs archers and axemen), PRO lead empires.
Or build the Great Wall and let the AIs deal with the Barbs.

 

[NetGear]

Pros of no barb:
-its less random.

Cons
-rexing madly has no counter balance.
-don't get rewarded by playing smartly, fogbusting etc.
-gwall is practically useless.

I used to play with no barbs more often, because I didn't like the randomness, but I've learned that as long as you play smartly by fogbusting/getting great wall, it should minimize its effect on you, while it does a decent job of keeping ai occupied for awhile. So its alright by me.

 

[CivMonger]

I find it a good change of pace from time to time. I find running with no barbs far less of an advantage than running with raging barbs and rushing for the great wall.

But as for being a protective civ, ick. least favourite trait.

 

[plasmacannon]

...
But as for being a protective civ, ick. least favourite trait.

If you play "Random" civs, sometimes they come up, and it's best to know what to do with what you have been given.

With them, I'm confident to run up to Monty, build a new city on a hill, and stack it with PRO archers, and let him go splat on my great defenses, while, I gain the xp for further promos.
Especially, when, I have built that wall twice as fast.
He's toast, when, I'm Gilgamesh, Charlemange, Sitting Bull, Wang Kon or China.

 

[xenex]

He's toast, when, I'm ... Sitting Bull, ...

You cheater.