Do you guys think it would be "cool" to have Barbarians in Civ 5 operate the way they use too, in say Civ 4, where they actually were a civilization to a certain extent. They could have there own cities and build improvements, basically operating the same way a normal civ does.
If you choose No/Yes but would like changes, feel free to post the changes you wish to be made.
From the other thread.Originally Posted by PhailRaptor
Awesome as it was in one Old World Start Civ4 game to find that a barbarian city had built the Colossus... I don't really think it's worth changing Civ5's mechanics to that degree. You're still free to pummel the lower-tech natives of an overseas continent, they just have colors other than red on black.
On the other hand, I'm not saying there's no room to spice things up. For instance, someone elsewhere brought up the idea of bribing the barbarians to go after someone else.
It wouldn't be too bad actually. I wouldn't mind.
Well they didint have citystates in civ 4 either, feels a bit redundant to have boath.
Well, I half-seriously suggested that we just make barbarians playable in some way. That's we seem to be going for with the likes of the Huns and some of the other "horde" civ's that get suggested around here.
I think that currently the best change would be for barbarians to again be able to create a city, but maybe only one at a time per specific area, it just got too annoying conquering a continent and the looking to the one small area of land with fog of war on it to find about 10 barb aria city states! (personal experience)
I myself actually voted no, but would like some changes. I probably should have put changes/additions instead however. I just wanted to spark up a conversation and see if Firaxis would take any suggestions into consideration cause to me, they seem a little bland at the moment.
What I actually had in mind is that barbarians were separated into tribes. How many Tribes would probably depend on how many players (say 1 tribe per 3 players) In which each Tribe has it's own capital city that are all independent and would function in how a city-state would minus the influence.
Of course in addition (considering they are at war with everyone, including the other tribes as well) there workers would go and build camps which would function in the way they do now but I was also thinking that maybe they could have a little bit of strength/health to buff them up a bit. All they will be capable of doing is periodically spawning military units.
Was also considering that you can pay off a tribe in which you have two options, they stop attacking you for X amount of turns, or you bribe them to attack another Tribe/Civ/CS that may be giving you problems. Given the new espionage system, you can also spy on these tribes. Civ B may hire Tribe A to attack Civ D, you have the choice to tell Civ D if you so wish and to make having a spy in a tribe a bit more worth while, a spy would reduce the cost of bribing by X% depending on their level.
What about, after a few turns, depending on speed, a barbarian that's been hidden for long enough can found a city that can be captured or razed? that way, exploring new continents on maps like Terra could be more risky. Their civ would progress technologically much slower but would only ever be one or two eras behind the average. Barbarian cities would have one third of the defence of normal cities but would produce units slightly faster. You'd also receive a lot of gold for taking them. I feel it would give the feeling of conquering natives that you get in games like Paradox's.
Civ V's barbarians are a pretty useless bunch at the moment. There are a small number of things that they could do to improve them in a patch. First, it would be good if Archers in a camp were able to perform some sort of area fire, like a city can. Or to give the barbarian camp some sort of area fire, again, like a city has. Then, I'd have them spawn units faster than they currently are so that their nuisance value is significantly increased. At the moment, they are only good for pillaging improvements and killing a scout unit that ends its move too close to one. I'd also give them more strength as well. And lastly, I'd eliminate the combat bonus for fighting against barbarians from Prince level onwards. That would give them a bit more power.
Ideally, I'd like to see them become civilizations in their own right if left unchecked. Perhaps they could generate a Great General, or something, that would unite them? The Barbarians already have names so they could use that name when they 'ascended' to Civ status.
So, barbarians should found cities, construct buildings, perform, and basically do everything that a civlization does? Isn't the point of a barbarian supposed to be that they're not civilized?
"Me go to Gork University. Me study nuclear physics so me build uh-tom-muk-bom to blow you up!"
Warhammer 40k Orks? xD
I'd like to be able to pay barbarians into not attacking me, or pay them more to attack someone else...This would be pretty cool, and historically accurate!
Barbarians, as they are, are...ineffectual at best. They serve to bolster the ranks of Germany and Turkey, and fuel the cultural fires of the Aztecs. Past that, they are hardly a threat. Barbarians rarely ever venture into someone's territory and even when they do, they cause very little trouble. At least ramping up the aggressiveness on the barbarians so they actually pose some semblance of a threat would make things a lot more interesting.
The IV barbarians having cities was admittedly cool and it did give some incentive to take them down, but it was a tad unrealistic. Hawk's idea of being able to barter peace or harassing other people would be a nice touch. Or supplying them with weapons to wreak havoc with.
That sound like an interesting idea actually, although I'm not entirely sure as to how that would work? What I'm thinking of is say the nearby barbs have lots of warriors, and you want them to do some damage, or slow up the progress, or assist you in invading, a nearby civ. You could sell upgrades so their warriors are spearman or higher, and in exchange (the price) they would do what you asked (pillage, invade, capture workers/settlers, or just provide you with some gold)...I think this would spice up barbarian interactions, but then again what if everyone traded upgrades with the barbs? Their could be some consequences. Was that what you had in mind?
If we're all in agreement, we could work on this idea to make sure it's balanced and would work well in the game...And improve gameplay!
Interesting that you say that, because some folks think they're an extreme hassle, given the rapidity with which they can spawn and their penchant for stealing workers and settlers. You must like producing warrior units.
Personally, I think they work pretty well as-is. They encourage some military build-up and create some action that otherwise might not happen in the early game, where AI civ's tend to be passively building infrastructure. I don't really think the point of barbarians is for them to pose a game-breaking threat.
Well, there have been times in history where barbarians very much were a "game breaking" threat. The Visigoths sacking Rome, the Huns rising up from Hungary, Mongolia taking over the world. Maybe adding in a periodic barbarian uprising would liven the game a bit.
Well, apparently neither the Mongolians nor the Huns are actually barbarians. They're plain ol' civ's. Needless to say, Civ doesn't recreate all history with any great accuracy.
At any rate, if you want barbarians-a-go-go, there's a setting for that too.
yes with a 'few' changes!
Mixing a number of the ideas I came up with this for 'barbarians-a-go-go mode':
Let barbarian camps spawn barbarian settlers (I personally don't like the idea of the AI simply creating barbarian cities, just a game thing for me). Barbarians settle cities in less food friendly but potentially strategic resource rich locations (Barbarian cities don't need food!).
Barbarian city names, why not use the Hun solution.
A barbarian city has a monument by default so its cultural borders grow (essential). Barbarian cities do not produce any other buildings.
Barbarian cities spawn military units, (much faster than in vanilla in raging barbarian mode), and a spawn 'BG's' randomly. Barbarian cities have city defence capability, city strength needs ideas, I see a default base number modified by the usual terrain modifiers.
The AI for Barbarian city armies should be different to camp barbarians. I.e. they do not randomly wander about on city hexes to frustrate production, steal workers and pillage improvement, but scripted to produce armies specifically to defend its city or attack and raise any Civ city settled 'near' them, attacking in groups with BG's (and BA's in G&K).
A Civ that sends an army to take a barbarian city and succeeds would have the 'Raze, Puppet, Annex' choice. Raze at your own risk of not then having a pre-made city with expanded borders in say a potentially oil rich area of tundra or snow! A puppet barbarian city will produce military units and GG's for you (nice), or annex the city. Only annexed cities need food. Puppet cities have no pop (no pop happiness issue) but produce units as scripted for the barbarian city (can not be turned off!). An annex city would have default start pop of one.
Trade with barbarian cities (extortion and blood money). Pay barbarian city not to attack your cities. Unfriendly barbarians mass on your boards then demand payment. Default angry barbarians attack first. 'Friendly' barbarians, the ones you are paying to leave you alone, can be paid to attack your enemies. Also pay protection money to 'friendly' barbarian city to bolster your own weak defence force quickly when a mass enemy arrives on your borders. (Barbarian protection would need to be more effective than allied CS's currently are!)
Then, to spice up the later game and respond more dynamically to massive unhappiness episodes cause by taking too many cities at once results a number of your own units revolting, i.e. 'become barbarians' in place of silly random barbarians appearing. The units would be drawn from the lowest level units in grade or promotion that you have. Means thinking about “give you everything” peace deals a bit more carefully.
Then for the commercially challenged, running out of gold for unit maintenance means your units become barbarians and head for the nearest Barbarian city rather than just disappearing!
Further barbarian expansion ideas involving religion and spies, there must be plenty.
Expansion of barbarians in Civ 5+ feels like a real game opportunity to me. Do we need it? In gaming, when is it ever finished!
True, they're less "barbarian" than the Visigoths to be sure, but then that title tends to be applied differently between cultures. Besides, we all were debating how the Huns could be called a "Civilization" anyway.
I know about the advanced setting, but I remember in Civ II that periodically large groups of barbarians would spawn an uprising. They were especially annoying when guerrillas spawned since they pillaged everything in sight.
Play the Huns and set Barbarians to Raging in advanced settings.
In the expansion, we have the answer to what a number of you want. You want them to be a "civilization" it seems. And you want them to be more of a problem for the player.
All the suggestions seem interesting enough but how about just make things simple add a new "city state" type and call it barbarian. They stay permenantly at war with everyone and randomly spawn in open areas during the game. Make it so they can be bribed into peace with the peace ticking away like city state's influence. The main difference between barbarian cities and city States would be that taking barbarian cities wouldn't negatively affect your relations with civs or city States.
I like this idea. My only modification would be that sacking a Barbarian City would cause your relations with all other Barbarian Cities to decline faster, and bribery costs increase.
Why? Think it through.sacking a Barbarian City would cause your relations with all other Barbarian Cities to decline
Personally I'd love barbarians to be a threat like they were in 4. I feel that camps ignored for too long should escalate in threat and Fledgling cities should have lower CS
Barbarians don't have to build 'cities' of their own. Perhaps they could build more camps. If the designers could improve the camp in some way allowing it to bombard enemy units within a 2-3 hex radius, it would be a bit more intimidating. And I play the game with Raging Barbarians. In Civ IV, that was a dangerous setting as you'd get a barbarian horde spawn somewhere on the map at some point in the game and that almost always spelled doom for the Empire nearest to it. I'd like a Barbarian horde to appear again from time to time when playing with Raging Barbarians. Don't like that idea? Just don't check Raging Barbarains when you're setting up the game.
.....why should Barbarians be mad at your civilization for "pacifying" (destroying) other Barbarians? So they wouldn't be concerned that they might be next on your list of targets? It makes sense to me. Does it not to you? *confused face*
That isn't how it plays out.
Sure sometimes friendlies of the same group could band together for mutual defense. But the Gauls and Huns and Goths and Vandals all hated and feared each other as much as they did Rome. They were much more likely to ingratiate themselves to the scary but powerful new force that eliminated their ancient rival.
You team up with the guy with bigger guns, if only to learn where he got them.
Native American tribes? Same scenario.
Africans during European colonization? Yuuup.
After all, remember who the slave traders purchased the slaves from. Other tribes.
If a superior alien force came tomorrow to "colonize" not bomb, then you would see the same thing play out as people seek opportunities.
^ Indeed. If the aliens took over the US, Canada would gladly be the aliens new best friend.
It doesn't matter because they are permanently at war with everyone anyway. There's not even any point giving them a relations score at all. They fight, they fight, they fight they fight they fight, fight fight fight, fight fight fight - The Impi and Shaka Show!
This is totally true. Pizarro used native enemies of the Incas to defeat them. They were kind of like the Rome of the new world and had plenty of enemies for Pizarro to turn against them by just promising freedom to the tribes the Inca had subjugated.
So yeah I don't think anything done with anyone else should impact barbarian opinions. Remember they're barbarians nothing with them should be overcomplicated. If we try to adjust and change them too much then we might as well just add more AI civs and be done with it.
Last edited by VicRatlhead51; 05-01-2012 at 06:42 AM.
I wouldn't mind something like that happening in later stages of the game, when it makes sense to have some ramped-up challenges. Modern-day pirates and warlords scavenging from the armies of collapsed governments and black markets.
As ideas go, I think we are suggesting Barbarian States rather than Barbarian Cities, but I do not see these as variants of CS's. We must be able to raze BS's. Also, CS's are a fixed number and location from the beginning of the game. A transient game dynamic for BS's requires ability to appear anywhere there is space and at any time feels better IMO.
What about barbarian settlers? For simplicity should barbarian camps simply spawn into Barbarian States after some random (maybe) time line?
Agreed, payment deals with Barbarians would have a limited life. However, unlike CS's where we buy influence that degrades over time, I suggest with Barbarians we buy 'Favours' with gold. Our relations with a Barbarian State would either be 'In-favour' or 'Out of Favour', with a one turn period of 'Not In-favour' during the turn a deal is due for renewal.
All the time we are 'In-favour' they will not attack us, they may offer to help in time of war or accept dirty deed requests from us in return of favour units!
Once our 'favour units' run out, the BS will be back for more gold.
To be 'In-favour' with a BS would cause diplomatic consequence for us with other civs.
Favours would have no fixed value, being units of dirty trade. 'x' gold will buy one 'favour' unit. The trait and our history with that BS would dictate the gold demand for each favour unit.
What we get for each favour unit would also be slightly flaky and situation specific. The BS would inform us each time a 'favour' is used up. E.g. Cos' we settled another city or the BS has saved us from a hostile attack by another BS (may or may not be true), etc. We can request a task of the BS in a deal negotiated with favour units. E.g. Go attack Hiawatha for us. If the request is within the BS capability a negotiation of favour units would conclude the deal. There is no measure of value for what we actually get out of the dirty dealing with Barbarians!
Barbarian States will bleed us for what they can get, within the limit of not provoking us into eliminating them, so keeping an army of sufficient size to maintain balance of power is essential. We get their added military support when needed.
I like the suggestion of diplomacy between BS's but I think this would be war only, not uniting. I also suggest Civ's should have zero influence in Barbarian diplomacy. War between BS's would be greed driven. One BS might DoW another BS to gain better 'milking' rights to a neighbouring Civ. Therefore having more than one BS near your borders is not necessarily a bad thing, the competition element reduces gold cost for twice the favours!
Finally, what if more than one Civ is buying favours from a BS. Conflicts of interest, what self respecting Barbarian cares a hoot. I suggest a BS taking gold from more than one Civ is risking it being a major casualty in any war between those Civs. Yes, BS's will mostly have short but respawning lives. The occasional one that survives will grow and grow!
I would watch that show. The world need the Gladatorial Games to be brought back, kids now a days have never seen a innocent Christian get mauled by a lion. Damn shame. Impi and Shaka Show = 20 spoiled brats/hippies are thrown in a jungle with a bolt action rifle and 10 bullets and they have to fight to stay alive for 3 months while a bunch of Zulus are stalking them and attacking them.
I think we should be able to enslave barbarians, make them workers that require no matinence [If they do already] and make 'em prone to revolting back to their barbarian state. Make things interesting.
Also, why not let Barbarians make their own settlers or use captured ones to found cities and become city states? Or even full empires. Like many other people have suggested. Or at least let them organize.
Well, it could just be that some city-states could turn barbaric, as the official government collapses or goes into exile. Then you have a belligerent CS that can either be captured or liberated (propped back up by the conqueror with a schill government). The latter's happened a few times in recent memory.
Good point. But barbarians are currently a feature that require attention for two eras before becoming tile occupying unit trainers. Maybe instead of cities, they could start a new camp if given enough time; that way, when you find a new island in the renaissance era, it'll be saturated with barbarians.
Who says they're going to advance to that level? Perhaps when they found a city they can no longer advance technologicly. When they found a city they make peace with everyone else [although they are quicker to go back to war, MUCH quicker] but they stop advancing in tech.
I thought Warhammer 40k Orcs to. My best friend and his dad used to play that game.
No need to stop them from teching at the normal pace. Trying to research modern techs with one military oriented city would take forever. They'd be self limiting just like a barbarian despot should be.
A new Civ (or previously eliminated civ, if rebels) should spawn if they manage to capture a city (same with rebels), with the surrounding barbarian units joining that civilization. It would be a good way to keep the game fresh during the later stages. I do agree that camps could evolve into city states, and there should be the possibility to encourage that diplomatically (if only to anger your rivals)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote