More Unique than the Next Civ!

[EternalSpark]

Originally posted by Axxaer
What I mean is, why should barbarians only be a small obstable and not an actual challenge?

Because, when you play the {Original} Final Fantasty, your first foes are Imps, not Warmechs.

Because, when you play Knights of the Old Republic, your first fight low-level Sith, not Dark Jedi.

Because, when you play Startopia, your first goals are to build a Lavotron, not control all the decks.

Barbarians are small obstacles, designed to give your civ something to fight against when you and the AIs are likely still in the "hay everyone lets be friends" mode.

The game mentions that the animal barbarians dissapear as time goes on, to reflect that they just aren't a threat anymore.

I remove Barbs entirely from any game I play, to reflect that any tiny barbarian armies (represented by the barb unit) would be so ineffective at damaging even the lowliest of towns that the game doesn't even need me to deal with it.

[Axxaer]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's done for gameplay. If they got even more powerful, I'd be likely to simply turn them off. It wouldn't be worth the bother.

Ok, your point is you like your barbarians weak. I get that (even if I disagree).

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
If you wanted an answer why they are meant to be obstacle (even though you admited they were one), I'd say:

Well of course I "admitted" that there are only an obstacle, that is the whole point of this thread and I wouldn't ask why they were an obstacle if I didn't think they were.

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Its quite obvious that they are meant to simply be an obstacle. As I pointed out, have you seen any barbarians that are as powerful as other Civs? You can't do diplomacy with them, you can't trade with them. They are there to get in your way so you don't expand too fast.

Why else are they there?

You even said yourself in the same post (previous quote) that I am aware that they are an obstacle. Please stop arguing this topic on which we both agree. But in response to barbarians being as powerful as other civs, of course I've seen that - all that means is that I've played Terra. There's always a weakest civ and the New World barbarians are often militarily more powerful than them, have more cities, a larger population, more land, etc. I also find that expanding fast seems to make the barbarians weaker (as in less fog to spawn in) but hey, to each his own...

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
My reasoning PWNS JOO!

Yeah... Feel free to actually look that word up in a dictionary some time. I think you'll be surprised

Originally posted by EternalSpark
Because, when you play the {Original} Final Fantasty, your first foes are Imps, not Warmechs.

Because, when you play Knights of the Old Republic, your first fight low-level Sith, not Dark Jedi.

Because, when you play Startopia, your first goals are to build a Lavotron, not control all the decks.

I have never in this thread suggested to make barbarians stronger AT THE START, but said that they get weaker as the game progresses and should still be at least a slight challenge at macemen. Please read the posts properly

Originally posted by EternalSpark
Barbarians are small obstacles, designed to give your civ something to fight against when you and the AIs are likely still in the "hay everyone lets be friends" mode.

Well done, you now have the understanding of everyone who's read this thread. My point is I don't like this.

Originally posted by EternalSpark
The game mentions that the animal barbarians dissapear as time goes on, to reflect that they just aren't a threat anymore.

I am not talking about animal barbs, but a UU to replace macemen.

Originally posted by EternalSpark
I remove Barbs entirely from any game I play, to reflect that any tiny barbarian armies (represented by the barb unit) would be so ineffective at damaging even the lowliest of towns that the game doesn't even need me to deal with it.

Ok, once again proving you:
a) Know little about the relevant history
b) Have not read the thread

I will answer by quoting an earlier post:

Originally posted by Paxman
According to our history books, it was the so-called 'barbarian' tribes that eventually sacked Rome and vanquished the western Roman Empire.

These tribes (Visigoths, Ostrogoths and Vandals) were not barbarian at all, but were labeled so by the Romans. An example of their exquisite and fine artmanship still stand today as the gothic cathedrals in Europe.

All these 3 tribes came from the far northern reaches of Europe, today called Scandinavia. Visigoths (=Vest gøter), Otrogoths (=Øst gøter) and Vandals were mostly Norwegians, Swedes and Danes.

So.. don't tell me "that's the way barbarians are" - read history and you'll see that the barbarians were powerful nations that more often than not were able to overthrow their so-called 'civilized' opressors.

Thanks Paxman!

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Axxaer]Ok, your point is you like your barbarians weak. I get that (even if I disagree).[/q]

Then why summarize my position as the same as my original statement?

Like I said, it's a gameplay decision. Firaxis likes them weak as well, because they are there to slow you down, not to be a major player in the game. Just something to deal with before you get to the main game, which is dealing with other civs. So now stop throwing strawmen around .

You may now commence your education of the word 'reasoning' .

[Axxaer]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So now stop throwing strawmen around .

From Dictionary.com
Strawman

n

A weak or sham argument set up to be easily refuted

Which of my arguments were strawmen? I think there were perfectly reasonable supporting factors for my idea and if it was so easy to refute, then why haven't you. I would like to hear why you see it as a strawman?

NOTE: Strawmen is plural (hence the a > e). Since I only have one suggestion, replacing barbarian macemen with a UU, I don't quite see where these other strawmen are. Please do explain my multiple strawmen!


And while I'm here, I might as well give you a definition of refute so you don't make a fool out of yourself again:

From Dictionary.com
Refute

tr.v.

To prove to be false or erroneous; overthrow by argument or proof

i.e. just saying it's wrong doesn't count as refuting it

[Chronus9]

I think the concern of the majority is that the barbarians, with any boosts of power, will move from being an "obstacle" to a "serious threat".

With that said, I think I understand, and like, where Axxaer is trying to go here.

What I would like to see in Civ 4, and this is asking waaaaaayyyyy too much, is the ability to set the difficulty levels FOR EACH CIV (including the barbarians) . . . just like in Galactic Civilizations. Now you can have this extremely intelligent barbarian state who negotiates with nobody that is trying to take over the world. The rest of the civs, of course, may meddle with each other but must, ultimately, work together to destroy the barb menace.

[Axxaer]

It's not going to happen, but a Barbarian Level slider would be pretty handy.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Which of my arguments were strawmen?

[q=Axxaer]You: Barbarians are meant to be an obstacle
Me: Why?
You: Because they're meant to be an obstable[/q]

After all, you admited that my response was far more than saying the same thing as I did in my first post. So you can stop attributing "weak or sham arguments" to me which you can say I'm repeating myself (ie, a refutation).

[Axxaer]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Which of my arguments were strawmen?

[q=Axxaer]You: Barbarians are meant to be an obstacle
Me: Why?
You: Because they're meant to be an obstable[/q]

After all, you admited that my response was far more than saying the same thing as I did in my first post. So you can stop attributing "weak or sham arguments" to me which you can say I'm repeating myself (ie, a refutation).

Point the first: This does not answer my question, "Which of my arguments were strawmen?"

Point the second: I never called your argument "weak or sham arguments", you were the one who said that about mine several times

Point the third: My saying you're repeating yourself is in no way a a refutation (i.e. Proving to be false or erroneous; overthrowing by argument or proof)

Please respond to all these points and stop dancing around the first one.

[Imran Siddiqui]

This does not answer my question, "Which of my arguments were strawmen?"

I quoted it. You really aren't familiar with the concept of a strawman, are you? A strawman is where you attribute an argument to someone else that can easily be knocked down, but that argument was something the other guy didn't say.

Here:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target.

As in claiming I'm not coming up with an argument other than repeating myself and then sarcastically saying you bow down to my reasoning skills. When I didn't just repeat myself and you admited it later.

[Axxaer]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

This does not answer my question, "Which of my arguments were strawmen?"

I quoted it. You really aren't familiar with the concept of a strawman, are you? A strawman is where you attribute an argument to someone else that can easily be knocked down, but that argument was something the other guy didn't say.

Here:

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html

"Straw man" is one of the best-named fallacies, because it is memorable and vividly illustrates the nature of the fallacy. Imagine a fight in which one of the combatants sets up a man of straw, attacks it, then proclaims victory. All the while, the real opponent stands by untouched.

In a Straw Man argument, the arguer argues to a conclusion that denies the "straw man" he has set up, but misses the target.

As in claiming I'm not coming up with an argument other than repeating myself and then sarcastically saying you bow down to my reasoning skills. When I didn't just repeat myself and you admited it later.

Points the first & second: Yes you addressed these. Ok, I'm willing to admit that I didn't understand the full concept of what a strawman is, because the definition I stated earlier made me think that you were saying my argument was a sham, as opposed to you saying that I was saying that yours was a sham. Yes, I used a strawman then. I feel that now I deserve you to admit that you do not understand plurals, as twice you said I was throwing "strawmen" around and I only used one strawman. Glad we got that sorted out.

Point the third: You did not address this. I stand by my claim that "My saying you're repeating yourself is in no way a a refutation (i.e. Proving to be false or erroneous; overthrowing by argument or proof)"

Point the fourth: As you failed to address all three points as I requested, I dislike your style of arguing. If someone directly requests you to respond to certain points you should. I have shown that I am willing to conced if I am aware I am wrong, so you should have no reason not to respond to anything I say.

[Imran Siddiqui]

[q=Axxaer]I stand by my claim that "My saying you're repeating yourself is in no way a a refutation[/q]

[q=Axxaer]Yes, I used a strawman then.[/q]

Say what?

Your 'refutation' was, after you claimed I was repeating myself, mocking my reasoning. Basically saying my argument should be ignored since it was just repetition... ie, a refutation.

As you failed to address all three points as I requested

I felt my response was sufficient as since I blew up your first point, the 2nd and 3rd were useless.

[EternalSpark]

Please read the posts properly

I am, you're flipflopping quite a bit in your argument.

First you claim that Barbarians should have a unique unit to be a early-to-mid competitor. Then someone points out that barbarians are doing exactly what they are supposed to do - be a speedbump for your Civ.

You then tried to argue that Barbs are meaningless, as you can outproduce barbarian units. You then mocked the person who informed you that you were wrong.

You then belittled someone who informed you that in higher difficulties and/or lower game speeds, Barbarians are strong enough.

You then got mad because the nature of the Barbarian is the same as the Imp, Low-Level Sith, and Lavotron building.

Well done, you now have the understanding of everyone who's read this thread. My point is I don't like this.

Too bad. The concept you're arguing against has made sense since beginning of gaming, and will never leave.

Barbarians are speedbumps. Just as it should be - and will forever be.

Ok, once again proving you:
a) Know little about the relevant history

Right, I should stick to having the Islamic American Empire go to Alpha Centari in the 1700s.

[Axxaer]

Sorry if this is disorganised or I misinterpreted a statement but without many quotes its hard to tell which posts you're referring to...

Originally posted by EternalSpark
First you claim that Barbarians should have a unique unit to be a early-to-mid competitor. Then someone points out that barbarians are doing exactly what they are supposed to do - be a speedbump for your Civ.

Yes. I have already agreed that they are doing 'what they are supposed to do' according to most people. Is there some reason why I cannot suggest that I think they should be more than that?

Originally posted by EternalSpark
You then tried to argue that Barbs are meaningless, as you can outproduce barbarian units.

I said "'Anything they can build, I can build better", which, in my experience, is true. This is talking about quality not quantity, I'm saying that they have never had a higher tech unit than I.

Originally posted by EternalSpark
You then mocked the person who informed you that you were wrong.

I assume you refer to CyberShy saying you cant build STR3 or MOVE2 units at the start. (Aside from Badtz Maru pointing out that he was wrong on the MOVE2 account,) I only responded to this with a picture I, and many on other forums I visit, find a humorous alternative to just saying "whatever..." Please point out where I mocked him.

Originally posted by EternalSpark
You then belittled someone who informed you that in higher difficulties and/or lower game speeds, Barbarians are strong enough.

I seriously don't know where this came from. Do you mean when I suggest that ben04 hadn't played Terra?

Originally posted by EternalSpark
You then got mad because the nature of the Barbarian is the same as the Imp, Low-Level Sith, and Lavotron building.

I assume this is in reference to:

I have never in this thread suggested to make barbarians stronger AT THE START, but said that they get weaker as the game progresses and should still be at least a slight challenge at macemen. Please read the posts properly

I would first like to point out that that in no way is that an angry responce, capitals are often used as an emphasis for those too lazy to use bold.

There is also the fact that I was not talking about the early stages of the barbarians, which are like what you say, but rather the Maceman stage. By macemen I am usually in my first or second war, meaning that barbarians are no longer there as something to fight at the start.

Originally posted by EternalSpark
Too bad. The concept you're arguing against has made sense since beginning of gaming, and will never leave.

As already stated several times, I am not saying that barbarians should be stronger at the start, I am saying that barbarians should be stronger around the macemen stage of the game.

I will say again, I am not arguing that you shouldn't fight easy things at the start, which AFAIK is this gaming concept you are speaking of.

Originally posted by EternalSpark
Barbarians are speedbumps. Just as it should be - and will forever be.

I have accepted from the start that barbarians are obstacles/speedbumps, that is exactly what I want to change. Whether that is what they should be, is entirely subjective. I am well aware, however, that they most likely will remain as that, I just though it would be an interesting suggestion to make.

Originally posted by EternalSpark
Right, I should stick to having the Islamic American Empire go to Alpha Centari in the 1700s.

Please don't argue points such as this when you are clearly wrong. You stated that:

Originally posted by EternalSpark
I remove Barbs entirely from any game I play, to reflect that any tiny barbarian armies (represented by the barb unit) would be so ineffective at damaging even the lowliest of towns that the game doesn't even need me to deal with it.

and I responding with quoting:

Originally posted by Paxman
According to our history books, it was the so-called 'barbarian' tribes that eventually sacked Rome and vanquished the western Roman Empire.

These tribes (Visigoths, Ostrogoths and Vandals) were not barbarian at all, but were labeled so by the Romans. An example of their exquisite and fine artmanship still stand today as the gothic cathedrals in Europe.

All these 3 tribes came from the far northern reaches of Europe, today called Scandinavia. Visigoths (=Vest gøter), Otrogoths (=Øst gøter) and Vandals were mostly Norwegians, Swedes and Danes.

So.. don't tell me "that's the way barbarians are" - read history and you'll see that the barbarians were powerful nations that more often than not were able to overthrow their so-called 'civilized' opressors.

From those 2 posts, you are clearly wrong in your view that barbarians have tiny armies that would be "ineffective at damaging even the lowliest of towns". This is clearly wrong unless you view great cities such as Rome to be amongst the lowliest of towns. I don't expect everyone to know this sort of things, but don't try and argue that you were right when you're argument has been solidly refuted.

[Axxaer]

Actually, don't bother replying to that. This thread has degraded into petty arguments and will obviously not achieve anything so there is no points continuing it. Just let it die quietly.

(Thanks Imran Siddiqui, EternalSpark, and others; I do enjoy a good argument but I think this one has become pointless)

[fed1943]

Gentlemen,may be goths could be swedes(and others) and romans could be english(and others)if time didn't exist.
But time exists and counts.
Same for "barbarians"and gothic style.
Best regards,