firais got it right with barbs.

[faded glory]

Well.....the barbs are fun on difficult. But what I have trouble with is getting my nieghbors to eradicate encampments within there boundaries. The AI will leave those things alone until they become an issue. So what do you think?

[Ming]

I like the overall concept of camps... hordes of barbs... and even ships that patrol the coasts...

But, I would like to see stronger units, both land and sea!

[Jethro83]

I agree that barbarians should be able to get stronger, and have more advanced units. Say, when all civs discover Bronze Working, the barbarians should then be able to get spearmen. Iron Working, the barbs should get swordsmen (if their camp is on a square with iron), Feudalism would give the barbs pikemen (again, only if the camp is on an iron square) and so on...

Then once they start getting riflemen, they should be called Terrorists (terrorists these days are what terrorize us instead of some gruffy barbarian warparties). Terrorists should be able to appear anywhere, even inside a civ's territory. Their frequency should then depend on the government, with despotism and communism having the highest probability of terrorist insurgence, monarchy in the middle and republic and democracy with the lowest probability (what cause have they got to fight for if they can experience the fullest political freedom anyway? Yet there are still those who would kill people for believing what they don't).

Terrorists should also be able to capture cities (how else would the Taliban get control of Afghanistan? How else would Yassar Arafat have lost control over his people? Certainly, it's terrorists hijacking his people for THEIR gain rather than for the best interests of all humanity). If there are nukes in a city that terrorists capture, whether or not everyone has fission or satellites, the terrorists should then be able to nuke someone (imagine what would happen if the terrorist types in Pakistan overrun the government and took Islamabad. India would surely be no more).

If a single terrorist regime were to capture a certain number of cities, they should then become a civilization of their own with their own ruler made up from a random selection of facial features and names. The cultural group of this 'civilization' should then be defined by the original cultural group of the cities they capture (say if a regime known as the 'Garbagemen' were to capture enough cities to become a civilization with the majority of their cities being captured from a weakened Zulu empire, the 'Garbagemen' civilization would then have the middle-east cultural group derived from the Zulu cities they captured. Then their ruler might be made up with a big nose, moustache, buck teeth and have the name 'Rupert' or something like that (OK, that example is just plain stupid, but its just an example). Or if the 'Redneck' militia were to steal enough cities off the Americans or Iroquois, they adapt the American cultural group when there is a 'Redneckian' civilization. If however they took mostly English cities, they would go European. Chinese cities would make them Asian, etc.

I'll concede that terrorists would make a challenging aspect for AI programmers, as terrorists have a specific agenda, whereas barbarians only have one thing on their minds: looting and plundering. When a terrorist group emerges, they need to have a reason to go against civilizations (eg. religious fanaticism, pro-communism, anti-communism, etc.)

If this is completely feasible, then I'd really love to see it happen. But if not, I'll be content to just live without such huge change.

[The Rook]

LordAzreal,

I like those ideas, but Firaxis wont put terrorism in the game. Apparently it is OK to have such attrocities as city razing, but terrorism hits too close to home.

Still, I like those ideas. I particularily like new regimes popping up now and then. My current game started with 12 Civs, and now only 4 of us left. America and Egypt are almost wiped out. That's just not how history should be represented.

[Solver]

Yeah, hated the barbs on Civ 1/2/CtP/SMAC, but love em now, good ideas.


Ming, you can easily give them stronger units via Editor. Change the Advanced Barbarian unit to Knight, and you've got problems.

[player1]

Originally posted by The Rook
I like those ideas, but Firaxis wont put terrorism in the game. Apparently it is OK to have such attrocities as city razing, but terrorism hits too close to home.

It would me more politicaly correct to add Guerilla instead of terrorists.
Like it was called in civ1 or civ2.

[Scientia]

Bring back Partisans

I tend to miss the random "uprisings" that used to appear in the form of partisans. The idea of barbarian encampments or villages is nice, but once all land becomes "settled" there's no more barbarians.

Also, it would be nice to see an option to pay barbs to attack other civs (kind of like the 1609 A.D. option of paying pirates to attack other colonies). This way you could keep your potential enemies busy defending their borders and cities while you focus on building infrastructure and city improvements. Of course, your opponents could turn around and do the same to you!

As it now stands, barbarians are far too weak and ineffective in the game. I agree with earlier comments to keep the barbs units "updated" and more in line with the technologies available at the time.

[GeneralTacticus]

kind of like the 1609 A.D. option of paying pirates to attack other colonies).

Was that a sequel to 1602 AD, or did you just forget? I played the ddemo of 1602, and I liked it, but I couldn't play it properly (it wouldn't let me, it being a demo), and I lost it when I got my new computer.

[godinex]

Originally posted by Ming
I like the overall concept of camps... hordes of barbs... and even ships that patrol the coasts...

But, I would like to see stronger units, both land and sea!

Privateers, riflemen... i like the idea.

[Inverse Icarus]

a barbarian carrier

[Elucidus]

Yeah I think barbs should advance 25 or 50% slower than the slowest civ. They could represent rebels in the newer ages. That would make them much better.

[Coracle]

Re: firais got it right with barbs.

Originally posted by faded glory
Well.....the barbs are fun on difficult. But what I have trouble with is getting my nieghbors to eradicate encampments within there boundaries. The AI will leave those things alone until they become an issue. So what do you think?

I turn of barbs all the time. Here is an example as to why. . .

They can pillage an outpost town MORE THAN ONCE in the SAME turn. And, when doing so, they can grab off more of my gold each pillage. That is stupid, and it is dumber to assume I stash any of my gold in an outpost town! Would YOU??

[Elucidus]

It's either that or when there is nothing left in the city to destroy they raze the city.

Half the game doesn't make sense compared to the "real-world" so let's not go there. I would prefer they get my money as opposed to outright destroying the town.

[GeneralTacticus]

I would prefer they get my money as opposed to outright destroying the town.

Well, sometimes (esp. in the early game) it's best to lose your money than the town, but at other times I'd rather lose a size 1 outpost than 1000 or so gold.

[Scientia]

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus


Was that a sequel to 1602 AD, or did you just forget?

Oops. Good catch. . . 1602 AD. Late night brain freeze apparently on my part.