Barbarians

[New Yorker]

time 4 barbarians, maybe they be improved or left alone, what r ur takes, cuz my ideas 4 these chaos guys change them a little....

4 me there should 2 different types of barbarians:

Settled Barbarians-these guys r like the Vikings & German tribes, they would be sort of minor civs but u couldn't talk 2 them & sign treaties, they would act like barbarians in other civ games. Difference, these guys got bases not like cities but like villages & if these guys get annoying,u just go in & be killin' them! But these villages r in remote places & r not easy 2 reach but when they attack it's in stacks of units or sercet raiders.
As time goes on they will die out or grow into nations by conquering parts of other nations

Nomadic Barbarians-like Huns, they have no bases & harder defend against Settled Barbarians cuz u can't track their bases. Nomadic Barbarians should not only u & other AI civs but attack settled barbarians & cuz them 2 flee into the nearest area. This is like end 4 near by civs, not only facing refugee settled barbarians but also nomadic barbarians, this could recreate what Rome went through at its decline.

As barbarian armies die out & loose their status as dangers, barbarians should change into terrorists & make sercet attacks at any civs including ur civ, terrorist barbarians would have bases but ur army has 2 walk into 1 in order 2 find it & burnin' these bases should take some but not 2 much effort

These ideas about barbarians makes land exploring important so u could track massive armies of barbarians & in modern & future times, finding those bases of operation

-----------------------------------
if people from Poland r called Poles, then y r not people from Holland called Holes

[This message has been edited by New Yorker (edited January 12, 2001).]

[Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto]

first of all, welcome to apolyton!

I already posted a thread on this exact topic, and my suggestions are almost exactly what yours are. Most people seem to not care about barbarians. I certainly dont think they are an important aspect of improvement, but I think they could use at least a little work on them.

p.s. my thread is called: Barbarians! look it up if you like.

[DrFell]

Barbarians ARE important, and they need improving, full stop!!!

[wernazuma]

man, you express yourself like a barbarian. it's hard to follow you.
nice ideas though...

[New Yorker]

wernazuma, want do u expect i am a New Yorker & 1 more thing what ideas do u like, wernazuma? As for that matter what do u all think about my ideas, which suck & which rock

my personal favorite & i hope makes civ III is the transformation from barbarians 2 terrorists
[This message has been edited by New Yorker (edited January 13, 2001).]

[Adm.Naismith]

Hi!
In another thread I voted for get rid of barbarians as in Civ II and use Minor Civ (that Sid told us will be IN) instead.

Minor Civ troops could act like barbarians (make raid and piracy), and also in terrorism time you can consider they are the money that back up terrorists.

As in SMAC, "covert operations" by spy/probe will have no sure source (you can't see for sure the "flag" of originating Civ), but greather armies can't exist if not as half-regular troops from a (minor) civ.

It will add realism to the whole concept, putting some diplomacy in for free, too. A win-win choice IMO!

New Yorker, about ur post, pls consider how many of us r not americans: using a lot of "4", "r" and the like can't help us 2 better understand u!

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant