Let me play the dark civ: Barbarians

[Gramphos]

I vote for the Huns (leader Atila (I don't know how it is spelled))

[XarXo]

I always wanted that when barbarians take a city, if they stay a certain number of turns they can transform the city in their capitol and create a new tribe here. In a near city, no problems, but with your first city in an empty continent? REALLY interesting! ^_^

[tniem]

With the mulitple names for Barbarian tribes, I couldn't help but wonder why we need so many. After all the major tribes that will be in the game only appear to number 16. If that's the case why do we need 24 barbarian tribes?

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: Originally posted by Youngsun on 05-04-2001 10:05 AM the Huns(Hsiung-nu?) :Nomadic the Tatars : Nomadic the White Huns(later Avars) :Nomadic the Allans : Nomadic the Bulgars :Landed the Celts :Landed the Teutons :Landed the Norse(later Normans) :Maritime the Picts :Landed the Franks :Landed the Swabians :Landed the Gauls :Landed the Goths(Visigoths and Ostrogoths) :Nomadic the Vandals :Maritime the Langobards :Landed the Alamanni :Landed the Marcomanni :Landed the Cherusci :Landed the Saxons:Maritime the Angles:Maritime the Jutes :Maritime the Frisians:Maritime the Inglings:Maritime the Burgundians:Landed

Pheew! That's a full list, isn't it? Great research, Youngson
Will really be a pity if Firaxis will miss this proposal!


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

[Kc7mxo]

So, uh, you want to play the Germans then?
Oh, wait, you meant the mongols? oops. hmmm.

Are you saying is you want the barbarian tribes to be a playable civ in civ 3? Heh.

isn't that kind of silly? you already ARE.

every civ in the game could be catorgized as having been barbaric once. Even us americans (of course, we still ARE but . . . )

The barbarians in the game simply represent various compeltly uncivilized nations whose exisitence is EXTREMELY temporary. If you made them playable you certianly wouldn't get to control ALL of them. At most you'd get five or so units. Would that be all the fun?

This is silly. :-)

[Youngsun]

I did not say I want to play all those barbarains, since today's modern nations are made up with variuos mix of those tribes thus making the entities unclear to link with only one nation.

I was simply responding jdlessl's call.

quote: every civ in the game could be catergized as having been barbaric once.

I completely agree with you on that.

quote: whose exisitence is EXTREMELY temporary.

Again, I agree. Didn't you read the suggestion made by Admiral?

quote: 2) change attitude and restart as a normal Civ keeping the conquered city(as long as a Civ slot is available, e.g.replacing a destroyed Civ) and leaving back the barbarian contol at AI as usual. This way a player can "evolve" its path into the game, as s/he like!

[Adm.Naismith]

Yes, sometimes I take my bad english is faulty, because people seems to reply to a different post that mine!

I know the list of youngson is quite long, but the CIV III Barbarians are going to have an encampment, so why not a proper name, instead of the generic "barbarians"?

"You discovered the barbarian tribe of Huns. They accept to negotiate with your emissary" (not with you, no needs for diplomatic specific faces, you can have a generic diplomats of yours speaking back to you).

You can have a simple bunch of diplomatic option, replacing all old "hut discover" benefits, as accept tribute, mercenary unit, proposal to join as a new city of your empire...
Throwing in some diplomacy, instead of a simple random gift, you add enjoynment, partially saving the early announced concept of Minor Civs.

For bloody Barbarians, simply give them a bad mood during diplomatic encounter, and try to to refuse their asking for gold!

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

[tniem]

Admiral,

If I understand your last proposal, you would have barbarian tribes as the present huts. When entering a hut/village you would negotiate and set up some type of agreement or go to war with one of the barbarian tribes. I like the suggestion if that is what it is. If not I guess I am confused.

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: Originally posted by tniem on 05-07-2001 08:00 PM Admiral, If I understand your last proposal, you would have barbarian tribes as the present huts. When entering a hut/village you would negotiate and set up some type of agreement or go to war with one of the barbarian tribes. I like the suggestion if that is what it is. If not I guess I am confused.

Exactly! In Civ II we had Barbarians coming from nowhere for raids, and huts that, like Eater Eggs, hidden gift or punishment in form of a hord of... Barbarians?

I suggest to mix the two: we know from preview that now Barbarians have encampments, and those seems huts to me.
To add deep to the game, and saving somewhat of the old announce of Minor Civ/Tribes, I simply propose to add basic diplomatic interaction before deciding if you gain a gift or deserve an attack.

I hope I explained better now, sorry again for my weak english

Edited: this suggestion can work independently from my starting post about player freedom to play as barbarian.
It doesn't stop it, too, but Firaxis can surely chose the easier part (if that's not already the way they went).

I suppose this shift of thread is part of the confusion: sorry for that, my mind is a bit as a crazy horse

[This message has been edited by Adm.Naismith (edited May 08, 2001).]

[Pedrun]

I like the idea of playing with the barbarians. But we have got to understand that barbarians are just another civilization like the others they just dont have a fixed point to live (dont have cities - nomads) and all they have is the money from pillage. In history the german were a barbarian civ that defeat the romans and started a regular civ (what is france and germany today) from the ruins of the defeated civ.
My idea of playing with then has two option that can be used together.

1- The first idea is you start later in the game(give others civ a chance) not with settlers but with warriors (and others units) and with some money. you still have got to pay the unit maintance cost - so you just have some time before all the money you started with finishs but you can make this time longer by piracy and pillaging (so pillage in this civ3 has to give some money)- Meanwhile you must attack others civs cities and create a whole new civ like the germans did it. After that if you still want to be barbarian instead of creating new setters to make new cities(what you could anyway) you would make new units (what is faster) and get new cities by conquering from others civs (you became a agressive personality civ).

2- The other idea happens when your civ is defeated. you will became a barbarian and live like i shouwed in the first option. only with the units left, the money and the technology ( although you couldnt reseach anymore) you had before the invasion. and when you get a new city you start over again (with the technologies you had before and the ones you got conquering).

This way you are really only deafeted when all your units die or when your money (for maintance cost) ends.
you could even make new concepts. like when the units are sleeping they form huts decreasing maintance cost.

[tniem]

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 05-08-2001 02:48 AM I suppose this shift of thread is part of the confusion: sorry for that, my mind is a bit as a crazy horse

That's why I was confused. You had a new proposal on barbarians on the same thread, sent me for a loop.

Like the idea - certainly a good way to deal with barbarians in Civ III in my opinion.