Barbarians

Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto · December 16, 2000, 20:09

I know this is a very minor subject, but I thought it would be good to mention it any way. Barbarians in civ2 are not good enough, not involved enough. for one, there attacking is horrible. All throughout history barbarian raids were famous for there wild attacks, throwing themselfs at their enemies. There attacking should be double of that of regular civ troops.

DrFell · December 16, 2000, 21:15

the barbs on civ2 had a really bad disadvantage attacking computer civs. often i see barb crusaders lose to injured computer settlers. this should be fixed in civ3, and the barbs turned into a force to be reckoned with!!!

smarter barbs, and larger barb rebellions as well as getting rid of that stupid disadvantage the barbs get attacking ai civs should be a civ3 priority!!

Tical_2000 · December 16, 2000, 22:26

Why should barbarians be such a major part of civ? They certainly haven't been a major part of human history. (Realize I said a 'major' part of human history. No one attack me for saying that they don't exist or something!)

Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto · December 16, 2000, 22:50

Soory everyone, I had to get off-line to do some stuff, now Im back to finish my thread:

NOt only should there attacking be raised, but they should be kind of like mini-civ. escept they get no techs, and they are limited to five cities for each tribe. And each city is limited to size: 5. THey would use the same 'barbarian' unit throughout the whole game, which no regular AI civ could use. There would be up to 10 barbarian civs, depending on the map: small map=2 barb tribes. medium map=4 tribes. large map=6 tribes. X-large map=8 tribes. and if there will be a Giga-map, then it will be for 10 tribes. Any more ideas on barbarians??

p.s. Tical, I wont jump on you, but I will say this: Barbarians have not had a large impact on civilization as you said, EXEPT for the Romans. Because of so called 'barbarians', they were driven from Britain, and later on western Russia and Germany. Why do you think they built the Hadrians Wall? Im not saying they should have a MAJOR part of civ, but, maybe just boosted a bit from what they were in civ2.
[This message has been edited by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto (edited December 16, 2000).]

zyxpsilon · December 17, 2000, 01:13

quote:

Originally posted by Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto on 12-16-2000 09:50 PM
Any more ideas on barbarians??

The term might have been differently "tagged" to many such peoples in history;

The Pirates of the Carribeans isles.
The "shiu yang's" of the Ming's era.
The Terrorists.
The most wanted criminals of the world.
The "Face on poster" wild-west rewards, hunted for money, bank robbers.
The uncivilized of all kinds and origins.

Barbarians are 'game-wize' an alternative, or even an obstacle, to development... not less maybe more.

Give them one city, they'll sack it.
Give them a world, they'll ruin it.

Oh... THEY are very good in Civ2, unless their case isn't delt with swiftly.

red_jon · December 17, 2000, 11:45

If barbarians have enough cities (say, 3) they should become their own civilization.

------------------
"We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills, we shall never surrender!" -Winston Churchill

"Gotta love me"- Baby, Dinosaurs

DrFell · December 17, 2000, 14:11

quote:

Originally posted by Tical_2000 on 12-16-2000 09:26 PM

Why should barbarians be such a major part of civ? They certainly haven't been a major part of human history. (Realize I said a 'major' part of human history. No one attack me for saying that they don't exist or something!)

barbarians have played a huge part in human history! for example the roman empire might well still exist today in some form, if it hadnt been for barbarian kingdoms carving up their empire. some civilizations on civ2 were 'barbarians'. like the mongols, vikings etc. 'barbarians' destroyed the ancient civilization in crete, which was the first civilization in europe, etc.

althought i understand why you might think they are insignificant... (usually they settle down and become 'civilised' after they have invaded) they have played a major part in toppling major powers in ancient history. but i agree with the fact that in recent history, they have played an insignificant role in the world.
[This message has been edited by DrFell (edited December 17, 2000).]

DarkCloud · December 17, 2000, 20:37

Tical- Barbarians are a way in civ of representing 'minor' civs.

However in Human history (Barbarians)

In Australia there were the Aborignines
In Europe there were the (Jutes,Mongols,Huns,Goths,Visigoths,Saxons,etc.)

The nomadic tribes in the middle east were classified barbarians by their more civilized neighbors (2200 BC- 500 AD)

Adm.Naismith · December 17, 2000, 20:47

Darkcloud,

quote:

Barbarians are a way in civ of representing 'minor' civs.

I agree. I already wrote it on Minor Civ threads: I bet CIV 2 barbarians will become the regular armies of CIV 3 Minor Civ as Sid announced (I mean: he announced the Min Civ, not the former about regular armies)

Deathwalker · December 18, 2000, 05:38

Good point

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

Grumbold · December 18, 2000, 06:55

Random pop-up barbarians deserve to remain fairly insignificant in any Civ game. Having 8 erupt out of a goodie hut is bad enough as instantly appearing armies go. For more major barbarian threats you need to have identifiable tribes with cities so you can scout, prepare and conquer. Effective barbarian empires can be modelled by having many many more Civs per game. If you have to 'cheat' and give them limited AI to prevent massive processing then so be it.