Do I comprehend this bribery thing rightly?

Jim W · July 31, 2000, 18:15

Now, I had this situation where Barbarians kept descending on one of my outlying cities, in dribs and drabs. Having a healthy bank account, and a Diplomat in the neighbourhood, I began bribing these units.

Eventually, I had about six of them. Suddenly I was told that this city could not support rifleman units and so a unit was to be disbanded. Same message hit three times in one turn, and suddenly there were three barbarian riflemen in the neighbourhood.

Now, do I underswtand that when the city could no longer support them, the riflemen reverted to barbarianhood? (Or whatever the right word is.)

It would seem that I would have been better off to bribe a few, and use them to pick off the rest.

Or have I missed something again?

Jim W

Scouse Gits · July 31, 2000, 19:35

If you have a small outlying city it may only be capable of supporting a few units. (The actual number depends on the type of government.) The fact that another "three barb riflemen" appear sounds like a coincidence. There is nothing I know of in the game, that gives disbanded ex-barb units back to the "red guys".
----------
SG (2)

finbar · July 31, 2000, 21:14

SG2 hits the nail on the head yet again.

Despotism = each unit in excess of the level of the city's pop costs a shield;

Monarchy = each unit in excess of 3 costs a shield;

Republic = each unit costs a shield;

Democracy = ditto;

Communism = Monarchy;

Fundamentalism = each unit in excess of 10 costs a shield.

Sounds like you ran out of shield support, Jim. Always pays to check the shield situation when you're buying barb units.

Depending on the overall situation, sometimes it's worthwhile letting the barbs take a city, then buy the barb units around the city, which become NONE units providing they're closer to the barb city than any of your own cities. Then, when you've mopped up, buy back the city. If you feel the urge, disband the units within the city - costing shields - and replace them with the NONE units you've acquired.

------------------
finbar
Mono Rules!
#33984591

Laertes · August 1, 2000, 11:37

quote:

Originally posted by Jim W on 07-31-2000 06:15 PM
Now, do I underswtand that when the city could no longer support them, the riflemen reverted to barbarianhood? (Or whatever the right word is.)

Jim W

A good suggestion for the word - certainly 'hood gives the right connotation. Maybe it should be barbarianship, but that looks too much like librarianship to be valid. Barbarianism?

Sten Sture · August 1, 2000, 13:28

Jim - another possibility is that the three new barbs that showed up covered some shield producing terrain. When that happens the citizen can't work that square and the good old AI selects a different square for your citizen to work. Unfortunately, the AI has a one track mind - FOOD. Nine times out of ten it will select the grassland square with the highest food production even if it causes you to disband a bunch of units. (it will even do this if you change Gold mountains to 10 food, 10 shields and 20 trade - go figure) If you see barbs approaching a city with heavy support requirements you might do well to move your citizens around to the opposite side yourself.

Scouse Gits · August 1, 2000, 15:22

Whilst on the subject of barbs, it is usual for them to kill the unit that has just opened a hut. However, when my spy was greeted with a reception committee of partisans (no movement left to bribe) she survived! Were they after a date?

----------
SG (2)

Jim W · August 1, 2000, 22:59

quote:

Originally posted by finbar on 07-31-2000 09:14 PM

Depending on the overall situation, sometimes it's worthwhile letting the barbs take a city, then buy the barb units around the city, which become NONE units providing they're closer to the barb city than any of your own cities. Then, when you've mopped up, buy back the city. If you feel the urge, disband the units within the city - costing shields - and replace them with the NONE units you've acquired.

Well, quite frankly, I was fooling around. While this _was_ an outlying city, It had walls, guarded by several riflemen and a cannon. I didn't _need_ to go out and muck around with getting to close quarters with the Barbs, I just did it. Of course, I wanted to keep them from tromping across my nicely irrigated fields with their big boots, and so on.

And of course, this being a rather sparsely populated area, they kept popping up every turn.

Still, I suppose I'd have been better off to bribe a few, put them into some nicely placed fortifications, and have them take on the others as they came up.

The Romans were good at that sort of thing; they'd hire and outfit a few units from the barbarians, and set them to guarding the frontiers. Called them _Limitanei_ which you could translate as 'Borderers.'

.................

As the game worked out, the other Civs were too far away to give me much military trouble, and of course also too far away to set up easy trading routes with.

I had this gold shipment on the way when my ship actually landed on AC, so just out of curiousity I played a little longer to see what the result would be. 1028 Gold!

Now that's what you call a demonstration of the value of trading. Too bad it happened after the game was over.

Jim W

inca911 · August 2, 2000, 00:40

Barbarianism? That sounds like a new goverment type being added to Civ3! It's a lot like Fundy, but all your units are NONE, you never research any Science, and your citizens are all content. Unlike Fundy, though, free units just pop up willy-nilly for you all over the globe. Sounds like fun, sign me up!

Miner · August 7, 2000, 00:27

quote:

Originally posted by Jim W on 07-31-2000 06:15 PM

... the riflemen reverted to barbarianhood? (Or whatever the right word is.)

Barbarism. Reverted to barbarism.