barbarians strange things

grillo · November 27, 2001, 12:07

Well, I found another bug.. or strange thing. When multiple barbarians "pass trough"

my 2 - size city, how can the game think that my treasury were all there, and take a portion of it every time??

TrainWreck20 · November 27, 2001, 12:09

Well, seeing as each turn is up to 50 years, you must be redistributing the funds at the end of the year....then the next barbarian comes through...damn accountants!

Anyway, play along with it!

Eli · November 27, 2001, 12:09

Not every last detail of the game must be 100% realistic.

Boracks · November 27, 2001, 12:13

They loot a portion (percentage?) each time they walk in. IMHO, it beats them taking the city and using it to make more barbarians until you take it back.

If you don't want to lose that much, have a low treasury. I usually do.

Evil_Eric_4 · November 27, 2001, 16:53

Build a defensive unit -shees

One entrenched veteran warrior can beat off 16 barb. horsemen.

I mean dont you escourt your settlers???

Pyrodrew · November 27, 2001, 20:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Boracks
They loot a portion (percentage?) each time they walk in. IMHO, it beats them taking the city and using it to make more barbarians until you take it back.

Civ3 Barbarians are weak. Losing 6 gold (for example) for each barbarian is nothing, especially since the barbarian is KILLED after the looting of the city. You're essentially paying 6 gold to kill a barbarian... not a bad deal when compared to Civ2 barbarians. This amount is even less if you have a small treasury. I preferred the Civ2 barbarians... they were something to fear, Civ3 barbarians really are not.

Andrew_Jay · November 27, 2001, 21:23

Something that is REALLY weird that happened with barbarians. apparently I got a worker from them, and it was listed as a white barbarian under my military screen, for my captured workers. And when you clicked on it it was a "yyyyyyyieeeeee~ (worker)" (or something like that). That wasn't a worker I got from a goodie hut was it? (I can't remember). It was weird.

Andrew

Monoriu · November 27, 2001, 21:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Evil_Eric_4
Build a defensive unit -shees

One entrenched veteran warrior can beat off 16 barb. horsemen.

I mean dont you escourt your settlers???

Unless you are playing in the lower difficulty levels, that's not possible without a huge amount of luck.

On emperor level, a regular warrior can beat off a max of 2 to 3 barbarian horseman when fortified in a city if you are lucky. Many times they lose to 1 horseman.

Dis · November 27, 2001, 22:01

diff. level doesn't affect combat does it?

I have yet to lose to barbs.

barbs are cheesy

Monoriu · November 27, 2001, 22:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Dissident
diff. level doesn't affect combat does it?

I have yet to lose to barbs.

barbs are cheesy

Doesn't affect combat but I am 99.9% sure that you got a bonus against barbarians in lower difficulty levels. I have played both Regent and Emperor levels and it was a big difference. On Regent, like you, I almost never lose to Barbarians. On emperor, its a lot more fair and I have lost a lot of units to barbarians like normal combat with another civ.

Jaybe · November 27, 2001, 22:12

Unless you are playing at Diety level, the player ALWAYS has a combat advantage against Barbarians (only). It is set in the Editor.

star mouse · November 27, 2001, 22:39

Barbarians aren't so bad if handled correctly. I play most games with them set at "raging".

Always escort your settlers with a warrior. If you can afford a spearman, so much the better. The advantage of doing this is you don't have to build a defensive unit in your city straight away.

Evil_Eric_4 · November 28, 2001, 02:53

The advantage of doing this is you don't have to build a defensive unit in your city straight away.

so true.
and my earlier post was an exageration.
in my first game I got an event caled "a huge barbarian uprising" and couldnt believe my eyes.32 horsemen apeared on oposite ends of my empire -16 in each group.I was at war with Russia and thought Boy am I screwed. well the stupid Barbs of course attacked the first cities they saw and sent their forces one after the other against fortified units in walled cities.Why they didnt disperse and attack improvements and stuff is beyond me {just another case of poor AI programing im afraid}.
Any way I think I might have lost 1 spearman in the whole deal and all units that were left were now elite.what horsemen did retreat I quickly dispatched during my turn.
so what should have been a devistating blow to my empire turned out to be a good thing.
Anyway my point is that barbs are crappy fighters and all one has to do to avoid them sacking your cities is to garrison your cities.

Monoriu · November 28, 2001, 03:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Evil_Eric_4
The advantage of doing this is you don't have to build a defensive unit in your city straight away.

so true.
and my earlier post was an exageration.
in my first game I got an event caled "a huge barbarian uprising" and couldnt believe my eyes.32 horsemen apeared on oposite ends of my empire -16 in each group.I was at war with Russia and thought Boy am I screwed. well the stupid Barbs of course attacked the first cities they saw and sent their forces one after the other against fortified units in walled cities.Why they didnt disperse and attack improvements and stuff is beyond me {just another case of poor AI programing im afraid}.
Any way I think I might have lost 1 spearman in the whole deal and all units that were left were now elite.what horsemen did retreat I quickly dispatched during my turn.
so what should have been a devistating blow to my empire turned out to be a good thing.
Anyway my point is that barbs are crappy fighters and all one has to do to avoid them sacking your cities is to garrison your cities.

No its not crappy AI. It is obvious that the Barbarian AI and the "normal" AI are very different. AI civs don't go after the closest city and they DO pillage improvements.

I think its a deliberate design decision.

Raleigh · November 28, 2001, 04:33

I commented on this subject a few weeks back. I preferred the old system, although I don't hate this one. They looted over 400 gold (out of about 500 or 600)from a backwater city of mine on the fringe that I could not protect in time.

As I said earlier, even though the Roman empire was eventually overrun by them, I can't believe they could pillage my entire treasury or that my capital would pay them that for such an insignificant city. I would rather they take it over like the old days... (not that I'm complaining too much about it, it does make the game more challenging).

xane · November 28, 2001, 05:49

I have a Barbarian Worker too, they come from when you wind down a city and abandon it by building a Worker at size 1.

Th0mas · November 28, 2001, 06:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Evil_Eric_4
....{just another case of poor AI programing im afraid}.....

Actually Soren Johnson explicitly stated that the Barbarian AI was very basic. This was done by design - IMO to model the fact that the Barbarian hordes are exactly that.... Hordes.

Secondly I hope that you are not by stating 'another case' referring to CIV III because the AI here is far superior to any other previous CIV style game (no sarcasm intended)

...Full marks to Soren

Evil_Eric_4 · November 28, 2001, 09:34

Secondly I hope that you are not by stating 'another case' referring to CIV III because the AI here is far superior to any other previous CIV style game

You mean like endless patrols(instead of defending)
building obsolete units
not upgrading
not building art.
building cities where its sure to be absorbed through culture.
etc.etc.etc.?????

nah its not just "another case)

but you are right it is superior to the other civ titles

Th0mas · November 28, 2001, 10:28

Quote:

Originally posted by Evil_Eric_4
Secondly I hope that you are not by stating 'another case' referring to CIV III because the AI here is far superior to any other previous CIV style game

You mean like endless patrols(instead of defending)
building obsolete units
not upgrading
not building art.
building cities where its sure to be absorbed through culture.
etc.etc.etc.?????

nah its not just "another case)

but you are right it is superior to the other civ titles

No one was saying it's perfect...If Soren could do that he wouldn't be working for FRAXIS...he'd have retired and be living on the royalties.

However it should be bourne in mind that of all the genres the Turn based Strategy game puts the greatest demand on the AI. So if as you agree....

Quote:

Originally posted by Evil_Eric_4
....it is superior to the other civ titles

This is certainly NOT poor AI programming.

P.S. I remember a time in the CIV II forums where the majority of the community expressed that, above all else, if CIV III just provided an AI that was a challenge - that in itself would make CIV III a great game.