Let me play the dark civ: Barbarians

[Adm.Naismith]

Ok, lot of us are speculating about number and name of Civ to play with.
I want to propose a silly idea (I mentioned the same about SMAC and Native Lifeform, if someone remember the old days of OWO forum... never mind ).

Firaxis is doing some interesting change to Barbarians role, but I'm afraid they are missing the interesting possibility to have human players chose Barbarian as his/her Civ to play with.

Think about it: they are the most different Civ in game, different rules and limits, different targets... They are the darkest force in the game (they kill, pillage, destroy, they found encampment but never proper cities). They have a different target from every other Civ in game... but they are wandering without a proper leader.

If in a multiplayer game a human player can chose Barbarians, he/she can really become a serius opponent as barbarian in early game, mercenary/pirate in middle and international terrorist in late game.
He/she can act a bit like a game master, because it can "change the game balance" making secret pacts with regular Civ.

But also in a single game could be interesting to see a human brain at work instead of limited AI, leading barbarians. Heck, at least it will put that 8th unusable Civ at work!

He/she can't develop cities but, like old Civ 2 fundamentalism, have some special benefit building/recruiting troops.
He/she can gain money by pillage and ransom, capture resources raiding towns and mines/worked fields.
Can't research, but can stolen some (mostly the military, to keep up with current armies level of proper Civ.

Barbarians could win destroying all others Civ or making a secret pact with a proper Civ that win the game in usual way.

I understand it's not likely to really see Firaxis modify the game to let player use the barbarians, because they are used for random events and as a way to balance the game, but if I can still dream...

Well, someone else of you will enjoy a ride on the dark side of Civ?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Sounds like a great idea.

------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now

[Zanzin]

Admiral, I think that's an awesome idea. Barbarians tradionally played a large roll in history (they ended the Roman empire for example!!) and it would be good fun to play as them. It wouldn't be that hard to implement, would it? Let's hope Firaxis take notice of this interesting idea.

[Youngsun]

Could the Mongols be the barbarian civ? damn I really want to play that civ and destroy all the advanced and arrogant civilisations who dare to oppose me. hah hah!

[Urban Ranger]

Shades of Conan, Youngsun?

[Urban Ranger]

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 05-02-2001 06:19 PM He/she can't develop cities but, like old Civ 2 fundamentalism, have some special benefit building/recruiting troops. He/she can gain money by pillage and ransom, capture resources raiding towns and mines/worked fields. Can't research, but can stolen some (mostly the military, to keep up with current armies level of proper Civ.

What about no need to support units? How else could one get barbarian hordes?

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: What about no need to support units? How else could one get barbarian hordes?

As far as it's not an unbalancing rule, why not?
But balancing IS critical if a human brain and not a limited AI can lead Barbarians: surely any human player with too much power into his/her hands will pillage to desert every opposing Civ, isn't that true Gengis Khan Youngsun?

Ok, we are not sure about future Barbarians rules (encampment is currently the only news about them). Now, if they'll merge the same role of previus huts and barbarians hordes, give them to the human player can be a problem, but if they add limited diplomatic relations, trades and the likes, they surely can fit proper commands here and there.

Another suggestion: if the Barbarian is succesful enough, they'll probably will raid city and sometimes they can conquer too (the AI is able to do it, so I bet most of human players would too ).
The game could pop up the player a choice for:
1) raid, pillage and gain money, turning the city back to originary Civ and stay as barbarian,
or
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! Doesn't sound great?


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

[Youngsun]

Hello, Urban Ranger!

I actually made an attempt to play the barbarians by editing a saved file when I played civI.
Barbarian civ code was "0" and the white colored civs(Roman, Russian) had code "1" and so on.
But when I loaded the saved file, something very funny things happened and I never did that again.
It'll be really fun to play the hordes to plunder the wealth of other civilisations.

quote: Another suggestion: if the Barbarian is succesful enough, they'll probably will raid city and sometimes they can conquer too (the AI is able to do it, so I bet most of human players would too ).The game could pop up the player a choice for: 1) raid, pillage and gain money, turning the city back to originary Civ and stay as barbarian,or 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! Doesn't sound great?

nice suggestion Admiral! I had the same thought long time ago.
While barbarians are not allowed to accumulate their culture points(or slower accumulation), they may have advantage in military like all male population represents workers(hunter,shepherd and gatherer)as well as superb warriors.

[Gramphos]

I like it.

Should you have to pay 100 gold every time you lose a Diplomat?

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: Nice suggestion Admiral! I had the same thought long time ago.

Good! So far only nice agreements to our "silly" proposal

Just for a check, anyone thinking it'll be a bad idea?
May be unbalancing in a way we are missing, or bad for game popularity (it seems in Italy there is now another media "crusade", starting against games that let you play "bad side" ).

Any game developers working for a big "F" company that will cut all this chat, confirming it will be a programming nightmare?

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

[jdlessl]

I've given some thought to this one myself as well. Barbarians of course wouldn't need cities but live off the land. Their units represent their entire population, so sending one into battle means he won't be raising little young'in barbarians back home. This, inciedntally is how a lot of barbarian waves get started. A couple of tribes do very well and experience a population boom. They try to expand their territory and, outnumbering their enemies, are often successful. The displaced barbs must pack up and leave, putting pressure on yet another group, and the cycle continues. At least, until the hordes reach civilization, which is like dropping a brick on a glass.

So, to exist without cities, barbarians need to have limits on their population density, which forces them to expand. They can go on punitive expeditions for wealth and plunder, but this is usually only safe to do when back home is overpopulated.

The tricky thing is that as the barbarian Civ leader, you wouldn't control all the tribes. Really, the only way to do it correctly is have multiple barbarian civs and you can control one of them. The AI needed for these would be orders of magnitude simpler than that needed for a normal civ. And you get lots more barbarian options, like a civ (normal Civ) could then hire a tribe (barbarian civ) to do various things, like protect a piece of the frontier, attack a another civ or tribe, or serve as irregular mercenaries in your armies. Great for sacking an enemy city!

Help me out, name some good barbarian tribes we could use.
Vandals, Visigoths, Mongols, Hyskos...

--
Jared Lessl
[This message has been edited by jdlessl (edited May 03, 2001).]

[Adm.Naismith]

quote: Originally posted by jdlessl on 05-03-2001 08:59 AM I've given some thought to this one myself as well.

Good! We are becoming a crow, agreeing about this concept. I wonder why Firaxis isn't already developing the code

quote: Help me out, name some good barbarian tribes we could use. Vandals, Visigoths, Mongols, Hyskos...

My God, I have trouble remembering their names in Italian, not to mention in English!

Huns?

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

[Urban Ranger]

Franks, Scots, Welsh, Flemish, Apache...

[Russian King]

I want to introduce something new guys.

I was just thinking: Barbarians are very cruel and do nothing but attack and pillage.
I like that: its fun to kill them. But i think there should be a more powerful force behind them. Something that is totally secret. You cant even see the unit or whatever until it attacks you(i would suggest it wont be very powerful). Appears very rarely and unexpectedly. no outside communication and nothing that makes it visible. Just a dark force with armys appearing in dangerous places

[Youngsun]

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

[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.