Barbarians

Gramphos · June 9, 2002, 09:15

GameSetup Poll5: Barbarion Activity

star mouse · June 9, 2002, 09:18

Raging. Because we can. And because encampments are a source of easy cash

Inverse Icarus · June 9, 2002, 10:35

arg. i HATE barbarians on Raging because they ALWAYS hit me before i can build ANYTHING, take my gold, slow my production, etc.

i voted Sed.

Franses · June 9, 2002, 10:41

I am with UberkruX on this one. I just lost two cities to 72 Barbarians in 400 BC. You simple can not do much against it and I do not like that.

Inverse Icarus · June 9, 2002, 10:47

Quote:

Originally posted by Franses
I am with UberkruX on this one. I just lost two cities to 72 Barbarians in 400 BC. You simple can not do much against it and I do not like that.

you cant LOSE cities can you? you just lose a ton of gold, lose pop points, and lose production...

punkbass2000 · June 9, 2002, 10:49

'restless' Not too much that they're annoying, but good sources of cash and experience, especially if we're not militaristic.

Alex · June 9, 2002, 10:49

I voted for Restless. Yes, raging hordes are a nuisance, but sedentary would make things far too easy in the beginning. Hey, our Historian must have glorious things to register!

Franses · June 9, 2002, 10:55

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX

you cant LOSE cities can you? you just lose a ton of gold, lose pop points, and lose production...

Sorry UberkruX. You are right of course. I disbanded them myself because I had a large amount of money at the time and was certain I could not hold these cities.

kring · June 9, 2002, 13:14

The best way I have found to handle Raging is to actively hunt them down. I have units out in all directions; as soon as they find a camp, they attack it. This lessens the chance of a Massive Uprising, as well as adding gold to my coffers. I find myself with a lot of cash early game this way.

Depending on map size, you can develop teams that go
Barb hunting; that is all they do.

When I haven't actively hunted their camps, then they go Massive on me.

Inverse Icarus · June 9, 2002, 13:15

Quote:

Originally posted by Franses

Sorry UberkruX. You are right of course. I disbanded them myself because I had a large amount of money at the time and was certain I could not hold these cities.

dont be sorry, i was just curious if the new patch (1.21) changed anything. that would have been a major change

Franses · June 9, 2002, 14:43

Quote:

Originally posted by kring
The best way I have found to handle Raging is to actively hunt them down. I have units out in all directions; as soon as they find a camp, they attack it. This lessens the chance of a Massive Uprising, as well as adding gold to my coffers. I find myself with a lot of cash early game this way.

Depending on map size, you can develop teams that go
Barb hunting; that is all they do.

A tactic I often follow but in this particular case (400 BC) I was glad to have defense for my cities and certainly no units yet to go Barb hunting.

kring · June 9, 2002, 15:04

Early game, the main purpose of my Barb hunting units is exploring the map, esp. if it is Pangaea. I do keep some units at home, depending on map size, no. of civs, closeness of civs, etc.

One way to reduce the threat is to station units outside of your FoW areas to insure there is none near your cities; again the above factors may not make this preferable or possible.

One strange sidenote is that I have seen Barb camps spring up next to another civ's borders; the borders had been there a while. Also, spring up next to a Worker of mine that was doing something (build road, etc.) outside of my areas. Since I don't automate, it didn't happen as a result of automated move.

Kuciwalker · June 9, 2002, 16:08

Roaming. We'll get some gold, but won't have any trouble.

Nikolai · June 9, 2002, 16:11

I voted on roaming.

I use to use that option, so...

civman2000 · June 9, 2002, 22:29

what is the difference between none and sedentary, in my experience pre-1.21 sedentary had none...

kring · June 9, 2002, 23:00

In Sedentary, they stayed at home. You could stumble into a camp, but they weren't active.

In None, there are no huts and there are no camps.

Timeline · June 9, 2002, 23:10

Well I voted Restless myself.

Reason being: It will make darn sure we have a decent size military on-hand throughout the early game.

civman2000 · June 9, 2002, 23:53

Do similar averaging thing as in level:
0=none
...
4=raging
random must have more votes than any other choice to win.

Jon Shafer · June 10, 2002, 00:03

Random won't win.

Chandragupta · June 10, 2002, 00:22

Looks like raging has the plurality at present, my argument for it would be the chance to rapidly advance units to elite status before inter-civ-wars break out increasing the chance for great leaders (like chandragupta if india is picked). Also, gold is nice and more encampments means more gold.

Jethro83 · June 10, 2002, 08:28

We'll need barbarians for our quick cash, and unit promotions (before we get our barracks up in each of our cities). However, barbarians at raging are a bit over the top. Therefore, I place my vote at Restless.

Adagio · June 10, 2002, 08:35

Close race at the moment:

Roaming 11 25.58%
Restless 11 25.58%
Raging 11 25.58%

Jon Shafer · June 10, 2002, 08:36

Maybe we should just average them. Gee I wonder how that will go...

Gramphos · June 10, 2002, 10:03

Quote:

Originally posted by Trip
Maybe we should just average them. Gee I wonder how that will go...

Slightly before Restless I thing.

Moral Hazard · June 11, 2002, 23:38

It appears clear to me that restless should be our option.

kring · June 11, 2002, 23:53

Roaming is winning. The purpose of the poll was to actually decide based on poll results, not average. In case of tie, you can always have a runoff.

Moral Hazard · June 12, 2002, 00:13

It wasn't when I posted.

Panag · June 12, 2002, 17:21

hi ,

raging , with a basic barb as infantry , and an advanced as infantry , sea unit ; destroyer , ...

have a nice day

Oerdin · June 12, 2002, 17:44

Raging is the only way to go.

Kuciwalker · June 12, 2002, 17:59

I think that going with the highest is a mistake. I think we should think of each poll as a curve (as many seem to be), and where the middle of the largest curve (as there may be several) is, we choose that option. This avoids the oft-quoted scenario where you have far-right, middle, and far-left candidates, and by default the middle must win. Where there is clearly a certain range of values that is popular, pick the center of it, which results in the best situation for everyone overall. This is not averaging. It only applies when there is obviously a certain area that is popular. In the objection to averaging, they assume that everything gets about the same votes. This is clearly not the case in many of our polls.