 |
|
Ironwood
|
|
Fresno, CA
Oct 2001
time: 21:19
|
|
I've never had the pleasure of seeing a barbarian unit during the middle ages (or later), but I'd like to ask those that have: do the barbarians ever produce anything better than horsemen? I should hope they produce the best mobile non-wheeled unit of the era (meaning I could even see them using cavalry during the late middle ages). The reason I say non-wheeled is because barbarian tanks just wouldn't make sense (though barbarian infantry, or at least riflemen, do).
So does anyone know the answer to my question?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by ixnay37
I believe the only barbarian units you'll see (without modding) are horsemen, warriors, and galleys. Once most of the territory is settled they'll disappear. |
Its too bad that they didn't allow the barbs to have different levels of units. I have modded mine to have archers instead of warriors. Wonder how it would play out if the barbs had tanks in 4kBC. Too bad they can't capture cities, wich this would be toggable.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironwood
|
|
Fresno, CA
Oct 2001
time: 21:19
|
|
Well, I recently played a game on a huge earth map, and there were large portions of Asia (Mongolia, Siberia, and much of Russia) that went uncolonized until well into the industrial age (when people from all over the globe started colonizing the area). I never got a chance to see any units (I was based in South America) aside from triremes that had probably been there for thousands of years), and I wondered if there were ever anything like knights, or even maybe cavalry, both of which I consider perfectly reasonable.
Personally, I don't think having them capture cities would make a whole lot of sense (unless there's the potential for them to become "new civs" upon getting acclimated to the settled life), but one thing I would like to see is destroyed villages (particularly if the settlement they enter is size one, and there isn't much gold to be had, and the production has already been hit that turn). Of course, if they did capture towns, I think they should be pretty quickly reassimilated (cultural reversion).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ironwood
|
|
Fresno, CA
Oct 2001
time: 21:19
|
|
I just skimmed over the thread you referred to, and have suggested many of those very same ideas in threads of my own, back when I was on alt.games.civ2. In Civ3, particuarly with the ability to have more than seven civs, and a number system that discourages endless settlement, I don't think it's quite so necessary to have "barbarian settlements" (an oxymoron, in my opinion). Besides, to have a system that captures this, while also being able to handle nomadic peoples, would be difficult and complex.
Where we disagree is in what the "barbarians" of Civ3 represent. If I read correctly, you consider them to be simply peoples not of the established civs. I believe they represent *hostile,* and moreover unorganized (without a powerful enough leader to negotiate with) peoples not of the established civs.
The civs represent more or less stable, agriculturally based peoples, which, if you look at the way ancient history is taught, is all that really mattered to most people. Various people were said to have conquered "the inhabited world." This was not literally true; there were many people outside the regions dominated by these superstates. These were, however, the only people they felt mattered. (This lazy mode of thinking was, of corse, challenged time and again when "barbarians" managed to conquer the more "civilized" nations).
I think that, as of the beginning of the game, the entirity of the map is actually inhabited by people, but the only ones with a real sense of communal identity (beyond the family, clan, or, at best, the tribe), are the ones in the locations denoted by the existance of a "civilization." "Goody huts" represent the ability of explorers from those "civs" to have adventures by going out and meeting the people of the unaligned tribes. "Barbarians" represent groups of the unaligned who, for fun, profit, or for rectification of percieved wrongs, go out to fight, specifically against the "civilized" people. So long as there are areas that don't identify culturally with an organized nation, there will be people on the fringes, whether they be indigenous, renegade criminals, or, more likely, mixed groups of both, that will raid the settled areas.
Just because there is neither hut, barbarian camp, or civilized settlement, doesn't mean there aren't people living there. Just because, within a city's border's, there isn't a city population unit working a square, doesn't mean there aren't people living there. However, the people living there just aren't significant enough on the stage of history to warrant simulation in a game that already taxes my machine's resources.  There are likely hunter-gatherers, isolated farm folk, hardy mountain men, and such, living on those spots. They just don't contribute to the life of the communal center, and in the case of nomads, they probably move around a lot (and there's not a whole lot a city governor can do about it). However, if there's enough food, there will be growth in the city.
The reason barbarians aren't simulated as diplomatic is because their origin runs the gamut from criminal brigiand, nomad turned raider, semi-agrarian angered by governmental policy, adventurers from faraway lands, etc. To simulate all of this would be unreasonable, at this stage. The one thing they have in common is that they don't answer to a master that isn't immediately present (they have no permanent government you can ask to tell them to stop) so, instead, the simulation just produce "camps" (places they come from, whatever it may be), so the player has something to hit when the "barbarians" come a-knocking.
As to their units, I think the barbarians ought to be able to produce the best units (not civ-specific... or maybe even that) the civ they're associated with can produce, rather than those that the whole continent can produce. Often, the leaders of "barbarian" raiders were former military men from the "civilized" area. Mind you, I think it should also be possible for them to conquer *other* barbarian camps, making it possible for a primative civ to have to deal with more military advanced nomads from halfway across the continent (as Europe did when the Huns, having migrated from areas north of more advanced China, where they were known as the Hsuing-Nu, descended upon the Roman Empire). This would be representative of such "nomadic empires" as those of the Huns, the Mongols, and other nomadic peoples of north asia. This would, of corse, mean that the "barbarian AI" would have to target other barbarians as often as their associated civ (a reasonable goal, if they want to plan something big).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
wrylachlan
|
|
Late Game Barbarians = Rebels
How about this?
Once a civilization is destroyed, for every one of the ex-civ's citizens still existing in other civ's cities there is a percentage chance that a military unit from the dead civ will pop up barbarian-style.
These barbarian/rebels will tend to attack cities with the greatest concentration of their own citizens. If they manage to take one over the civ comes back.
Going along with this, when you capture every city of another civ, currently all their units disappear. I think it would be better if a certain percentage of them turn into barbarian/rebels. And maybe the percentage is based on the relative culture of the dead civ. The soldiers of a dead civ with high culture tend to fight on.
I agree with the earlier post though that late-game barbarians/rebels should be limited to foot troops.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by UberKruX
in my next game i'm going to set the barbarians up with musketeers. it should make the whole game more interesting. |
That may be a way to cheat or exploit on a higher level: play on hordes, with a cavs or marines as barbs. start on an island, with one or two encampments, which you can destroy by planting a city there. the AIs won't be able to handle it at all, will keep them retarded, so that you can swoop in.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
asleepathewheel
|
|
listening too long to one song
Mar 2002
time: 00:19
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jawa Jocky
No.
I attacked the civ I shared my continent with, with a massive tank swarm (about 100 tanks). To make life easy for me I razed 90% of the cities, which left a lot of available land. 3 turns later when I went to fill in the gaps with my settlers some barbs had set up camp. My tanks did not have much trouble with the single warrior in each camp. I miss the late game barb (muskets and cannons) that attacked in Civ2.
IMO most parts of Civ3 are improved, but Barbarians were a lot better in Civ2 |
was this in response to my post? I was talking about having cavs as the barbs, not warriors. Of course tanks won't have a problem with constcript warriors. And I was talking about an early game scenario, not a mopping up situation.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
louiethelesbo
|
|
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton could be the leaders of the barbarians we could nickname them...dumb and dumber.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Coracle
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by louiethelesbo
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton could be the leaders of the barbarians we could nickname them...dumb and dumber. |
Indeed. Two dirtbags.
BTW, I always turn off barbarians.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:19.
Apolyton Time is 00:19. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-05-2002 07:14
|