Barbian are useless

[unmerged(48470)]

I belive that was better put on the map some more player nations that not a wasteland of barbarian tribes.

Ok they sack, well good, but are unable to do more damage...if, at least, they should create states from provincs gained...

But this way they are very useless

 

[Nelfe]

You can install them as Client State if you loose a province, and they create a new kingdom.

 

[crazy canuck]

Got to disagree with the OP. I dont think you have fully explored all the diplomatic options regarding barbarians.

I would have liked to see more of the map devoted to the civilized areas - ie more civilized provinces. But saying the barbarians are "useless" is one of the larger exaggerations I have read on this forum over the last 24 hours or so.

 

[Kaelic]

No he's right, they're pretty much a non-issue. Even the massive hordes of 40+ that take 3-5 of your provinces mean little because you can still eventually beat them and kick them out. There aren't many circumstances where giving them money or land is a better choice than just eventually defeating them.

 

[crazy canuck]

I have had a game where I was out of manpower, in the middle of a war with another major power and the barbarians came knocking.

I thought making a deal with them was the best option.

I also like the fact that I need the keep a good standing army on my frontier to take care of the barbarians.

 

[SirGrotius]

I like to attack my enemies when they're being invaded by barbarian hordes.

 

[Sabre Man]

Also, more small player nations would probably make it far too easy for Rome to expand all over Europe.

 

[unmerged(64314)]

No he's right, they're pretty much a non-issue. Even the massive hordes of 40+ that take 3-5 of your provinces mean little because you can still eventually beat them and kick them out. There aren't many circumstances where giving them money or land is a better choice than just eventually defeating them.

The true line between simply determined and aimlessly suicidal hordes has been not simply crossed, but defeated, sieged, and looted ad nauseum before finally perishing in a needless battle. Their purpose is to plunder and enrich themselves but this quest is lost in a foolish inability to walk away with their persons and purses intact. Were they to plunder what they could and then retreat back to the wilderness with their spoils, I would see no problem. However, they seem determined to do nothing except fight endlessly until they are eventually destroyed by a civilised state.

That said, I have certainly not found them to be a 'non-issue'! During a war with Carthage, whose entire military force numbered approximately 60,000 men, I have been simultaneously attacked both by a 55,000 strong barbarian horde from Germania marching into Italia and a 43,000 man force in Iberia. Both refused settlements, and I was forced to pull forty thousand men off of the campaign in Africa to stave off impending destruction. They have served a purpose in that they are certainly successful in often throwing unforeseen wrenches into the best of war machines, but I would agree that they need a new risk-reward AI to better judge the necessity of their campaigns.

 

[Secret Master]

They don't fight on until they are destroyed. They fight until they either conquer a faction OR are destroyed. This distinction is important because smaller powers are in danger of being conquered by barbarians if they can't eject them. The fact that you can continue to play after being conquered by barbarians (suffering some interesting effects, I might add) makes this potential outcome less visible.

Sure, you probably won't get conquered by barbarians playing Rome, Carthage, Egypt, or the Seleucids, but then again, they didn't suffer this fate in the period either.

 

[Calantyr]

It would be nice if, after accumulating enough plunder yet realising you're too powerful to defeat, the barbarian hordes would retreat back to their home province and establish a nation with their ill-gotten gains.

And then send out even more raiding parties! Rar!

 

[goobermaster]

I find the barbarians interesting - I colonize a one-prov strip and wait for the invasions. Then I can install a buffer of client-states that will fight the barbarians if they come again, giving me time to get ready.

Oh, yes, the money helps too.... though since it is possible to get balances of +5 or more, that is largely irrelevant.

 

[Tamas]

I think the current Horde system is far better to simulate their role in the lifes of the mediterranean civilizations of the era, then having standard tribal factions.

 

[Scippio]

What I don't like is that the barbarian threat for Rome and the other mediterrannean Civs is far greater than the threat Rome faces from the other Civs of France and Northern Europe. They seem quite useless. I mean it argues that, for example, the tribal civs of France are a separate entity from the gauls. The end result is that Rome faces very little oppostion in expanding northward.

 

[TheLand]

What I don't like is that the barbarian threat for Rome and the other mediterrannean Civs is far greater than the threat Rome faces from the other Civs of France and Northern Europe. They seem quite useless. I mean it argues that, for example, the tribal civs of France are a separate entity from the gauls. The end result is that Rome faces very little oppostion in expanding northward.

Hmm. I've not got to Gaul yet. I was sort of hoping that if I invaded Gaul as Rome, then all of the Gaulish tribes would ally, and I would have a real fight on my hands - just as happened historically.

However this kind of behaviour is something that ended up being modded into EU3, so the same might be necessary here.