Is the gameplay better without huts?
You may not get free gold or tech but neither does the AI.
Is it realistic that a civilization would just be given gold from a hut?
Wouldnt they more likely have to take it by force or trade something?
I think with huts you are getting something for nothing. If you make a good
strategic decision you should get something but not for just being in the right area. I especially dont like huts given tech. If they had some of the higher techs i think they would at least be a town.


Maybe im wrong but i tried 2 practice games and checked the world builder.
In the one without huts the AI seemed to be a little bit more ahead in citys.
Without huts it was more even at 3 a piece. Of course it wasnt in depth and i didnt check buildings or units. I really wouldnt know what to look for to make an informed opinion at this point so thats why i thought i might get some feedback from the forum. I guess i kinda lean toward no huts cause i dont think the game should just give you or the AI something for free.

Look at it this way: Your warriors enter a village and get something, after they leave, the village is gone. Now remember these were savage times. :)

Look at it this way: Your warriors enter a village and get something, after they leave, the village is gone. Now remember these were savage times. :)

That doesn't explains scouts ;). Of course, the people might just be assimilated into your empire or whatever, etc etc. No real need for a reason in a game where someone can turn Gandhi into the most bloodthirsty genocide-loving monster ever.

Yeah but do you find that it helps you or the AI more? Or is it truly random?
Does the AI have a better idea where the huts are or is it as blind as we are to
unexplored territory? It seems like it would make it a little more even and harder
because you have to earn your gold & tech. You cant hope for a free one from hut. To me huts are like a bad lottery in that you know your usually going to get something. Where in a lottery you usually end up with nothing. Although my luck changes in tonights lottery drawing.:)

The AI doesn't know where the huts are, they have to stumble around blindly just like you.

On earlier difficulty levels its an even field, you just hope you aren't incredibly unlucky. On later difficulties (emperor+) the AI starts with multiple scouts and archers all running around in difficult directions so you are certainly at a disadvantage and turning off the huts will probably help you.

The AI doesn't know where the huts are, they have to stumble around blindly just like you.

On earlier difficulty levels its an even field, you just hope you aren't incredibly unlucky. On later difficulties (emperor+) the AI starts with multiple scouts and archers all running around in difficult directions so you are certainly at a disadvantage and turning off the huts will probably help you.


So if im understanding you correctly the AI has to find the huts just like i do but the difference is in how many units he has for scouting to start with.
So from that perspective it shouldnt make much difference on the lower levels.
But on the higher levels it should give the AI less chance of finding a hut first.
Kinda like the NBA lottery i suppose. I will probably have to just try each one and see which one i like.

I think on the lower levels huts favour you as the AI has the same probability of getting things as if they were playing at noble, IE they would get no settlers or workers, whilst a human might

I think on the lower levels huts favour you as the AI has the same probability of getting things as if they were playing at noble, IE they would get no settlers or workers, whilst a human might

I didnt think about getting settlers. I was just thinking techs, warriors and such.
I dont know if its a good thing for either me or the AI to get free settlers. One more city built imo is better in the long run. Wish you could decide what huts would give you & the AI or maybe even for each. Say i could get scouts but no warriors and the AI could get the reversed. So if i stumble upon a hut that has something im not allowed to get from a hut it would just say the hut is empty.
Then again maybe its just a dumb idea.

I didnt think about getting settlers. I was just thinking techs, warriors and such.
I dont know if its a good thing for either me or the AI to get free settlers. One more city built imo is better in the long run. Wish you could decide what huts would give you & the AI or maybe even for each. Say i could get scouts but no warriors and the AI could get the reversed. So if i stumble upon a hut that has something im not allowed to get from a hut it would just say the hut is empty.
Then again maybe its just a dumb idea.

I would say it's a good thing to get a free settler. :lol:

I turn them off. I don't like having BW, IW, Alphabet, and Writing before 2000 BC and I don't want to face the AI that does, either. :)

I turn them off. I don't like having BW, IW, Alphabet, and Writing before 2000 BC and I don't want to face the AI that does, either. :)

It can happen without huts. :)

alpahbet before 2000BC means you're playing marathon :p

It can happen without huts. :)

True. But your not getting a free pass in getting the tech as you are with huts.
Either free gold or free unit helps you. I guess im just not in favor of reward with little or no risk.

alpahbet before 2000BC means you're playing marathon :p

And you happen to have 2-3 riverside grassland gems.

I was thinking more it can happen to the AI, but I guess a player could pull it off as well under the right circumstances.

If you think about it, the AI has a MUCH better return on huts than the human at the higher levels. As a player, I see techs like Hunting, Archery, The Wheel, etc all the time, but the AIs start with those on some levels, making it more possible to get even bigger techs from huts like Writing, Alphabet, etc.

That doesn't explains scouts ;). Of course, the people might just be assimilated into your empire or whatever, etc etc. No real need for a reason in a game where someone can turn Gandhi into the most bloodthirsty genocide-loving monster ever.

Well the scouts are armed with tomahawks aren't they? They certainly look like warriors, in fact they look like they could kick the ass of any warrior in a forrested terrain although they don't. ;)
I imagine the villagers they encounter are very docile. Or perhaps they're simply assimilated as someone suggested.

Well the scouts are armed with tomahawks aren't they? They certainly look like warriors, in fact they look like they could kick the ass of any warrior in a forrested terrain although they don't. ;)
I imagine the villagers they encounter are very docile. Or perhaps they're simply assimilated as someone suggested.

The borg are in civ 4?

Well the scouts are armed with tomahawks aren't they? They certainly look like warriors, in fact they look like they could kick the ass of any warrior in a forrested terrain although they don't. ;)
I imagine the villagers they encounter are very docile. Or perhaps they're simply assimilated as someone suggested.

Bears/lions/panthers > Scouts + warriors > villagers.

Very logical.

I really hug the coast with scouting units when barbs are on.

I've never thought of playing without huts. Clearly they're part of the chance aspect of the game. IMO it wouldn't be as fun or intersting without that aspect.

I think Great People are similar. It's possible (in a series of really good luck) to generate just the right great people at just the right time to put you hundreds of years ahead of the AI (bulbing) when it really matters.

Of course just like huts, the AI can and does benifit similarly.

I've never thought of playing without huts. Clearly they're part of the chance aspect of the game. IMO it wouldn't be as fun or intersting without that aspect.

I think Great People are similar. It's possible (in a series of really good luck) to generate just the right great people at just the right time to put you hundreds of years ahead of the AI (bulbing) when it really matters.

Of course just like huts, the AI can and does benifit similarly.

Merits of huts and GPP are separate and not equal.

GPP isn't random unless you make it so. You could go an entire game without making any GP unless you capture a wonder or something and are forced to. The AI will always get those huts.

If you isolate say scientists in the GP farm and run a lot, you *will* only get scientists. It's not chancy like huts at all.

It didn't occur to me until recently, so I'm still not certain how drastic an impact huts have to emp+ games. Indeed pre-3000BC OB requests are iffy though. It's a good thing the AI doesn't know how to abuse that or the player would truly be scr00d.

But then again, as a player I utterly despise random events more than anything else in the game, so huts would be second to that (and ahead of barbs probably) most likely.

It didn't occur to me until recently, so I'm still not certain how drastic an impact huts have to emp+ games. Indeed pre-3000BC OB requests are iffy though. It's a good thing the AI doesn't know how to abuse that or the player would truly be scr00d.

But then again, as a player I utterly despise random events more than anything else in the game, so huts would be second to that (and ahead of barbs probably) most likely.
I totally agree on the huts. I have also recently begun to consider the implications as I am moving up in difficulty (pretty strong grasp of Emperor now, trying my "favored" map scripts and leaders at Immortal).

Maps also play a role on the impact of huts. I have been playing watery maps, and I get many more huts than I do on Pangaea or Fractal maps. Generally thats because I am much more isolated land-wise, but not contact-wise (AIs reachable by Galley). This has caused me to consider huts/no huts a bit differently as well.

I love the random events though. I think they add a perfect random aspect to the game. No event (other than the Barb ones in the BCs) are going to make or break your game, but to me, they are fun. Especially Quests (Classic Lit, Colosseums, etc) and tile-events (Tin, Prairie Dogs, etc). Sure, it sucks when locusts, hurricanes and volcanos go off on you, but I shrug it off, its just a building, or a tile improvement.

Huts though . . . putting a LOT of thought into the benefit/danger of these, based on a number of different variables.

Its just for a newbie i dont really have enough info or time spent playing to decide if the gameplay is any better. It may only seem that its better.

I totally agree on the huts. I have also recently begun to consider the implications as I am moving up in difficulty (pretty strong grasp of Emperor now, trying my "favored" map scripts and leaders at Immortal).

Maps also play a role on the impact of huts. I have been playing watery maps, and I get many more huts than I do on Pangaea or Fractal maps. Generally thats because I am much more isolated land-wise, but not contact-wise (AIs reachable by Galley). This has caused me to consider huts/no huts a bit differently as well.

I love the random events though. I think they add a perfect random aspect to the game. No event (other than the Barb ones in the BCs) are going to make or break your game, but to me, they are fun. Especially Quests (Classic Lit, Colosseums, etc) and tile-events (Tin, Prairie Dogs, etc). Sure, it sucks when locusts, hurricanes and volcanos go off on you, but I shrug it off, its just a building, or a tile improvement.

Huts though . . . putting a LOT of thought into the benefit/danger of these, based on a number of different variables.

If you play volumes of games, you'd be surprised what kind of events can really hurt. I have memories of ones that really hosed me somewhat recently:

1. 3 forest fires very early when I didn't have money to even assist the bereaved. This was an immortal game, and +3 whip anger, 2 of them stacked, that early in the game is pretty rough. A great player might be able to overcome such foul luck, but I wasn't good enough yet (might still not be).

2. 3x in BCs mining accident while planning/doing an axe rush. I failed to take the target city...by 1 axe. Also immortal.

3. A negative diplo event dropped the disposition of a neighbor enough to DoW me. I was toast before I could prepare.

4. Negative diplo also once cost me an AP win game.

5. Losing the barracks at a key point in an early rush prep is also pretty annoying.

6. You mentioned it, but the VEDIC ARYANS in 3000 BC.

I'd imagine if one AI got hit hard enough by random events or benefited enough by huts, it could disturb the balance and grant a much tougher consolidated AI than otherwise possible. This, however, is much more difficult to objectively measure, except perhaps in LHC - Sury.

Granted, I've played games numbering in the 100's this year, I might have even surpassed 200. Given that, games where random events can cause you to lose outright are somewhat rare. But, when you're playing a difficulty where the margins are quite tight for your skill level, you can certainly be damaged by more than just barb uprisings to the point where you lose...

I personally don't like huts, or random events (the concept of random events is fine - the execution is what I don't like: several events are wildly imbalanced). In my home games, I usually turn them both off.

Alas, turning huts off in scenarios such as LHC or Noble's Club doesn't seem to actually work: the huts are still there when the game starts. So in those games I often play with both on.

TMIT: Couldn't the same be applied to positive events where they enabled you to win a tough game? Like getting the free cover promotion for example.

TMIT: Couldn't the same be applied to positive events where they enabled you to win a tough game? Like getting the free cover promotion for example.

This logic is applied in HoF games and speed runs and it's good logic. I still hate events though. I'll try to explain.

It's kind of like losing at high odds: you don't remember when you win at high odds (and less so when you win at low odds) the way you remember when you lose at high odds.

Random events are far more evenly distributed than losses @ high odds though.

I don't like them in general. Although I hate losing because of random events, I'm not particularly thrilled at winning due to a heavy chance element, either. I guess it's in my nature that I'd prefer my skill to lead me to victory or loss, rather than a chance element.

Playing games like monopoly is hell on me, obviously...more so when people talk trash over it :p.

Of course, there needs to be some balance between random vs not. You can't have copper every time or always win at 80% odds. However, random events introduce too much chance for my tastes. The biggest swing factor though, is their annoyance. Events are 100% guaranteed to net one thing, in EVERY game:

Pop ups. A lot of pop ups. No big deal, right? Well, no. You see, clicking a popup away, especially if its one where I actually have to choose between options, takes me nearly as much or occasionally the same time as micro for a city on that turn or a worker action. The combination of this nuisance and something I don't like in the first place is a bit much.

I agree about events, I liked them at first for their novelty but lately I've been turning it off. CIV has a very low chance element compared to many other games.
Still, an early axe rush requires more luck than many operations. You can be adequately prepared yet lose the game right there to a skewed RNG or be very lucky and pull of an improbable attack.

I agree on the axe rush, although they've been notably missing from the vast majority of my recent posted games ;).

Optimal strategies in civ, or rather maneuvers that give you the best position should you succeed/pull them off, are very often gambles. You can hedge these risks somewhat but if you're playing at a level that's still challenging you'll get bitten once in a while.

Not sure why but one day(long time ago) i decided to turn huts off and someday later(recently) turned off random events also. I kinda miss the random events as they added a flavour or "spice" ... Huts are just too much though. Having a player get a free tech in that way is too strong a random force(imho) and just easy/lame.

I dont think i noticed much of a difference. There will always be an AI on top or bottom. The huts may change which AI is Top or Bottom but there will stil be Ai at top or bottom ya know?

What id really like is to just have one random event... The Slavery uprisings. Thats a very good random event imo.

Its just for a newbie i dont really have enough info or time spent playing to decide if the gameplay is any better. It may only seem that its better.

Joe,
I look at it this way. Huts were put into the game. So obviously the designers felt that huts would somehow enhance or add embellishment to the game. So they certainly aren't an unfair advantage to the human or the AI. They are what they are.

You're a beginner. That's a good time to explore and try out all kinds of approaches. If some aspect of the game is so frustrating that it threatens your future interest in playing, then yes, turn it off. The idea is to have fun.
:)

The best thing about huts is of course that they're fun. They're exciting, like gambling with high odds at winning.
Going up in difficulty levels this feeling is more and more replaced with, 'Wow I found a hut, if I'm extremely lucky and pop BW maybe it'll partly make up for the 10 huts my neighbour's popped'.

It's so refreshing to read all of these high level players whining about huts.;)

I've never thought of playing without huts. Clearly they're part of the chance aspect of the game. IMO it wouldn't be as fun or intersting without that aspect.

I think Great People are similar. It's possible (in a series of really good luck) to generate just the right great people at just the right time to put you hundreds of years ahead of the AI (bulbing) when it really matters.

Of course just like huts, the AI can and does benifit similarly.

Not exactly. A very common scenario:

1500 BC: A great prophet is born in X land
X starts a golden age

It's so refreshing to read all of these high level players whining about huts.;)

Hehe, my thoughts exactly.

I still like huts, but then again I only play at noble.

Not exactly. A very common scenario:

1500 BC: A great prophet is born in X land
X starts a golden age

I'm not sure I understand what you mean.

Here's what I meant:

I was playing this game as Hauyna Capac on a tiny map, continents, prince level. I quesha rushed Ramses II first and took his capitol. Shaka was on another continent and I didn't have to deal with him for a long time. So I did what I love to do and built wondersin my capitol and Thebes. In fact I built every wonder (being a prince game).

So anyway, at a certain point I swithed to Caste System and Pacifism. And this huge wave of GP started happening that quickly took me past liberalism, in a way that I had never seen before. It was all luck. I mean how many times have you popped a GP that would give you education (for instance)when you're already half way through researching education. So you use him differently and don't advance as quickly through the techs. Well this time, I seemed to get the right type of GP at the right time, in a series that slingshotted me from relative parity to almost 1000 years ahead of Shaka, tech wise.

Now it was a Prince game and unusual things can happen more often for me at that level. But that's what I mean.

I mean, that "right GP at the right time" can happen to the human player only, just because the AI is stupid and does not know how to use its right GP at the right time. It's not the same with huts, where everything is just luck and nothing else.

So anyway, at a certain point I switched to Caste System and Pacifism. And this huge wave of GP started happening that quickly took me past liberalism, in a way that I had never seen before.

Its not hard to make something like this happen every game. In fact, I think it becomes FAR more important at higher levels to have a better grasp of what you want to do with your Great People. How do you think people get techs like Biology from Lib on Deity setting?

Semi's point was that the AIs do waste Great People, his example is the BC Golden Age. You stated in an earlier post that Huts and GP were a similar game mechanic, and they are not, they are very very different. The AIs dont bulb to Lib with their GP, or even try to force GS's for that specific reason. It does, however, get many more huts than you can, and the odds are they will get something good, to further extend their early advantage over the human.

Does turning off events prevent slave revolts when in Slavery? I just thought about this. I haven't seen any slave revolts in the EMCs or IMCs, I wonder if I'm just incredibly lucky or they actually don't appear. That would change my mind a lot about using Slavery in No Random Events games.

Does turning off events prevent slave revolts when in Slavery? I just thought about this. I haven't seen any slave revolts in the EMCs or IMCs, I wonder if I'm just incredibly lucky or they actually don't appear. That would change my mind a lot about using Slavery in No Random Events games.

I'm pretty sure it prevents slave results. In the current Emp cook book, I've stayed in slavery far longer than I would if there was a risk of revolts.

RJM

Thanks, it's most probably the case. Which will probably change my strategy in IMC III. Since we have a Spiritual leader switching in and out of Slavery to avoid revolts would have been interesting, now, not so much. :)

Thanks, it's most probably the case. Which will probably change my strategy in IMC III. Since we have a Spiritual leader switching in and out of Slavery to avoid revolts would have been interesting, now, not so much. :)

Yes now the only reason to avoid slavery is to save on civic costs but you have to be really sure you don't need it.

If a game hits me ridiculously hard with bad events I've been known to plink in a few huts via WB in front of my scout or warrior as equalizers. If a hut has hostile barbs, a scout elsewhere and more huts.

Its not hard to make something like this happen every game. In fact, I think it becomes FAR more important at higher levels to have a better grasp of what you want to do with your Great People. How do you think people get techs like Biology from Lib on Deity setting?

Semi's point was that the AIs do waste Great People, his example is the BC Golden Age. You stated in an earlier post that Huts and GP were a similar game mechanic, and they are not, they are very very different. The AIs dont bulb to Lib with their GP, or even try to force GS's for that specific reason. It does, however, get many more huts than you can, and the odds are they will get something good, to further extend their early advantage over the human.

Yes I understand.:agree:

I wasn't going to defend that "earlier post." :o

If a game hits me ridiculously hard with bad events I've been known to plink in a few huts via WB in front of my scout or warrior as equalizers. If a hut has hostile barbs, a scout elsewhere and more huts.

I would probably drop down a level or two first.

My personality wouldn't allow for restrained world builder use. It's like trying to be a social heroin user. The last time I went into WB I woke up a week later in another city, wondering how I had gotten there.;)

Meh, I usually get alright things rom huts, and they add a bit of niceness in early exploring. I don't think thatmy game's ever been ruined from a bad hut pop, or the AI popping something epic. It'd be nice to remove huts if you wanted to, but my personal opinion is to keep them on.

Now if we're talking Civ Rev, one time I got a tibal village to give me the knowledge of Physics. I think it ust've been a glitch or smething, since that makes NOOOOOOOOO sense....it still worked for me, though! :goodjob::goodjob::goodjob:

So what did you do with Physics?

Now if we're talking Civ Rev, one time I got a tibal village to give me the knowledge of Physics.

Kev,
what did you do with the knowledge of physics at that point?

Kev,
what did you do with the knowledge of physics at that point?

I built bombers and started conquring with warriors and a squad of B-17's. I just got done with sacred burial, then the natives give me PHYSICS, and I'm all O.O it was the quickest game of my life. It made no sense though, warriors being backed up by bombers....:crazyeye: