The Effect of Huts on Gameplay

Lately, I've been debating on what kind of default settings to use for my games. I've been cycling around Fractal, Continents, and Pangaea maps, and I've enabled the No Events option in my default settings.

One setting that I've put more thought into is the No Tribal Villages option. With this option disabled (i.e., huts are still in the game), there is a chance to gain a random prize (or trap, in some cases) when going into a village. Also, a rare number of tribal villages are guarded by a barbarian unit, making the prize harder to get but resulting in a better chance for a good prize.

With a Scout as the starting unit, the differences in gameplay seem to be more significant. If the option is enabled, then the Scout has very little to gain by venturing into the jungle, since the risk is very high of running into deadly barbarian units, and there are no prizes to gain, not to mention that the Scout is limited to one tile per turn in the jungle.

For the Warrior, the disabling of huts will mean that more effort should be put into guarding the life of the starting warrior, since there is nothing to be gained in terms of prizes, for scouting more land. Some scouting is necessary, though, to make sure good land for settling new cities is found. But once that initial scouting is done, the Warrior mainly functions as a very basic military unit for defense.

With huts, both the Scout and Warrior have more incentive to scout more territory--especially if there is a lot of jungle. Since AI units will suffer a delay in scouting the area near the player's starting point, the player has at least a decent chance to reach the huts in the jungle that are nearer to his starting location. This is true for both Warriors and Scouts.

With huts, the Scout can take advantage of its 2-tile move to gain more huts. However, this comes at an expense of being a poor unit for defending new cities. Even on a hill, a Scout has very little chance of winning a battle defending against an archer.

The prize for a warrior with huts disabled is woody III. If I wanted that, I would send my warrior into the jungle. With huts on you have to be careful, if you send in a warrior to greet the natives, you have consider that he will be killed and can you afford to lose him right then. Scouts should skirt around the jungle, ending a turn in a jungle tile, but not blindly plodding through it.

If you dont like it that enemy scouts are walking around in 'your land', you can whack them if you have a warrior at hand. I hate it when an emeny scout eats my lunch.

I'm a purist, I like to play the game the way it ships with the default options enabled. Therefore, I like huts and events.

If I start with a warrior, I consider that my 'army'. And I will most often send my army into the territory that I want to occupy next. As you know, it effectively covers the same ground as a second city would. Of course, I still like to scout around to find a second city sight so maybe warrior 2 will 'take over' this new region.

There isnt much need to be concerned about all the fog at this point because the barbs wont come in until a ceratin amount of cities have been founded. By that time you better be able to defend what you have claimed for land. But this will sometimes be 1800BC at least, maybe longer.

Writing is important. Once the initial land is claimed, you can open borders and then use scouts to quickly reveal the map in relative safety. There really isnt much need to wander too far from your initial starting zone.

budweiser said:

The prize for a warrior with huts disabled is woody III. If I wanted that, I would send my warrior into the jungle. With huts on you have to be careful, if you send in a warrior to greet the natives, you have consider that he will be killed and can you afford to lose him right then. Scouts should skirt around the jungle, ending a turn in a jungle tile, but not blindly plodding through it.

Click to expand...

With huts enabled, would it be harder for the Warrior to gain XP? Maybe, if it increases the chances of spawing barbarians, but I'm not sure whether this is the case.

About the Warrior being attacked by the natives, I agree, but if you're on defensive terrain you may still survive. On the other hand, if you need the gold badly, it may be worth it to take the risk anyway, since this may be one of your few chances to gain gold.

If you dont like it that enemy scouts are walking around in 'your land', you can whack them if you have a warrior at hand. I hate it when an emeny scout eats my lunch.

Click to expand...

On higher levels, though, this is very risky because the enemy will likely have archers that can attack your units.

budweiser said:

I'm a purist, I like to play the game the way it ships with the default options enabled. Therefore, I like huts and events.

Click to expand...

I'm a semi-purist. I like to keep all default options, except for the ones I consider as unreasonable.

If I start with a warrior, I consider that my 'army'. And I will most often send my army into the territory that I want to occupy next. As you know, it effectively covers the same ground as a second city would. Of course, I still like to scout around to find a second city sight so maybe warrior 2 will 'take over' this new region.

There isnt much need to be concerned about all the fog at this point because the barbs wont come in until a ceratin amount of cities have been founded. By that time you better be able to defend what you have claimed for land. But this will sometimes be 1800BC at least, maybe longer.

Click to expand...

But even with your Warrior there, the AI can still settle cities near the Warrior. Unless you're thinking about attacking those cities with the Warrior...

Writing is important. Once the initial land is claimed, you can open borders and then use scouts to quickly reveal the map in relative safety. There really isnt much need to wander too far from your initial starting zone.

Click to expand...

True...but by the time you get Writing, it will be very cheap to build an extra Scout to scout your neighbor's lands.

As you go up in difficulty, the AI get's alot more bonus, and those are more warriors/scouts. The AIs will pop more huts, thus get more benefits compared to the human. Thus I really think turning huts off actually benefit the human player more at higher difficulty.

Always keep them on as I like that added feature of the game.

With huts enabled, would it be harder for the Warrior to gain XP? Maybe, if it increases the chances of spawing barbarians, but I'm not sure whether this is the case.

Click to expand...

NO. The same. If you spawn barbs with your warrior from a hut, they are coded to have a combat bonus against you. You are supposed to die. Of course sometimes you do survie because of the number that spawn, the terrain you are on and sometimes a barb or 2 will noty attack, they will wander away. All this doesnt even conssier going in with an archer...
You can also save huts and bust them with culture.

On higher levels, though, this is very risky because the enemy will likely have archers that can attack your units.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I hardly ever declare war so early. You would want to be attacked. Again, you might want a few archers ready.

But even with your Warrior there, the AI can still settle cities near the Warrior. Unless you're thinking about attacking those cities with the Warrior...

Click to expand...

I would not attack with the warrior. But I welcome barb ciites in my land as long as I have a means to take them out in the BCs before the other civs get there with their troops. A 2 move unit of my own can snatch a barb worker in the mean time.

True...but by the time you get Writing, it will be very cheap to build an extra Scout to scout your neighbor's lands.

Click to expand...

By this time, scouts are often a 1 turn build in th ecap or else where. I might send out 1 to each civ and put them on auto explore so I dont have to worry about it. If I need to be more precise about scouting city locations, or its earlier in the game and barbs are still walking around, I move them myself.

budweiser said:

NO. The same. If you spawn barbs with your warrior from a hut, they are coded to have a combat bonus against you. You are supposed to die. Of course sometimes you do survie because of the number that spawn, the terrain you are on and sometimes a barb or 2 will noty attack, they will wander away. All this doesnt even conssier going in with an archer...
You can also save huts and bust them with culture.

Click to expand...

I was referring to the natural spawning of barbarians in the fog, not from huts.

If there are huts, would it make it any less likely for barbarians to spawn naturally? This might be the case for special huts that are guarded by barbarian units, but maybe not so for ordinary huts.

(Slightly off-topic) I often find huts "behind" rival capitals, i.e., between their capital and the coast.

I don't like luck boxing in general. It's pretty rare with huts, but there have been a few games here that have been decided directly due to the outcome of huts (one player succeeded while others failed). They definitely sway comparison between games consistently though. If 10 people play something there's always going to be someone who gets barbs and loses his scouting warrior and someone else who popped 1-3 techs.

IMO barb animals are just as bad as huts, or probably worse. No matter what you movement pattern is, starting from turn 5 there is *always* a chance that you lose your scouting unit early, having a material impact on the game. There is literally no way to consistently keep warriors or scouts safe. With warriors, you can run into a bear or simply get back luck vs something with 2 str. With scouts, you pick your poison: either move onto defensive terrain (but risk landing next to a bear, which will always have >50% odds vs you) or don't move onto defensive terrain, and risk getting coin-flip sniped by a panther...or possibly run into terrain where you have no choice but to move onto defensive terrain or backtrack.

To some extent chance is necessary in civ, but in a lot of cases IV *chose* to add extra chance to the game, dampening the impact of skill.

Of course none of the incessant annoyances in the game match up to AI cheats (not to be confused with its bonuses) or horribly coded diplo, but I can't just turn on good coding like one would turn off events .

I used to play with huts on, but I prefer them off. I'm okay with random events actually, but huts I feel are silly, especially when stupid things happen, like a civ popping HBR or IW.

I like huts, they add another element to the game. It's also somewhat balancing. Without huts, civs that start with hunting/scouts are probably worse off than civs that start with something like agriculture and warriors. Huts enabled allows those civs starting with scouts to exploit that advantage they have. It also rewards you for scouting more territory - popping more huts - instead of just sitting there in your city. Scouting properly actually takes some skill. Don't believe me? Just put your scout on auto and see how many huts it pops before it dies. Learning to scout effectively has improved my game - I can now keep warriors/scouts alive longer, get them to pop more huts, and see more land sooner.

After playing with strictly no huts or events for ages, I have recently relaxed my attitude and now often play with not only huts, but events too (!).

The most important thing about huts for me is they make it more palatable to start with Hunting. If huts are off and I roll a civ that starts with hunting I groan inwardly. Huts on softens the blow quite a bit.

Other scenarios where huts can be of some consolation - isolation; and deep jungle starts. When you are buried in jungle at the outset it means a very slow start until Ironworking. But, with huts on you have a chance to pick up two or three goodies before the Ai scouts penetrate the rainforest to come and steal your stuff.

As with events, if you are in the mood to take the game seriously enough that they might annoy you and reduce your enjoyment, then just turn 'em off.

TheMeInTeam said:

To some extent chance is necessary in civ, but in a lot of cases IV *chose* to add extra chance to the game, dampening the impact of skill.

Click to expand...

If you take out any random effects the game becomes boring and predicatable. There is no skill involved because for evey situation there would be a surefire solution.

Real skill involves building an empire that can overcome any random occurance.

The effect of huts on the game can be illustrated pretty easily, in my opinion:
The AI starts with 2 scouts, and 2 combat units. I start with a single combat unit, or a scout. Who's going to gain more from this situation? Who's going to pop more huts? Who's going to get better results simply from getting MORE results?

The AI already cheats. I do not want Monty having Iron Working in 2200BC because he had a good hut pop. I don't want Mansa popping Alphabet at 3000BC. The game is already stacked against you. Why add another challenge to the uphill battle that you have to fight?

Oh, and skill: "the ability, coming from one's knowledge, practice, aptitude, etc., to do something well:"
It has nothing to do with chance. It has everything to do with taking an already random game (AI settles where? Builds what?) and playing well.

budweiser said:

If you take out any random effects the game becomes boring and predicatable. There is no skill involved because for evey situation there would be a surefire solution.

Real skill involves building an empire that can overcome any random occurance.

Click to expand...

So how would you deal with say, Genghis Khan popping HBR from a hut and rushing you with Keshiks in 2000 BC?

Riot said:

So how would you deal with say, Genghis Khan popping HBR from a hut and rushing you with Keshiks in 2000 BC?

Click to expand...

I'm guessing this has happened to you before?

But in general sometimes the luck factor is ridiculous. I always play without huts and random events. My g/f plays with both on, so I rely on her to enjoy and cringe on openings in her games.

These last few points about AI hut advantage seem overblown to me because the AI does not use its units to the fullest extent. It does not scout with it bonus military; it turtles. It also does not scout effectively; I regularly see huts that are waiting untaken 1 or 2 tiles from AI borders!

In the early game, huts make a lot of sense as a balance and luck element.

It is in the age of exploration that they get ridiculous. Why? Spies. Spies can be transported by caravel and can pot huts. They also completely ignore hostile barbarians.
So, when you play terra next, beeline to optics, have that trireme ready to upgrade with a spy on the adjacent land tile, and start searching for new land. Find that hut being babysat by a barb spear, have your spy pop the hut without engaging the barb unit at all, maybe pop astronomy, and watch the barb walk away on the next turn. Then proceed to map the entire new world with a single spy and complete impunity. Extra spies only speed things up.

Riot said:

I used to play with huts on, but I prefer them off. I'm okay with random events actually, but huts I feel are silly, especially when stupid things happen, like a civ popping HBR or IW.

Click to expand...

Is it any less silly to find a cache of scrolls in the desert that advance your progress towards fiber optics?


huts on - events on. Just my preference.

With huts on, you change your early scouting from exposing the immediate surrounding areas to looking for huts. Maps are pretty useless, since you have to scout those black patches anyway to make sure you didn't miss anything. You're mostly hoping for gold or a tech. The AI getting a tech rarely loses you the game.

The second change is that you'll probably get some hut gold, which allows you to deficit research while staying in exponential growth mode. Whereas if you had no hut gold, you would have to trade off your tiles into low food/hammer commerce tiles early.

I would say if you turn off huts, you should give everyone 50-100 gold so as not to change that growth dynamic.