Well, you cannot count that way. The essence is that the free settler gains turns, especially for getting to The Republic when tile proceeds are increased. Nothing that you'll do later if you didn't get it will ever make you catch up on turns.LulThyme said:
Goody huts in GOTM good?
- Thread starter Xarin
- Start date
Placing the huts far from the core should alleviate much of the problem. I remember one GOTM, I think it was 26-Han, where a hut from which those who popped it seemed to get settlers or towns was placed pretty close to Carthagenian territory. Those who reached the hut (probably no more than 25%) could wedge themselves into the Carthagenian territory and claim some lambs. This struck me as a very reasonable award for devoting some resources to good scouting, especially since it would have been cumbersome to bring a settler, if that's what you popped, back to your core (i.e. not a big factor in the early expansion phase) and also entails a need for roads and some danger from the Carthagenians.ainwood said:
When we are born alone on an island I think you are wise to remove the huts or, as Roland Ehnström suggested, try to find some challenging spots on the surrounding islands to place them on. You could also put a hut on a narrow land strip on the starting island and then place a barb camp on a mountain that we'd have to get past.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2003
- Messages
- 5,242
I don't know if this is possible.... but. (Takes deep breath in case he is making an utter fool of himself)....
Would it be possible to change the settler unit to have the same stats and abilities as a worker or maybe a scout, and then make another unit with a different name with the Settler stats? Would we then pop settlers that actually acted like workers/scouts?
If this were true then the biggest drawback of GH's would be removed. You could still pop a city, but this is rare enough to be acceptable maybe.
I have no idea if my assumptions hold any water BTW.
Would it be possible to change the settler unit to have the same stats and abilities as a worker or maybe a scout, and then make another unit with a different name with the Settler stats? Would we then pop settlers that actually acted like workers/scouts?
If this were true then the biggest drawback of GH's would be removed. You could still pop a city, but this is rare enough to be acceptable maybe.
I have no idea if my assumptions hold any water BTW.
- Joined
- Jan 24, 2003
- Messages
- 5,242
Sure. But it would not necessarily mean graphics downloads, as you could give the old settler the scout animations, and the new settler the old animations. I don't think the game mechanics would be affected in any other way would they?
Dunno... have to try it I guess.
Dunno... have to try it I guess.
Roland Ehnström
Prince
I was bored, so I gave this a go. In the editor, I created a new unit, which I named Settler2 and gave the exact same properties as a normal Settler. Then I changed the normal Settler, to give it the exact same properties as a Worker. I also changed "Start Unit 2" from Settler to Settler2 (otherwise you would of course in effect start with two Workers and no Settler). And I made Settler2 available to everyone (except A Barbarian Chiefdom), and Settler available to no one.
This looked promising on paper, but when I poped a hut, expecting to get a Settler ("Worker"), I infact got a Settler2 ("Settler"). So I guess this doesn't work.
-- Roland
This looked promising on paper, but when I poped a hut, expecting to get a Settler ("Worker"), I infact got a Settler2 ("Settler"). So I guess this doesn't work.
-- Roland
TimBentley
Deity
I would think you might have to switch start unit 1 and 2 (and change the free units for the AI appropriately).
Roland Ehnström
Prince
TimBentley said:
Woohoo, this works perfectly!
Ainwood, this is a very simple mod. All you do, is switch Start Unit 1 and Start Unit 2 under "General Settings". Then you just need to go to "Difficulty Levels" and swap the number of free units between "Start unit type 1" and "Start unit type 2" for the difficulty level of this perticular C/GOTM. The result is that you get Workers instead of Settlers from huts, and as far as I can tell, there are absolutely no drawbacks. I definately think we should use this!
-- Roland
Attachments
bradleyfeanor
King
Very interesting! This would be quite a big change though.
If we try this out, I would like to determine if we can prevent popping the worker by switching production to a settler or something (similar to how we can block getting a settler by setting production somewhere to a settler).
It would be kind of irritating to pop a bunch of workers light years from home!
If we try this out, I would like to determine if we can prevent popping the worker by switching production to a settler or something (similar to how we can block getting a settler by setting production somewhere to a settler).
It would be kind of irritating to pop a bunch of workers light years from home!
grs
nameless one
Hmm, good work. My only question is: Why? It seems an overwhelming majority is pro keeping it the way it is. The expansionist trait will get weaker even.
bradleyfeanor
King
I just spotted a comment by Mad Bax that has me thinking that turning the GH settlers into workers is not a good option. The comment was "You could still pop a city, but this is rare enough to be acceptable maybe."
Unless we can get rid of free towns, getting rid of the settlers is a bad idea. It would essentially make the free town even more unbalancing, because of the rareness of the event, in a similar way to Scientific leaders. As things stand, we usually get a fairly large group of players that pop a settler or town (I am guessing 25% or so). If there were no free settlers, then that group would drop to around 5% (another wild guess on percentage). Decreasing the number of players that get a free town, but not eliminating this imbalancing factor entirely, seems to just make things even more lopsided to me.
I would rather Ainwood keep managing the huts as he does: eliminating them in some games and trying to limit their potency in others.
Unless we can get rid of free towns, getting rid of the settlers is a bad idea. It would essentially make the free town even more unbalancing, because of the rareness of the event, in a similar way to Scientific leaders. As things stand, we usually get a fairly large group of players that pop a settler or town (I am guessing 25% or so). If there were no free settlers, then that group would drop to around 5% (another wild guess on percentage). Decreasing the number of players that get a free town, but not eliminating this imbalancing factor entirely, seems to just make things even more lopsided to me.
I would rather Ainwood keep managing the huts as he does: eliminating them in some games and trying to limit their potency in others.
Roland Ehnström
Prince
grs said:
Not necessarily. With this change, Ainwood can place far more huts close to our start without unbalancing the game too much. This way, the expansionist trait would be made stronger rather than weaker.
-- Roland
Roland Ehnström
Prince
bradleyfeanor said:
I disagree. The free towns you can get form huts are usually useless anyway, 'cause they are in less-than-optimal places on the map. (And Ainwood could carefully make sure that all huts are indeed in such very bad places.) A free settler is far better, and hence far more unbalancing, than a free town.
-- Roland
Roland Ehnström
Prince
grs said:
No, this poll shows that an overwhelming majority wants to keep goody huts rather than remove them. However, to find out if an overwhelming majority also want to keep the possibility to get Settlers from huts, rather than mod it so that we get Workers instead, we would have to start a new poll. This poll wouldn't ask "Should goody huts be in GOTM/COTM?" but rather "Should goody huts be modded to give Workers rather than Settlers?" which is a completely different question.
-- Roland
bradleyfeanor
King
Roland Ehnström said:
You are right. If the huts were placed in poor locations for cities, they would not be very imbalancing. Good point.
TimBentley
Deity
Or put them on mountains, volcanoes, or marsh.Roland Ehnström said:
socralynnek
Civ & Hattrick addict
Very good work, Roland. Sounds promising.
We wouldn't need to mod it, right?
So, then we could have more goody huts in very bad places, ok, you might get techs, but that's not that unbalancing since you can't choose them!
I vote for getting this in (especially if no mod is required)
We wouldn't need to mod it, right?
So, then we could have more goody huts in very bad places, ok, you might get techs, but that's not that unbalancing since you can't choose them!
I vote for getting this in (especially if no mod is required)
Roland Ehnström
Prince
socralynnek said:
Thanks, but all credit should go to TimBentley.
socralynnek said:
Right, only Ainwood would need to mod the original save.
-- Roland
Darkness
Shadow creature
socralynnek said:
I think you misunderstood, sorry. This is a mod. The unit definitions (for the start units) have been changed in the editor to create this effect...
I am definately not in favour of modding the GOTM this way! I like the GOTMs to resemble the Epic game as much as possible, just like they are now.
denyd
Emperor
Since I haven't read the COTM6 spoiler, I'm not sure how many GH's got popped. I managed to find 4, getting 25g, 2 techs (CB & WC) and a settler in the farthest corner from my core. I wouldn't call that "too good", more like below average for an expanionist.
Similar threads
