A hutting we will go...

[Magnus]

How do you feel about 'goody huts' in general? It seems a bit weird (and perhaps unbalancing) when you pop your first hut and there stands a Legionnaire or an elephant - who could kick your ass (and who you couldnt even produce for a long time) yet he joins you and basically for a short while you are essentially unstoppable. Can these huts be turned off? That way early exploration will be more for finding great city sites and finding other civs, rather than just going on a shopping spree.

 

[BlueMonday]

AHHH! Goody Huts are great. Free money, free units, free cities, free settlers, free science...I love em all.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/image_uploads/goodbye3.jpg" border=0>
<FONT COLOR="blue">I don't ask why, I just fall into the meadow; I close my eyes, and I, I wait to die.
Yes I am a liar, yes I am a sinner; please forgive my broken soul.</FONT c>

 

[drake]

I think goody huts and the search for them is a very exciting aspect to the game. They reward the explorers of the earth.....Think about it, the more places in the world you travel to, the more people you meet and the more knowledge you gain.

I wouldn't think of taking out the goodie huts......you gitta have some luck involved! A completely sterile world without it's ups and downs is a bore.........

Bring on the huts!

 

[Kev]

Taking the converse, it can also be hideously annoying to pop barbarians as one of your first huts as well.

I have to admit to being quite the "hut-shopper". I will throw a few diplomats in a ship as early as possible and send them on their way to "mall". When you think about it, out of all the options (barbs, tech advance, military unit, wandering nomad, money, advanced tribe, or tumbleweeds) only one is bad and one is neutral while 5 are very, very good. Those odds can't be passed up.

I don't think the huts can be "turned off". I do hope that Civ III takes this into account either by giving the option to leave them off or by adding some negatives/deleting some positives. That's probably something that needs to be covered in the Civ III topics if it already hasn't.

------------------
Diplomacy - the art of
saying "Good Doggie"
until you can find a rock

 

[Magnus]

Exactly Kev. That was basically my argument - that they are rather too powerful.

I recently played a scenario where there were no huts and techs came about 5 times slower than usual (turns were 4 years, however) - it was quite strange to actually have to get used to the fact that Phalanx and Horsemen were going to be around a LONG, LONG time... yes, this may sound boring, but every advance was in the order I wanted it, so I got to customize my civ and then watch it ummm stagnate...

 

[lildude]

Huts are the best. Without them, the gane would be too boring.



------------------
lildude

 

[thealien_83]

I can actually say that I wouldn't care either way. Sure I take huts when I come across them, the odds for something worthwile are high, but I don't generally go out of my way to locate them. Sure I explore, but more in the purpose of locating rivals and finding future city-sites than actually "hut-hunting".

So if they keep them in fine with me, if they take them out so what? If they make it an option or otherwise changeable even better, then I can go with them sometimes and without them others...

 

[Supernaut]

I definitely like huts. They give a bit more of a purpose to exploring on big maps, where there are lots of unsettled spaces, and the rewards are very welcome. I ensure I explore every square in case there is a hut on it, which may be slightly distracting, but makes my maps look neat

As for a justificationl, I think it's good, because they represent the fact that the planet isn't just populated by 7 tribes, but has lots of neutral people on it as well, just minding their own business until they suddenly come into contact with this advanced civilisation.

 

[duke o' york]

The barbarians you get in huts are a bit useless really, especially with the habit they have of just disappearing into thin air when you've beaten a couple of them. Against another civ, your solitary gang of archers would have no hope of defending an attack from eight horsemen, but the barbarians are really just an easy way to get a veteran unit. It can be a bit annoying for your only settler to get killed straightaway by hutties, but you've only got yourself to blame for not founding a city.
The advanced tribes can be a bit annoying (and expensive) when they're in an awful position and you have to rush-build a settler before the city grows to 2. Obviously, if the city has grown to 2 so quickly then you could argue that the site isn't so bad, but an excess of food does not always make a good city site if there aren't other resources.
It wouldn't be too difficult to program Civ III to make the barbarians stronger once you've founded a city, although I don't know whether the theory some have suggested that non-offensive units fare better in huts is true. Settlers should be protected so that you don't lose within a turn, but after that then let loose the dogs of war.

------------------
in vino veritas

 

[Admiral]

What I REALLY cannot stand are advanced tribes, this is because I preffer to limit myself to one land (easier to defend). I don't enjoy having to "baby-sit" a city where I haven't been able to chose its exact location.

Is there any way you can dispand a city?

 

[Mongol Horde]

Originally posted by Admiral:
What I REALLY cannot stand are advanced tribes, this is because I preffer to limit myself to one land (easier to defend). I don't enjoy having to "baby-sit" a city where I haven't been able to chose its exact location.

Is there any way you can dispand a city?

Yes, you have to build a settler while the city is of population 1

 

[Magnus]

I notice Kev put a ratio of 5:1:1 (good-bad-indifferent) on what huts can give you. Hoever, a 2 diplomat hut popping brigade can make barbarian huts advantageous...

EXAMPLE: DIP #1 pops hut, DIP 2 is next to him, so a max of only 7 barbs pop out. DIP1 has one more move to he bribes one. this bribed one then kills one or two of the others. dip2 then bribes 2 more and they each mop up the rest. now you have 3 NON units for your empire and it only cost you like 120 gold. and if you are THAT strapped for cash at any point in the game (not allowing you to bribe) - then there is wsomething wrong with your game.

 

[Kev]

Keep in mind that the ratio isn't always 5:1:1. If you are playing with barbarians set to "raging hordes", I don't think that you will get the empty hut. Also, after invention you no longer have the ability to obtain a tech advance. Further, if you pop a hut that is on a square other than a plains, grassland or desert (hill, forest, swamp, etc), you will not be given an advanced tribe. I am not sure about getting a nomad after explosives are discovered either.

So... If you pop a hut on a hill after invention while playing raging hordes, your chances of getting something good now is 3 of 4 (or 2 of 3 if the nomad thing doesn't work)

In essence, since I rarely need money or a military unit late in the game, I usually just ignore huts on hills and stuff at that point.

------------------
Diplomacy - the art of
saying "Good Doggie"
until you can find a rock

 

[henmike_sigo]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In essence, since I rarely need money or a military unit late in the game, I usually just ignore huts on hills and stuff at that point.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I like to think of them as plagues waiting to happen in the late game. If the hut is next to shore with a ship and diplomat, I pop the hut. If it's a barbarian horde, then the diplomat evacuates (barring the terrain didn't require use all it's movement) and let the horde play havoc with someone elses territory.

 

[BorderPatrol]

Well I thing goodyhuts rock. I like them so much that my name for playing Civilization II MGE on the MSN Gaming Zone was goodyhut. Now I have made the name _BorderPatrol_ in anticipation of Civilization III and it's new civ borders.

I think goodyhuts are good because within every hut lies the unexpected and thus the element of surprise. I think the game would get boring and mundane without the goodyhuts and I hope they don't take them out, just revamp them.

I would like to see them add in the feature where you find resources in a hut that allow you to finish producing your most expensive unit next turn. Something similar to what they have in Alpha Centauri when you pop a landing pod.

Maybe another negative that could be added would be a disease that kills 1 population unit in the nearest city.

Another thing is that you could get worker units in addition to or instead of settler units, I think that would be really useful.

Well, whatever changes they make to the goodyhut system I am sure it will be fun.

------------------
<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0>If you cross the border, you better have your green card!<IMG SRC="http://forums.civfanatics.com/ubb/tank.gif" border=0>

 

[TheDuckOfFlanders]

I Think goody huts are great and have to stay, do i have my complaint's about the way advanced tribe's and joined settler's unbalance the game.
Once in a game ,i had gotten 3 advanced tribe's and 2 joined settler's before turn 20(a lucky shot really ,this doesn't happen much) ,i guess that you all can understand how this unbalancese's the game (at turn 30 i had 8 city's ,the other civ's had 1 ,2 or 3 city's)

One question: if you buy barbarian's off ,do you have to support them (in a city)?

 

[Magnus]

TheDuckOfFlanders, as far as I know, they are NON-supported units if they are farther than 10 squares away from any city you own, otherwise, you have to support them.

 

[Alan_Nicoll]

At King level, playing 4 civs, with barbarian activity set to huts only, taking 20 huts (from the start of the game) resulted in the following:
7 military units
5 tech advances
4 advanced tribes or wandering nomads
2 gold caches (150 total)
2 empty huts
0 barbarians

Playing one civ at King level with barbarian activity set to "raging hordes," taking 20 huts produced the following:
4 military units
4 tech advances
4 advanced tribes or wandering nomads
5 gold caches (275 total)
0 empty huts
3 barbarian Horsemen.

If I have 120 gold early in the game, I'll spend it quick building military units or Settlers, or (somewhat later) a Temple in my capital so I can start building a wonder. I explore using Warriors, so if Barbs slaughter him, small loss.

 

[Cedric Greene]

I never got the "tumble weeds" message until very recently in an MP game, I've always had the barbarians on raging hordes since I got Civ 2 and I assume barbarians replace it. Anyway I think goody huts can really come in handy early on but I'm not much of a shopper, if I see one I open if not oh well. Another reason I'm still a mediocre player ;-)

------------------
"Don't go down to the water's edge. They did it once, they can do it again. I swear I swear I swear I swear I didn't do... a thing I should have done... something." -Seven Mary Three

Cedric's Civilization II Page-Home of the *NEW* "Multiplayer Gold Edition" patch.
Cedric's CivNet Page

 

[Kev]

I agree that the huts should stay, but it would be worthwhile to add some negatives (perhaps they steal money from YOU or they bribe YOUR unit and it becomes a barbarian, ect.) This is probably something that has come up in the Civ III discussions.

As far as having a Diplomat around to bribe barbarians or evacuate, that is all well and good unless the hut is on a hill, forest, mountain, etc. Then if barbarians pop up the Dip is a sitting duck.

------------------
Diplomacy - the art of
saying "Good Doggie"
until you can find a rock