Part of the dislike of huts and events comes from the competitive and learning aspects of the forum, as randomness is a bad thing to have in either. While I personally dislike huts and event type events, I don't have a of problem with quests, at least conceptually, as they require some kind investment to achieve something and reap rewards. The only balance change revolts create is the unbalancing of slavery against itself. Think of an MP scenario, 2 players, both adopt slavery, all else being equal one player recieves 5 slave revolts in the capital by 1AD, whos going to win? If it was really needed to reduce the strength of slavery for balance reasons then there should be some thought put into it e.g. more or longer unhappiness. A mechanic that in practice merely unbalances an object against itself is totally moronic. Same scenario but with a different event, one player recieves 3 forest fires on the trot starting turn 20.... who wins? Forest fires are even worse, as without hut gold your unlikey to be able to afford to pay it off, meaing your bound to get another couple on the following turns and it makes you lose a lot of . Or will you argue that you should spend the first few turns after settling with 0% as well as building warriors? IIRC Its possible for the Vedic Aryan event to pop up so early it would still be a crapshoot to win if you had been building warriors from the start, so if someone lost like that would "shoulda played inca" been added to your argument then? The logical end to this argument of course is that as V.E cannot be predicted you should always build lots of warriors at the start every game to prevent something that is unlikely to come and in doing so castrate your empire, well, either that or take losses at random for doing something that isn't a mistake most of the time.... How this can be defended as "balancing" is frankly mindboggling.