GOTM64 - First Spoiler

[Megalou]

Yes, it all sounds reasonable. You did not consider my suggestion to make remote goody huts more valuable. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=5151986&postcount=16

Exploring remote places is a strategy that players can embrace or reject, and so it would be a part of overall strategy, not much luck, if you go for those huts.

It's true that we often send out galleys without this incentive, to make contact especially. But how often do we put units that can open huts in those galleys? Deciding whether or not to put a warrior in a suicide galley or a galley that may well be sunk by barbarians is not clear-cut. You would have to gamble and you would not be sure what you would gain but the EXP trait would be an advantage.

The reason I persist is that the exploration phase has always been the part that I have enjoyed the most.

(I gave this game up since I reformatted my drive and erased the saves by mistake.)

 

[PaperBeetle]

It's a persuasive argument. When sending out exploring galleys, I usually consider that I could load up an axe, but I always figure that they are best served keeping watch on the homeland, or exploring on foot. That decision would be less trivial if I thought the axe in question was likely to pop something friendlier than a gang of thugs who would immediately slaughter him.

Incidentally, does anyone know if the safe-popping (i.e. no barbs) ability of scouts is inherent in that unit, or is it a function of their not having any combat ability? I was thinking whether a worker might be a better hut-popper than an axe. Of course, a worker is a precious unit with better things to do than play roulette on the far side of the map, but still I like to think about these things.
I do like to found towns next to huts, to get the safe pop option though.

Does anybody know if the AI deliberately pops huts, or only when one happens to lie in the path of its units? They so often seem to have a hut right next to their borders, untouched for thousands of years...

 

[Chamnix]

Incidentally, does anyone know if the safe-popping (i.e. no barbs) ability of scouts is inherent in that unit, or is it a function of their not having any combat ability? I was thinking whether a worker might be a better hut-popper than an axe.

I don't think it has anything to do with what unit pops the hut - it is the expansionist trait that makes huts safe. A hut popped by a warrior of an expansionist tribe will not be barbs, but a hut popped by a worker of a non-expansionist tribe could be.

 

[socralynnek]

PB, that is a Civ4 feature that scouts and other units have different probabilities when popping a hut.
In Civ3 the type of unit doesn't matter, only the trait. AFAIK at least.

 

[Megalou]

In civ3, you can't pop barbarian military if you haven't built any military of your own yet. This applies even if you're not EXP. The scout is a safe popper because of the EXP trait, like Chamnix says.

 

[Scratcher]

A hut popped by a warrior of an expansionist tribe will not be barbs, but a hut popped by a worker of a non-expansionist tribe could be.

I'm not sure if this is true. I am sure I have popped barbs using a warrior rather than a scout.

 

[denyd]

And now the definitive answer:

To get barbarians from a hut the following must be true:
Player must not be EXP trait
No cities adjacent to hut being popped
Player must have at least 1 city
Player must have at least 1 military unit (attack factor > 1 and land unit)
The unit popping the hut must not have "All Terrain as Roads" ability (explorer)

 

[AutomatedTeller]

Player must have at least 1 military unit (attack factor > 1 and land unit)

Not sure this is true - I have seen, somewhere, a screenie of barbs being popped by the 10 turn expansion when the only unit built was a curragh...

 

[denyd]

I double checked and land unit is not mentioned, only attack factor > 0

My chart is from PTW, so it's also possible that C3C had other changes.

 

[civ_steve]

From my recollection, safe hut popping is an EXP trait, and for any unit of an EXP cit.

And I believe the other items on denyd's list are correct. I can't say I've exhaustively (or even non-exhaustively ) tested them.