Huts!!!!

[jc011]

omg,!!! hahaha.... well i just figured something out in my latest game at king level.

Usually in my games i just regard huts as just a bonus in the game, but not, it has become a part of my strategy, now i can finally understand why deity players can get such an amazing start... HUTS!!!

in my usual game, i never sent out anthing to explore the land, but in this game, there happened to be a hut nearby with a horse man. so i took the horsie out, and began popping a lot of huts, i got advanced tribes, money, techs as well as a few nomads, as well as a few barbarians. while popping all of these my civ grew a lot faster than it usually did. By 1 ad i had about 18 cities!!! (compared to my 8 normally) at around 450 ad. i my civ had grew to 26 cities when i discovered the babylonians who had a mere 5 !! HAAHAHAHA . ANyway now i understand the magnificant advantage of huts!!

look at this power graph

 

[el_kalkylus]

Yeah, I noticed that too. That is why Shadowdale, Duke of Malborough etc get so good starts.

I tried to pop as many huts as possible in some of my games too, and some where succesful while others were not because of barbarians. I wonder if there is a way to know that you won't get barbarians in the hut. I heard that if you build a city a certain distance from the hut, there won't come any barbarians out of the hut when you pop it. Does anyone know the distance?

If you pop huts with diplomats, you can buy the barbarians, I know, but you will lose a lot of time in the beginning if you must build a diplomat. I mean it first takes a while to get Writing sometimes, and then you have to wait all that time to pop the hut.

 

[Sodak]

Yes, grasshopper, you have found the way to glory!

If you didn't notice in your hut-popping frenzy, there is a greater chance of finding a nomad if you first settle the last nomad you found.

One good practice (after some tech advance, of course) is to explore with a ship, a diplomat, and an explorer in tandem. You can guarantee never losing the explorer (the diplomat may have to take the fall for him); the diplomat can bribe barbarians, which often are NON units; the ship can sail them home.

 

[duke o' york]

el_kalkylus, if you want to guarantee that you won't get barbs from a hut then you have to build a city so that the hut falls within the city radius. This also has the added benefit that you are able to choose the site of your new city to your best advantage as the hut will not now give you an Advanced tribe either. Of course, although it will now be impossible for you to get a gang of barbs, it is also impossible to get a NONE unit, but this doesn't matter because you do not have to build a defensive unit in the city.

 

[Odin]

Actually, there is a minor caveat with this strategy; if the hut is within one square of the city, you won't get a barbarian, but I think you may get a barbarian if the hut is two squares away (although I think the chance is much, much smaller than if the hut were in the wilderness).

Thus:

  X 2 2 2 X
  2 1 1 1 2
  2 1 C 1 2
  2 1 1 1 2
  X 2 2 2 X

So, you're guaranteed OK in the "1" squares, you're probably OK in the "2" squares, and it's random elsewhere.

 

[jc011]

woohoo!! i finished the game with a 113% rating!! that's my highest yet, and first one in triple digits! but it could have been better if i were more agressive.

 

[jomey]

Just on the subject of huts, If you don;t build a city then you all your units are NONs. You may be able to build an army which could conquer the world (map permitting).

 

[deitydude]

Originally posted by jomey
Just on the subject of huts, If you don;t build a city then you all your units are NONs. You may be able to build an army which could conquer the world (map permitting).

Over at Apolyton I seem to remember a no city challenge where someone actually did that and won. It was a long time ago so I can't remember all the details though.