I'm sure there have been lots of threads discussing this but there's always room for more. WHY THE HATE????? I always play with events on and huts (except before we figured out how to stop the OOS errors in our MP games) They help make each game a little different. (except for the early game ending barb stack) Starting with a scout vs warrior is an advantage when huts are in play. So having a civ that starts with a scout an advantage. Why is this any different than a civ with better traits or a better UU and UB. It's just another factor in the equation. Yes, events can be good or bad. But so can early combats. Sometimes losing that 98% combat early on costs you a city, and 3 of them could costs you a war. **** happens. Do people hate them because they can mess up their strats? The game is fluid and is really all about adapting. For me it's interesting to see someone's who strat usually includes the mids not get it in one of our MP games because he suffered a slave revolt which costs a few critical turns. (I really see no difference between this and any other random event) I've never seen anyone whine about how unfair slave revolts are. Yes I realize that at the upper levels, you're can be on the edge of success/failure quite a bit. But if you win every time, what's the challenge? To me the addition of a few more random things makes the game more enjoyable. A lot of the objection I see is from the good players who's posts I usually respect quite a bit. The usually just say that the extra randomness is an abomination without really explaining why. I'd love to hear what your objections are and why are these any different than all the other random factors in the game.