Tribal Villages: YES or NO!

[Justy]

On the flipside - I think any games posted for competition should have them off (multiplayer, BOTM, etc) - the playing field should be level as a test of skill.

I have to disagree with this. If that were case then every player would have an equal right to every resource initially. Why is it fair for one player to get horses nearby or ivory and not another player? The true skill of a player is the knowledge of the game and how to deal with challenges that the game throws at you.

 

[afa2000]

OFF. AI always starts with more than one unit (monarch or higher), so by the time I'm done exploring the territory near my capital, all huts are gone (I usually play against many AIs).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

That may be. However, many of us play to recreate history.

There are so many things that were programmed into civ not for historical accuracy/realism, but for balance that it isn't funny. Take, for example, the fact that axes counter spears and are higher strength. That's not realistic at all. Also, that medieval troops are so far and away better than classical troops is also totally unrealistic (tactics and numbers were larger factors). Maces beating spears?! But in the game, it HAS to be that way, or there would be no incentive to tech...players would either just spam classical troops like no tomorrow and easily beat the AIs down up through immortal, or tech to rifles to finally stomp on the AI (rifles were a damned large advantage in real life, too, but certainly not unsurmountable).

Anyway, we're using different arguments if we're going with historical simulation vs game balance. I'm contending that huts and events are not balanced, you're contending that they're historically accurate. Those issues are separate.

Anyway, that is my view. If people want to play with events on, they can. And if they don't want to, then they should turn it off.

Agree 100%. As much as I hate events, I don't care one bit if people play with them or huts on. It's not my business and it doesn't affect me. What bothers me is that the game leaves these things on by default, and then they're used in both competition (!) and forum games that use the same start for comparison, even though their influence makes the "same start" idea very, very questionable. That is why I feel these things shouldn't be on by default, but options players can select. My estimation is that the only reason forum games and competitions use these settings is that they ARE on by default. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. My guess is that even things like "no tech brokering", "choose religions", or "permanent alliances" would be left on if they were defaults!

 

[Joshua368]

Agree 100%. As much as I hate events, I don't care one bit if people play with them or huts on. It's not my business and it doesn't affect me. What bothers me is that the game leaves these things on by default, and then they're used in both competition (!) and forum games that use the same start for comparison, even though their influence makes the "same start" idea very, very questionable. That is why I feel these things shouldn't be on by default, but options players can select. My estimation is that the only reason forum games and competitions use these settings is that they ARE on by default. I could be wrong, but I doubt it. My guess is that even things like "no tech brokering", "choose religions", or "permanent alliances" would be left on if they were defaults!

Random events are one of the advertised new features included in Beyond the Sword, it's pretty unreasonable to expect the creators to lock them away from the casual players (who most likely won't go through custom games) just so a few ultra-competitive high level players don't run into them as much.

I mean yeah I agree that it's absolutely ridiculous that the Hall of Fame would use them in a situation where you're trying to get the best score possible without reloading, but that's an completely different problem and not the fault of the people who designed random events.

 

[6K Man]

. It seems so fundamentally flawed to have a game decided not by one's ability, but by chance. Huts are less likely to do this than events for certain, but both fall along similar lines.

But, they're fun. That's why we play the game. I haven't lost a game due to hut outcomes, and the few losses attributable to events happened early enough that it wasn't worth getting mad about them.

In a strategy game, if one behaves optimally he or she should win. The only way a person who actually made all the perfect moves would lose is another person doing it with a better start.

If this viewpoint was taken to a logical extreme, all battles at 50.1% odds or better would be automatic wins, and all at 49.9% or worse, automatic losses. How would you feel about that?

My point is, there are many random elements in Civ4, and where do you draw the line? If you remove huts and events, why not remove the RNG for combat, the variability in starting positions and resources, the chance for minerals to pop up in a mine, the unrevealed tiles, etc, etc.?

 

[Tephros]

I don't think chance can be eliminated from the game anyway. How many times have I lost a >99.9% battle? Dozens of times, though I kill around a thousand units in some games so it makes sense. I play with huts on because I find it more fun, ditto for random events. If I want to play a game that has nothing to do with chance, I play chess.

 

[Joshua368]

If this viewpoint was taken to a logical extreme, all battles at 50.1% odds or better would be automatic wins, and all at 49.9% or worse, automatic losses. How would you feel about that?

My point is, there are many random elements in Civ4, and where do you draw the line? If you remove huts and events, why not remove the RNG for combat, the variability in starting positions and resources, the chance for minerals to pop up in a mine, the unrevealed tiles, etc, etc.?

CIVILIZATION V

 

[The Almighty dF]

I leave the villages off, but I turn random events on.
The villages throw off the difficulty by making it easier on the human player. The AI -sucks- at popping villages.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

CIVILIZATION V

Knight to queen bishop 3 as a first move?

I like how you used actual knights though .

I agree the game can't be 100% no chance. However events are far more erratic than RNG battle luck or even huts (it's hard to determine if one has ever lost a game over huts, the results aren't so easy to see. My guess it it'd be pretty rare though).

One of the more interesting things is how luck factors in vs speed. AI rolls for war and forgetting trades etc are on a per turn basis, so on marathon war with a backstabbing AI within the next 100 years late game is a virtual certainty, whereas on normal it'd be more chancy. I'm not sure which is better honestly. I generally know those odds and prepare for them either way. I DO think, however, fireaxis really choke on not scaling pretty much anything of consequence outside VC's with speed. This has a serious impact on events/barbs too (barbs essentially get triple hammers on marathon, and building the great wall really hoses the AI in some situations).

Ah, well. I can see the argument from the casual gamer side. Sometimes I lose sight of that...I don't play very many games with the mind set of "just for fun", even though playing is certainly fun for me.

 

[The Almighty dF]

Has anyone ever made an attempt to scale the events?
I love playing on marathon, and I'm really tired of Spearmen and Axemen barbs extremely early in the game.

 

[thadian]

58 to 11~

So far most people who keep them on seem to agree that without some degree of randomness, the game "stales out".

Also, most who turn off seem to either dislike odds they have no say in the result of, or believe it should only be turned off in the case of competitive events.

Normally, i am a monarch player who has a 40% chance to win. After turning off events and huts, my odds went to about 70% and after a few more games i will try emperor again. I suppose i am spending more time developing my playing style and less time attempting to respond to events.

 

[Justy]

CIVILIZATION V

Great pic, but I just have a few critiques. The catapults should be the rooks, Christian missionaries should be the bishops and warriors should be the pawns, and the Emma Peel spy as the queen. Aside from that I really love the chess concept of the pic.

 

[Tephros]

Great pic, but I just have a few critiques. The catapults should be the rooks, Christian missionaries should be the bishops and warriors should be the pawns, and the Emma Peel spy as the queen. Aside from that I really love the chess concept of the pic.

Yeah a civ chess set would be cool. There are no female-looking units in the game huh, besides the modern spy. Spy as queen seems somewhat strange to me, but I guess it makes sense if you think about Zelda and the queens mobility in chess.

 

[Joshua368]

Yeah a civ chess set would be cool. There are no female-looking units in the game huh, besides the modern spy. Spy as queen seems somewhat strange to me, but I guess it makes sense if you think about Zelda and the queens mobility in chess.

Well I tried great scientists and artists, but they both have mustaches and beards!

Also I was going for a medieval look (since that's where the pieces come from) so no warriors or modern spies. Besides I don't think I could update the spy to modern while leaving the general in his awesome ancient form.

 

[bestbrian]

Great looking chess board.

As for me, Huts=off, Events=on.

I like the flavor that the events add to the game, but the huts can just be extremely unbalancing. I've had games where I popped BW, IW, and AH from huts godawfully early in the game; that's one heck of a head start.

 

[Cutlass]

I often play the Terra map (an undiscovered continent, and all the starting civs on 1 bigger continent, for those of you who aren't familiar with it) and I've popped Astronomy from a hut 3 times in a row now playing that sort of game. Huts are often guarded by a barbarian unit and there are wandering units hunting down your Explorers. But I find that using the Explorers and Caravels to map out the territory until the Explorers die and using spies to get at the guarded huts means you can get to most of them before the AI civs search them out.

 

[Yngvi]

I used to not mind events; I thought they added flavor to the game. That was until an event forced me to declare war on somebody with all the diplo hits. A few extra beakers or a little gold is one thing, but that was too much for a random event. Now I leave them (and the huts) off.

 

[The Almighty dF]

I used to not mind events; I thought they added flavor to the game. That was until an event forced me to declare war on somebody with all the diplo hits. A few extra beakers or a little gold is one thing, but that was too much for a random event. Now I leave them (and the huts) off.

Yeah, I wish I could just remove certain events. Or make them happen less often.
Especially the one that causes instant spearmen, arches, and axemen barbarians near the start of the game.

 

[azzaman333]

I used to not mind events; I thought they added flavor to the game. That was until an event forced me to declare war on somebody with all the diplo hits. A few extra beakers or a little gold is one thing, but that was too much for a random event. Now I leave them (and the huts) off.

What event is that? I've never seen it.

 

[thadian]

sounds to me like the event where

"A spy has been caught in your borders....

(forgot the first 2 options, but the third)

Take this as an act of war."

This has them dow you but i didn't know the AI could get this event against the human.