No Hut option

Alexander's Horse · July 11, 2001, 01:35

Damn, why didn't think of this sooner

Why? Well in multiplayer games early huts can give a player a decisive advantage. Its really unfair.

Ralf · July 11, 2001, 02:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
Damn, why didn't think of this sooner

Why? Well in multiplayer games early huts can give a player a decisive advantage. Its really unfair.

If implemented exactly as in Civ-2, they should be optional. And you right: they can be over-exploited in a way that unbalance the game. For example, a couple of easy hut-conquerings with some tech-updates can be several times more worthwhile then the expensive Darwin's Voyage wonder.

They could tweak the idea differently: Goody-huts replaced with ulcer-huts.

TechWins · July 11, 2001, 02:06

I think this would really help out MP games a lot.

I hate how everytime I play an LAN game my brother (one of the two other people I play against) gets two settlers, free techs, and a bunch of huts next to him. It's not fair, I want everybody to start off on equal terms.

With that being, there should be an option that reads "All Equal Terms". With that option being checked every civ would start off with the same tech., same amount of units, and no huts at all in the world.

Dr Strangelove · July 11, 2001, 11:17

It's up to each player to decide how aggressively he'll pursue grabbing goody huts. It's unfair if one player is dropped on an island and can't get access to goody huts, but being dropped on an island is unfair anyway.
Still, I have no objection to having an option to delete goody huts.

DrFell · July 11, 2001, 15:49

Will free cities be available from huts? If that's the case then a no-hut option would be vital for mp, as it will be more expensive to build new cities in Civ3 anyway. Already in Civ2 a few free cities near the start of the game can kill your opponents chances of winning.

Dauphin · July 11, 2001, 17:01

Well the whole part of the early game is about luck and such.

Terrain for a start is decisive. If you get stuck on a small arid island you are majorly disadvantaged compared to someone on a medium island made up of grassland and hills. Then you have your location with respect to other civs, do you have to focus on defence or can you focus on growth. Many people would often restart games if dealt bad terrain.

Huts are just another extension to this.

War4ever · July 11, 2001, 21:33

Theres no doubt that if you find a nomad and/or tribe.....early.... the game can be over right then

i too agree that huts should be an option and preferably left off MP so that the whining will cease (at least in this department

Earwicker · July 12, 2001, 12:04

I agree that it should be an option to play with Huts-off. In an SP or MP game, there would then be the decision to go with or without them. It's a good feature of SMAC to limit them (well, pods, but close enough) through a startup option, since AI doesn't go a-hunting the way humans do. And "luck" in popping can quickly turn to an imbalanced game.

DrFell · July 12, 2001, 20:52

A slightly improved AI could fairly easily be created to go search for huts - assuming there's no hut pattern which would give the human a huge advantage. The main place where huts cause problems is in duels with human opponents. There's no worse feeling playing civ than starting off and finding your opponent's found 3 or 4 cities and a ton of chariots and all you've got is techs and weed. It's annoying to be screwed like that - of course it's great when you come back and win after a start like that

War4ever · July 12, 2001, 21:54

Quote:

Originally posted by DrFell
There's no worse feeling playing civ than starting off and finding your opponent's found 3 or 4 cities and a ton of chariots and all you've got is techs and weed. It's annoying to be screwed like that - of course it's great when you come back and win after a start like that

yup i agree..... except with that type of early lead you don't come back against the elite

the real problem with nomads is that they often come in an area where you can springboard a whole new civilization, whereupon you block the board from further settling in "your" area....

i have been on the receiving and delivering end of this and it truly doens't show who the better player is, all it does is say that you were luckier or unluckier than your opponent.

perhaps attaching a home to NON settlers would help in making it at least slightly more interesting

Rasputin · July 12, 2001, 22:41

it is possible to do this via Scenario but would be much easier as an at game start option

DrFell · July 12, 2001, 23:37

Quote:

Originally posted by War4ever
yup i agree..... except with that type of early lead you don't come back against the elite

Yeah it's more likely to happen when your picking on zone newbies

. But it is possible on 2x2x - nothing better than walking into an undefended cap

which is why I hate players who defend their cities early on. 2x1x is a different kettle of fish i suppose, although it's a setting I rarely play. Unfortunately with equal players generally you have a good idea who will win in the early stages of the game, after the first few huts. On 2x2x at least, it's a rare treat to get a close game that actually lasts awhile.

Sometimes you do get unlucky with advanced tribes though, they can be a disadvantage at times. Getting a tribe next to a river near your opponent can be a real pain to defend. But it is nice to have a small base in the mountains to launch attacks. Perhaps in civ3 only worker/colonies should be allowed from huts, and only in close proximity to your civ. This would help avoid the 'seperate groups of cities expanding until they meet each other' problem that lets you control a lot more land and gives you a headstart in cities as well.

markusf · July 13, 2001, 01:25

A lot of this stuff is already built into civ TOT. For instance you can take out huts, and you can set the min cost of a unit when it is bribed, or you can turn off bribing for that unit altogether.

tniem · July 13, 2001, 01:52

SMAC had pods in the game instead of huts and it was customizable to turn it off. Sure BR isn't working on this game, but I would think whoever is would include such a feature.

Lung · July 13, 2001, 02:34

Quote:

Originally posted by markusf
A lot of this stuff is already built into civ TOT. For instance you can take out huts, and you can set the min cost of a unit when it is bribed, or you can turn off bribing for that unit altogether.

Shock! Horror!!

I am outraged!

Your avatar is obscene. I can see her nipples! Mmmm.........nipples. Er, i mean, shame on you!!!