Hut! Hut! Hike!

[Metamorph]

I hate huts.

Various games of all genres have often included in their models the 'goodies', the 'bonuses', the cutesy random and pseudorandom events that give the gaming experience more color, more interest, more excitement. Oh, boy, look what I found! This'll come in handy!

Quakesque shoot-em-ups have their hidden power-up stashes. RPGs have their secret doors and special quests. And civlike games have huts.

I hate huts. I detest, despise, abhore huts. They are an atrocity. They are beyond imbalanced, beyond broken. They are simply mindless. Free gold. Free military units. Free technologies. Free settlers. Free cities.

Free game wins. I recall, with both amusement and bemusement, a Deity-level game of Civ2 in which, over the course of opening my first dozen huts, I was awarded no less than FIVE additional settlers and/or cities. Five. I had almost a dozen cities by the year 3000. I discovered gunpowder by the year 2500. So much for the challenge of Deity.

In Civ2, at least, huts no longer grant 'goodies' once your nation has progressed sufficiently. Civ1 was even more moronic; I managed to acquire Atomic Fusion from 'ancient scrolls of wisdom' by saving a goodie hut all game long. Whee.

And neither of the games allow you to turn OFF the bloody things. We can affect just about every other feature of the terrain; why not this one? I doubt it comes as any surprise for me to note that I tire of the ever-expanding 'hut army', where opening huts reveals military units (horsies!) who then wander the world looking for still more huts to gain still more military units, who then all descend upon some poor, unsuspecting neighbor.

All without actually *building* a single military unit in a city. I've won games that way, too, without ever building a military unit -- in fact, without ever building ANY CITIES AT ALL. Yes, in a small world, Deity level, I've managed to destroy ALL of my enemies by simply opening every single hut on the map (using my starting settler, at first) that I could find. In the end, I won -- but I didn't build a single city of my own. I wouldn't have had any, had I not been forced to take over the computer opponents' cities for the win.

Thus, I am prompted to ask the following questions:

- Are there huts in Civ3?
- Are they still horribly imbalanced?
- Can they please, for the love of bananas, finally be disabled by the user?

- Metamorph

[Tventano]

In SMAC the equavalnt could be turned off, so the answer is probably yes.

Btw I think the huts sometimes funny, it can give an unexpected turn to events. But as soon as you manage the game being able to switch them off was good in SMAC, otherwise I juts had the idea getting it all a little too easy.

In CivIII I presume that barbarians are more linked to them, so perhaps they are not always positive, but if you do not conquer or diplomatically annex them they could start to spawn barbarians, so you are forced to do something about them.

[Sava]

Wow! This has rivaled one of my rants.

I do agree, being a realist, I dislike huts. Instead, I propose this. How about stumbling upon ancient relics? Suppose in the year 1800 AD, an English expidition finds the ruins of the ancient Zulu tribe that was killed around 3000 BC. There could be some sort of gold value attached to the find, or maybe just a boost in your culture rating.

[Pembleton]

*If* you can turn them off, then either you shouldn't or won't be playing with civ abilities. This is because one of the bonuses of being an expansionist civ is to get "better stuff" from goody huts.

[Metamorph]

Pembleton: "*If* you can turn them off, then either you shouldn't or won't be playing with civ abilities. This is because one of the bonuses of being an expansionist civ is to get "better stuff" from goody huts."

This strikes me as one of the more nauseatingly idiotic things I've heard. So rather than acknowledge that huts are stupid and broken, Sid decided to exaggerate the problem. *sigh*

What are the other supposed benefits of being an expansionist? Perhaps the civ ability is still viable even without hut madness.

- Metamorph

[KrazyHorse]

Metamorph: ease off on the personal insults.

[ajbera]

It was now midnight, and my task was drawing to a close. I had completed the eighth, the ninth, and the tenth tier. I had finished a portion of the last and the eleventh; there remained but a single stone to be fitted and plastered in. I struggled with its weight; I placed it partially in its destined position. But now there came from out the niche a low laugh that erected the hairs upon my head. It was succeeded by a sad voice, which I had difficulty in recognising as that of the noble Fortunato. The voice said --

"Ha! ha! ha! -- he! he! -- a very good joke indeed -- an excellent jest. We will have many a rich laugh about it at the palazzo -- he! he! he! -- over our wine -- he! he! he!"

"The Amontillado!" I said.

"He! he! he! -- he! he! he! -- yes, the Amontillado . But is it not getting late? Will not they be awaiting us at the palazzo, the Lady Fortunato and the rest? Let us be gone."

"Yes," I said "let us be gone."

"FOR THE LOVE OF BANANAS, MONTRESOR!"

"Yes," I said, "for the love of bananas."


- dedicated to E.A. Poe, with apologies.

[TechWins]

What was the point of that?

[Jaguar]

Great ranting!!

[Metamorph]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
Metamorph: ease off on the personal insults.

Not that I particularly care -- since I don't -- but where, precisely, did I perform a personal insult in this thread?

The closest I came, as far as I can tell, was:

"This strikes me as one of the more nauseatingly idiotic things I've heard. So rather than acknowledge that huts are stupid and broken, Sid decided to exaggerate the problem. *sigh*"

Sid decided to exaggerate the problem. Hardly a personal insult. I mean, if I felt that Sid was a blind, stubborn, money-grubbing, pathetic loser of a game designer, I'd just come right out and say it, now wouldn't I?

- Metamorph

[jsw363]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
How about stumbling upon ancient relics? Suppose in the year 1800 AD, an English expidition finds the ruins of the ancient Zulu tribe that was killed around 3000 BC. There could be some sort of gold value attached to the find, or maybe just a boost in your culture rating.

I know that there won't be any tourism in the game, but I did have a connected idea. What if when you destroy a city (kill all the civilians in it), it creates ruins. These ruins will generate trade for cities nearby (representing increased tourism) in that civ or for the conquering civ. It could be like a resource that you have to connect to your city with roads.

[Lung]

I personally like them, as they always added to the whole gaming experience. However, when i first read of CivIII's anti-ICS strategies, i immediately thought of goody huts.

By reducing the ability to ICS, they have inadvertently greatly increased the value of goody huts. How much more valuable is a settler from a goody hut going to be now? Considering that settlers now cost 2 population points, isn't a settler found in a goody hut going to be worth twice as much?

Goody huts already largely determine the outcome of games in Civ2, which means that in Civ3 it will be even more important. In many (if not most) games, the goody huts will decide the outcome.

Firaxis must have goody huts selectable at the start of a game. This will be absolutely essential in multiplayer games, as players will simply drop out of games where they suspect that an opponent has had more than their fair share of free cities and settlers. If they have PBEM, if will be even worse, with players dropping out after months instead of minutes

Goody huts should not only be selectable, but restricted to workers and no settlers or free cities.

[dainbramaged13]

jeezus! the things you people are asking for in the setup screens these days! THey'll spend years just making them all! You'll have to have 5 pages of customizable rules alone!


btw, i just made a 1891 space launch in occ

[isaac brock]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13
jeezus! the things you people are asking for in the setup screens these days! THey'll spend years just making them all! You'll have to have 5 pages of customizable rules alone!


btw, i just made a 1891 space launch in occ

i agree sire

[Leonidas]

I've had no problem with the huts. If you don't like them, don't touch them.

I'm sure the other civs would appreciate your generosity

[KrazyHorse]

I just thought that "idiotic" might have sufficed.

"Nauseatingly idiotic" seemed to be a bit strong, no?

[Urban Ranger]

I don't see how huts are broken, or side quests are bad for RPGs.

First of all, you can ignore the huts if you want. Nobody forces you to probe them.

Secondly, while you can get good stuff from them, you can also get killed. Have you never been wiped out by barbarians unleashed from a hut?

Thirdly, it makes sense to have them. What do you think, the earth is devoid of other human settlements?

"So much for the challenge of Deity. "

Sounds like a personal problem. If you don't like the game, start a new one.

[Chow Yun Fat]

It would be nice if we can easily tweak the outcome of huts before start of game. Something like "before you get the explorer unit or 2000 BC, you will usually have bad luck with huts." This should avoid the too powerful boost offered by the huts in the beginning period of the game. In Civ 2, a NONE unit, a settler, or an early city in the beginning boosts a civilization by nearly 100%. In a multi-player game, the other players can group against the "lucky" player. But I prefer the approach of tweaking the reward earned by tipping huts.

[aaglo]

Originally posted by Chow Yun Fat
..."before you get the explorer unit or 2000 BC, you will usually have bad luck with huts."...

IMO this is so far the best suggestion for handling the (Jabba the) huts.
Another suggestion: What if the huts cannot be explored until somekind of exploration tech (quite an early tech) is discovered? The expansionistic civ could explore the huts at the beginning, but the "gain better stuff" would be triggered by the same tech that allows others to explore the huts.
Does anybody really understand what I'm trying to say (I had to read the above twice to understand what I wrote )? I hope somebody does...

I have a hangover, so my english nor my thinking is not clear. They never were, they never will be.

[Recurve]

Originally posted by Leonidas
If you don't like them, don't touch them.

That says it all for me.

Huts/relics in some form must be in, take the Rosetta Stone for instance, just lying around for a couple of thousand years until the French stumbled on it. Think of the knowledge it provided.

[Fiil]

Originally posted by Recurve
Huts/relics in some form must be in, take the Rosetta Stone for instance, just lying around for a couple of thousand years until the French stumbled on it. Think of the knowledge it provided.

But this was mainly knowledge of the past - history.

Has there ever been a hut/relic in the real world that helped people invent new and usable stuff?

[aaglo]

Originally posted by Fiil
Has there ever been a hut/relic in the real world that helped people invent new and usable stuff?

Yes there has: area 51

[Recurve]

Fiil, inventing new stuff ain’t everything! Doesn’t knowledge of the past enrich a culture (or any knowledge, come to that)? I would say the Rosetta Stone provided tangible benefits.

[Fiil]

Originally posted by Recurve
Fiil, inventing new stuff ain’t everything! Doesn’t knowledge of the past enrich a culture (or any knowledge, come to that)? I would say the Rosetta Stone provided tangible benefits.

Of cause inventing new stuff ain’t everything! I couldn't agree with you more! And knowledge of the past does enrich a culture but maybe this should be the effect then. Culture points from huts/relics.
A new discovery in the civ-meaning has nothing to do with ancient relics or local tribes!
Noone invented the telegraph or something like that because of the Rosetta Stone, we learned something valuable about the past though - it became possible to translate hieroglyphs making further research of ancient Egypt far easier!

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Tventano
In SMAC the equavalnt could be turned off

When choosing that option, two or three 'huts' (I can´t recall the SMAC term at the moment) would still be situated close to your faction´s landing point. It was my favourite option nevertheless.

[Metamorph]

Lung: "Goody huts should not only be selectable, but restricted to workers and no settlers or free cities."

Agreed.

dainbramaged13: "jeezus! the things you people are asking for in the setup screens these days! THey'll spend years just making them all! You'll have to have 5 pages of customizable rules alone!"

Er, I asked for one additional toggle switch. Huts on; huts off. Considering the bazillions of game creation choices already available to the user, most of which we never fiddle with, I daresay this is a small request.

Leonidas: "I've had no problem with the huts. If you don't like them, don't touch them."

No offense, but this is the same ludicrous argument that many people have perpetuated with ICS. "If you don't like it, don't do it!" It's a ridiculous counter-argument. If the game is broken, don't ignore it; FIX it.

Moreover, I'm not even suggesting that huts be removed. I'm suggesting that huts be REMOVABLE. What is the big deal with this suggestion? Are you the lemming sort, convinced that Sid can do no wrong, that however the game is crafted must inherently be perfection?

Don't touch them. Great advice. Aside from the obvious fact that I won't be able to move through hut squares (I've tried the 'ignore the huts' theory before; it's extremely inconvenient and no fun [it effectively disables auto-move too]), my opponents, computer or not, will open every hut in sight, and gain not only the swath of bonuses available to them normally, but all of the ones available to me as well. Ever wonder how the hairy hell the computer gets so vastly far ahead of you in tech or city count so early in the game? Now you know.

My goal is game balance and a better play experience for all. What's yours?

KrazyHorse: "I just thought that "idiotic" might have sufficed. "Nauseatingly idiotic" seemed to be a bit strong, no?"

No. Huts themselves have always been a silly idea right from the beginning. The perpetuation of this nonsense in Civ2 was a travesty. To *continue* to include them in Civ3, where supposedly YEARS of research and design had gone into making better game balance, sickens me beyond words. It can only indicate one of two things: that the designers are clueless; or that the designers don't care. Choose wisely.

Urban Ranger: "I don't see how huts are broken, or side quests are bad for RPGs. "

Side quests are fine for RPGs -- presuming that they're carefully balanced. If they're not, then the game becomes all about the side quests. Just like any other feature of any other game, the results have to be weighed carefully.

As far as huts go, I just illustrated for you several extreme games in which huts basically decided the course of events. I have yet to have a single game of Civ1 or Civ2 where huts did not loom extremely large, even of paramount importance, in my priorities almost all game long. Whilst my cities are ICSing, my military units are exploring *every square inch* of my continent, trying to open as many huts as possible, as fast as possible. I giggle like a schoolgirl whenever I get a horsie out of a hut. 2 squares of movement means nearly double the hut exploration rate. CtP was even worse, what with the mounted archers moving THREE SQUARES! *shudder*

"First of all, you can ignore the huts if you want. Nobody forces you to probe them."

*smacks forehead*

"Secondly, while you can get good stuff from them, you can also get killed. Have you never been wiped out by barbarians unleashed from a hut?"

There's usually a Happy Rule for huts, whereby you can't get barbarians very early in the game and accidentally wipe yourself off the face of the map in 3 turns. Not that this matters anyway; who cares about losing on turn 3?

The few times that barbarians show up, they're usually so far away from my cities that I don't even care. Oh, no; I've lost a horsie. Often I don't even lose the unit that opens the hut. Why? Because the hut, invariably, will be on some sort of odd terrain. And the makers of Civ, in their infinite uh... wisdom, grant a defensive bonus of some sort to units in funky terrain -- and no bonus whatsoever for the poor barbarians. Heck, sometimes I even get a veteran merit badge out of the deal. Whee! And then I capture the barbarian chieftain. Woohoo! Bring on the huts!

Did you know that RIVER *slobber* *drool* gives a +50% defensive bonus to units? Argh.

"Thirdly, it makes sense to have them. What do you think, the earth is devoid of other human settlements?"

While I'm all for realism, it cannot come at the sacrifice of game balance. These are the same arguments I've always perpetuated as pertains to ICS. It's the same thing, really; a silly exploit, based around a silly game feature. Except that this particular game feature can be disabled instantly and easily without having ANY negative impact on the flow of the game.

"Sounds like a personal problem. If you don't like the game, start a new one."

No, instead I'll give my suggestions to Firaxis, and I'll ***** and I'll moan, just like I always have about ICS. Who knows, maybe they'll do something about it. Fairy tales can come true...

Chow Yun Fat: "In Civ 2, a NONE unit, a settler, or an early city in the beginning boosts a civilization by nearly 100%."

Agreed. It seems so bloody obvious to me; I can't understand why so many others are being stubborn about it.

"But I prefer the approach of tweaking the reward earned by tipping huts."

I suppose they could incorporate some sort of complex, dynamic hut formula. But I don't trust them to be able to balance this properly. I'd rather just do away with this silly, cartoon game feature.

aaglo: "What if the huts cannot be explored until somekind of exploration tech (quite an early tech) is discovered?"

Yes, these ideas are also *potentially* viable. I still don't trust Firaxis to balance them properly. I'd rather just see them wiped out, or a toggle for disabling them. Paint me a cynic.

Recurve: "Huts/relics in some form must be in..."

Nothing *must* be in any game. And I for one refuse to sacrifice game balance for realism, no matter how much you seem to think that the discovery of Nuclear Fission in a tiny, abandoned hut that's been sitting next to my capital for six thousand years is realistic.

Also from Recurve: "Fiil, inventing new stuff ain’t everything! Doesn’t knowledge of the past enrich a culture (or any knowledge, come to that)? I would say the Rosetta Stone provided tangible benefits."

Then perhaps the hut could, as other people have suggested, provide a cultural resource center instead or a one-time culture award, rather than some sort of direct, material game bonus such as a military unit or a settler.

Fiil: "And knowledge of the past does enrich a culture but maybe this should be the effect then. Culture points from huts/relics."

Um, yeah, what he said.

- Metamorph

[Earwicker]

No problem, make them an optional on/off like in SMAC. It's only a toggle if you choose to customize the rules.

For the times where the huts remain, however, I would like to see the AI express a little more interest in finding and exploiting the huts. One of the ridiculous things about hut-tipping is traversing the globe to find so many in your neighbors' backyards. And that also happens in SMAC- AI factions seem to avoid pods/ huts like the plague. Their imbalancing effect would at least be somewhat mitigated if the AI were also systematically hunting them (especially since the AI already knows where huts would be).

[KrazyHorse]

Metamorph, barbarians get a very high attack bonus on the higher difficulty levels (I believe it's 50%).

This bonus does not exist when a barbarian attacks the AI's units, however.

[Fiil]

Originally posted by Metamorph
Often I don't even lose the unit that opens the hut. Why? Because the hut, invariably, will be on some sort of odd terrain. And the makers of Civ, in their infinite uh... wisdom, grant a defensive bonus of some sort to units in funky terrain -- and no bonus whatsoever for the poor barbarians. Heck, sometimes I even get a veteran merit badge out of the deal. Whee! And then I capture the barbarian chieftain. Woohoo! Bring on the huts!

Errrh, I never win when my horsies are surrounded in deity - not even if they are on a mountain. They mostly kill 2 or 3 barbs but never 8!

Furthermore I never get chieftains out of huts - maybe I'm playing another version!

In deity as soon as the huts are far away from my city they're always barbs - or so it seems, which have led me to approach huts with causion!

I still don't like the science and new city bonuses though, and I agree that in civ3 it'll be to big a bonus to get a settler!
Huts should contain gold - and resources like in SMAC. Maybe somekind of culture bonus and maybe workers, but mostly barbs!!!

[Sandman]

The expansionist special ability number one is described as 'better stuff from barbarian villages'. It does not say 'goody huts' or 'minor tribes'. This leads me to suspect that barbarian camps (where barbarians now come from) are the new bonus huts as well.

So, you can only get stuff from huts if you first destroy it with a military unit. This seems better than getting the stuff for free.