Refusing hut offer

colossus · March 8, 2001, 05:17

I don't know whether there will still be huts in civ3, but if it turns out to be similar to civ2, I have a suggestion.

Can we refuse something offered by the huts? Very often, huts give you unwanted tech that slows down monarchy(in early game) or unwanted cities that are easy prey to enemy(in late game). But if you leave them alone, you find that enemy civ comes and grabs a legion to blackmail you, or gets a horde of barbarians that endanger your civ.

The remedy is that we can have the option to refuse something offered by the hut. If we refuse a tech or unit, nothing happen-similar to ruins, if we refuse an advanced tribe, it becomes a barbarian city. That way, we can 'clear' the huts to avoid enemy civ using them.

Alternatively, we can choose to destroy the hut, which is equally effective.

Zanzin · March 8, 2001, 06:25

That's a pretty good idea. Makes sense that you should be able to refuse what's in a hut...

BUT, what happens if the hut is full of barbarians? You can't really 'refuse' them, can you? "Please, Mr. Barbarian, I was hoping to find some gold in this area, not a nasty tribesman with a sword!"

)

But mostly I like your idea. I guess maybe if you happen across some barbarians, you don't get an option as to what you'd like to do.
[This message has been edited by Zanzin (edited March 08, 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Zanzin (edited March 08, 2001).]

Jeje2 · March 8, 2001, 08:10

The idea of attacking the hut destroying it at once is OK.

But, if you enter a hut you would possibly want somethig good from it.
So if it isn't quite what you expected you would just say no. Frankly I don't like it.

Better is that:
a) You leave the hut for now as is
b) enter the hut and take the consequenses no matter what
c) destroy the hut at once whitout seeing what it would have given you

Btw. I got myself a good smile of the topic, since hut is the short name for the university I I work at

Zanzin · March 8, 2001, 19:16

Yeah, but what if they're nice tribes?

It's a dicey issue, one that you can't derive a conclusion for all that easily.

I'd imagine that the huts in Civ3, and the way they work, will remain largely unchanged from Civ2. Unless the huts become the "minority" nations that other people have been talking about.

Arrghh!! Too many things to consider. Damn glad I don't work at Firaxis. Actually, wait, no, I do wish I worked at Firaxis...but you get the point.

EnochF · March 9, 2001, 01:09

Especially those stupid "advanced tribes" that are inevitably one or two squares off from the square where you really wanted to put a city.

March 9, 2001, 01:25

In Master of Magic you're ask to whether or not enter a 'hut' after a scout tells you about the amount of enemies there...

why not make huts be a place where you have to beat an enemy and after the victory are rewarded with a tech or so?

and if you realize that the enemy is too strong you don't enter the place.... what do you reckon? it's like beating minor tribes in the surrounding area... the romans did it, etc...

Adm.Naismith · March 9, 2001, 05:29

Well, I'm ready to bet (just an italian coffee, and you must come here to have me pay it to you

) that hut will be removed from Civ 3.

I mean, they where used in CIV 2 and in SMAC (as Unity pod), it's time to go ahead.

Minor Civs will add a lot more to the game: nice diplomatic relations will let you gain money and tech (if you want) as bad relations will give you some nasty "barbarian" raid from regular minor civ militia.

They can add trade, treaty, military assistance... well, you have get the idea.

This should make you happy, Colossus, because it solve many of your problem. Still, a neighbour minor civ can become as useful to enemy civ as to your

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

airdrik · March 9, 2001, 12:43

I agree, all that huts were is representing a 'minor civ' without them actually being a civ. Therefore if you have minor civs in civ3, then you need to drop the huts. But if minor civs are not in civ3 and huts are, then you should have the options of destroying the hut without seeing whats inside, or just take what's there. But I think I would like better if it were minor civs, because of the diplomacy issues.

Steve Clark · March 9, 2001, 16:32

You want the game to ask if you want to accept something good or bad without penalties?!?! Why stop there, why not have it ask you if you accept or reject the results of a battle? Or whether you want to win or lose the game?

EnochF · March 9, 2001, 17:24

A poor comparison. Refusing the hut offer would simply cause the hut to disappear with no game effect.

(I am not suggesting that one would have the choice to "reject" a horde of barbarians, but I do feel that players should not have unwanted cities, units or advances thrust upon them without their permission. The city may be in a poor location, or the advance may slow research, or the military unit may end up overburdening a small nearby city.)

tmarcl · March 10, 2001, 11:56

quote:

Originally posted by EnochF on 03-09-2001 04:24 PM
the advance may slow research,

How in the world does a free advance slow research? You don't lose your research points on your current research for it, and if anything, that makes one less thing that you have to research later.

Marc

Steve Clark · March 10, 2001, 21:43

In a way you do. Getting a free tech automatically adds to the amount required to research your current tech. Each and every tech requires more beakers to get them, regardless how you obtain the techs.

colossus · March 11, 2001, 23:22

To refine my point, I put it that way:

When you enter attempt to enter a hut, a small window(similar to the one for dip/spy) appears to ask you whether you want to destroy it or not. If you choose to destroy the hut, the hut disappears, your unit expends MP and stays in the original tile, as in combat.

If you choose to enter the hut, one of the following happens:

1)Barbarians horde appears. Your unit must stand and defend(or to attack if there are MPs left).

2)Gold from hut. You must accept.

3)Advanced tribe. A small window appears asking whether you want to keep it. If you keep it, it would be similar as in civ2. If you choose not to, the city becomes barbarian, your unit is relocated to the nearest friendly city.

4)Scroll of ancient wisdom. A small window appears asking whether you want to have a free tech, but it doesn't tell you what tech it is. You can choose to accept or decline it.

Steve Clark · March 12, 2001, 11:50

Those actually are pretty good, except for one question. Why would you bother with a hut in the first place if you are just going to destroy it?

EnochF · March 12, 2001, 12:03

Simple. To keep enemy tribes from getting goodies or releasing a bunch of barbarians.

airdrik · March 12, 2001, 15:31

I like those options. Very realistic, and good for the game play as well.

Adm.Naismith · March 13, 2001, 04:54

quote:

Originally posted by colossus on 03-11-2001 10:22 PM
To refine my point, I put it that way:

4)Scroll of ancient wisdom. A small window appears asking whether you want to have a free tech, but it doesn't tell you what tech it is. You can choose to accept or decline it.

I see why you suggested this, but the Civ 2 mechanic about research is silly: why research must slow down? In real world it went the opposite.

I understand the need to slow the Civ first in research, to bring up the challenge. In real world this happens because of more "share" of tech, tech "diffusion" or secret tech "leak".

If Firaxis will address that, and won't introduce any "mutually exclusive tech tree", you'll grab any free tech you can.

About city on the wrong place, if an immigration model will be added to Civ, you should be able to found another town in better place, then you'll see the people flow free from the town with less facilities and resources to the new, better place.
Any unwanted hut-town will be left abandoned in ruin in less than a century.

Now, don't get me wrong: I appreciate your - easy to program - proposal.

I sometime think that we should look at problems from another perspective, just to see if we are putting a band aid where a small surgical operate would be better.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant