Huts for Goodies

schubert37 · April 12, 2001, 06:20

Has anyone of you thought about Huts and goodies that lie within? I loved the possibilities, that you could get a new city, when walkin upon that tile. Both versions of CtP didn't provide that. What do you think? I looooove cities as a gift. Even better would be populated and developed cities to gain in later games

Gramphos · April 12, 2001, 06:25

quote:

Originally posted by schubert37 on 04-12-2001 06:20 AM
Even better would be populated and developed cities to gain in later games

In Civ II you could find an advanced tribe with city improvements and some population, why would they remove that in Civ III?

reds4ever · April 12, 2001, 07:39

the goodie huts are fun in single player games, but can really skew games in multiplayer by awarding a player a city or a settler, an option to turn them off would be nice (without going into the map editor!!)

schubert37 · April 12, 2001, 07:53

They only had cities with population size 3 with barracks and/or granary in it. I wouldn't call that advanced. In SMAC you couldn't get any city.

Adm.Naismith · April 12, 2001, 08:06

I hope huts will be totally removed from the game, and replaced by minor civ. May be they'll keep the same appearence (a small town), but not as "easter eggs" surprise.

They must require a bit of "diplomatic relations" to sign trade agreement, technology exchange, rent mercenaries units.
They should be influenced by your civ (and their) culture, of course, so discover a minor civ should be no more the "run for gifts" it is with the huts.

At least, my hope is for this enhancement

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

jglidewell · April 12, 2001, 08:25

I didn't like it when they became a city. It was never where you wanted one.

It was predictable as well. After the first few they always turned to hoards.

And if the hut was anything other than a plain, grassland, or river square it would never turn into a city.

schubert37 · April 12, 2001, 11:18

quote:

Originally posted by jglidewell on 04-12-2001 08:25 AM
It was predictable as well. After the first few they always turned to hoards.

Not true. Did you try saving your game before entering a hut? There were always different outcomes. And you could get a city even in the latest stages of your game.

Drakenred · April 12, 2001, 13:14

quote:

Originally posted by schubert37 on 04-12-2001 11:18 AM
Not true. Did you try saving your game before entering a hut? There were always different outcomes. And you could get a city even in the latest stages of your game.

yes,

Save
pop the hut
if its something you dona want you reload untill you get what you want

frankly the huts need to be

A) removed or
B) togleing them on needs to be a cheat option
c) have the AI get what the player gets when they pop a hut(ie if you keep geting Tec advanc after tec advance then the oponent gets tec after tec from THEIR "Goodyhuts"

Al'Kimiya · April 12, 2001, 13:21

quote:

Originally posted by schubert37 on 04-12-2001 06:20 AM
Both versions of CtP didn't provide that.

Actually, at least CTP2 provides that. Don't remember about CTP1, but I'm pretty sure it did too. Civ III will, off course, not disappoint anyone there either?

[This message has been edited by Al'Kimiya (edited April 12, 2001).]

hoppy39000 · April 12, 2001, 14:07

Hi i think the huts should stay,... but both the "hoards" and numerous advances should be toned down... 1. huts and goodies are what make early exploration FUN so need to stay....but dont like that its so easy to get advances...perhaps should receive new "culture points" or as suggested an allied sub culture...not just a city...as for the hoards....they seem way out of proportion... because no matter what unit you have...is always surrounded by equal type units..making it impossible to survive...should make them more equal if found....2 maybe 3 and based on terraian maybe..so is a chance to survive, would afford players a better chance to play in the real spirit rather than "cheat" and save before entering.

SerapisIV · April 12, 2001, 16:12

What about having the barbarian camps that Firaxis has alluded to be the huts. Then you have to actually bring some firepower to explore the natives.

airdrik · April 12, 2001, 17:08

I really like that idea, then you don't get barbarian hordes because they were already there to begin with. And maybe in the early game you can talk to them (before you bacome too civilized) because they're barbarac, you're barbarac, you're both barbarac, I'm sure two barbarians can talk to each other, can't they?

Of course later on if you try to invite them into your civilized society there will likely be havoc to pay.

Gramphos · April 12, 2001, 17:50

quote:

Originally posted by schubert37 on 04-12-2001 07:53 AM
They only had cities with population size 3 with barracks and/or granary in it. I wouldn't call that advanced. In SMAC you couldn't get any city.

I got one woith temple in today

Ilkuul · April 12, 2001, 20:31

I don't know what Firaxis has in mind (Dan??), but how about this:

1. No goody huts, only barbarian encampments and minor civs (2 different things).
2. If you approach a minor civ, diplomatic negotiations immediately take place (as with any city of another major civ); and if you negotiate well, they will offer you a unit, tech or gold in tribute (i.e. just like the Civ2 goody huts, only you get some choice in the matter!). If your culture rating is high, and/or you shower gifts on them, they may consider joining your empire (= Civ2 'advanced tribe'), or becoming 'client states' (i.e., self-governing but paying regular tribute to you and/or sending military units when required, etc.).
3. If you approach a barbarian encampment early in the game, as Airdrik suggested it's like two barbarian groups talking to each other - so with diplomatic negotiations you may 'convert' them into joining your civ or becoming a 'client' minor civ (as with other minor civs).
4. BUT, if you approach a barbarian encampment later in the game, the cultural and tech difference is too wide, so there won't be any chance of 'converting' them - you'll just have to kill or be killed as with Civ2.

To me, this would solve the problems of the goody huts being too easy (you have to negotiate), and too arbitrary (you don't want a city there!), while at the same time retaining the enjoyment of getting unexpected gifts while exploring unknown territory.

King Richard · April 12, 2001, 20:41

I hope that the huts disappear! Even a free city is irritating if it's placed very close to your cities, or in a continent that you didn't really plan to conquer yet... If they use minor civs instead, I would be happy! These minor civs could possess more than one "hut", these huts might choose to be a part of your empire by giving you a settler (nomad), they could choose to fight you (if you attack them) and you can negotiate with them. The higher your culture, the easier they obey you.

SerapisIV · April 12, 2001, 20:43

I'm sure that playing with or without huts (that is if they are still included) will be a starting option, just as in SMAC you could turn off the unity pod-scattering (SMAC hut equivalent). It was a useful feature for multiplayer because the random pods can strongly influence the early game and gaing without them levels the playing field

Gramphos · April 13, 2001, 05:44

I like your idea Ilkuul.
Maybe also add nomad minor civs (moving around in a defined area)