Empty Goody Huts

[rjwoer]

I can't stand it anymore; I have to ask. The past few games I've come across several "empty" goody huts. Is this normal, or have I screwed something up in the xml files? I'm using a resource mod (which I don't think is the problem), but I've also adjusted the GlobalSettings xml file, which does define the goody huts.

My question is, are there supposed to be empty goody huts? I don't remember them before.

[Prussia]

There is something wrong, you should always get something from a goody hut, whether it be an angry barbarian, or a friendly settler.

But there should never be nothing.

[MasterDave]

I do not mod my files, and I have yet to find an empty goody hut. Something got broken on your setup there...

[rjwoer]

OK. Thanks guys. I will go through and see where I made the error. I'll report back.

[Bushface]

I've had some empty huts on Noble and Prince, but I believe this happened only when set to "no barbarians". Can't be sure of this , as I haven't kept notes. But it's rare.

[MasterDave]

You know Bushface, you might be right about that. I seem to remember hittingnow an empty hut or two in multiplayer games where the cowardly host had the barbs turned off. Since I never play without barbs in single player and rarley play that way in multi, it was a long, long time ago when that last happened.

[rjwoer]

Originally posted by Bushface
I've had some empty huts on Noble and Prince, but I believe this happened only when set to "no barbarians". Can't be sure of this , as I haven't kept notes. But it's rare.

Aha!

I bet that's it! I have turned off barbarians for the first time (just to see the difference in development of my civ) during my last few games. The very same games in which this empty-goody-hut situation has occurred. I will turn barbarians back on and see if the problem occurs then (probably not, I bet).

If this is indeed the problem, it seems like something that Firaxis should fix: a player should be able to turn barbarians off and still have goody huts always provide something. Don't you think?

Thanks for the help!

[JavierLQ]

Hmm I think that is questionable. I mean, in my opinion, it would give even further advantage to the players.

If you are turning off barbarians because you can't beat the current difficulty, then yes it may be worth it to give you that extra little "boost", but it would lower the value of scouts in my view.

Example: I think that one of the advantages to the scout is the fact that you will always get something good from a hut, so what is to stop someone from building say a chariot (granted they have the wheel and research animal husbandry..again this is merely an example) and popping all goody huts, knowing that since barbarians are turned off, that they do not have to worry about getting angry barbarians from the huts. I don't think that there would be a way to let the AI know..so that they could do it as well...

As I said, if you are looking for the extra boost to help beat the pc, then yes it may be well worth it, but in my opinion it should not be included by firaxis (unless there is an option where after turning off barbarians it could be toggled between how it works now, and the new way).

[Prussia]

Maybe that's it - I never turn off barbarians.

[rjwoer]

Originally posted by JavierLQ
Example: I think that one of the advantages to the scout is the fact that you will always get something good from a hut, so what is to stop someone from building say a chariot (granted they have the wheel and research animal husbandry..again this is merely an example) and popping all goody huts, knowing that since barbarians are turned off, that they do not have to worry about getting angry barbarians from the huts. I don't think that there would be a way to let the AI know..so that they could do it as well...

I hadn't considered this. I can see your point. I guess I just feel like goody huts (if meant to always provide something) should do so regardless of the options toggled. But again, I see your point. This is a more interesting discussion than I had expected.

[Chaos Theory]

I often have barbs off, and never have seen an empty hut.

[JavierLQ]

Originally posted by rjwoer


I hadn't considered this. I can see your point. I guess I just feel like goody huts (if meant to always provide something) should do so regardless of the options toggled. But again, I see your point. This is a more interesting discussion than I had expected.

Perhaps then the answer would be for firaxis to change it and make it so that "No barbarians" actually means no barbarians spawn with the exeption of the huts. Of course, the option would need to be renamed as the amount of objections would be massive (so again, I can only see them adding another toggle like int he one in my original answer).

[rjwoer]

Originally posted by Chaos Theory
I often have barbs off, and never have seen an empty hut.

No kidding? Hmmmm . . .

[dilbert719]

Yeah, if this pretty much only happens when "No barbarians" is toggled, that implies what's going on is the game does a check for who you accessed the hut with, sees it's not a scout, randomly generates a "Barbarians" response, and then the barbarians get overruled by the "no barbarians" option. Since the check has been made, it doesn't generate another response, and since you can't get barbarians, it simply tries to give you what it came up with, and fails.

[Qwertqwert]

I never get empty huts going with scouts though, I wonder why they didn't fix it with warriors/no barbs...

And if you're on chiefton or settler and have no barbs, there's no chance of barbs from huts to begin with (atleast I'm fairly certin there isn't) so you shouldn't see any empty huts.

Also, if you only hit them with scouts, they've gotten it to ignore barb selections for those so you wouldn't see them, even if you had no barbs selected.