A study of Hut Outcomes

[Elephant]

My prevailing "feeling" on hut outcomes was that it was predisposed toward whatever I was light on: if low on Gold, I thought I tended to get more Gold, if low on Tech, more Scrolls, etc. Samson, did you do all these tests one after another, which would tend to even out the distribution over time, or did you test one situation over and over, then try another similar situation? Perhaps a series of tests where you were really low on Gold, or had significantly less Techs than the rest of players (or just KeyCiv?), or an OCC with very few military units?

[samson]

Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man
Here's the 3850 BC save that for me, produced a LOT of tribes.

And it did the same thing for me!

The number of Tribes is clearly in the range one would expect if the Continent Rule was in effect. Yet, Rome is on the same continent only a few squares away.

Very strange it seems, until I notice that Rome was founded on the same turn as the test (no food in storage, no production, no beakers.) It appears that the Continent Rule does not take into account cities founded on the current turn. I dub this the "Six Thousand Year Old Man Corollary to the Continent Rule".

This explains why waiting one turn changes the odds so much and the chance of Tribes returns to normal.

Very interesting case. Thank you.

[samson]

Aha!

The STYOM Corollary also explains why you got more techs in 3850BC than in 3800BC. In that test, Rome was also founded on the same turn. Thus both the Continent Rule and the Nomads Rule apply. The Continent Rule and the unusual terrain mean that the number of Nomads expected should be very high. However, the presence of a NONE-Settler converts the high Nomads chance to Scrolls!

[DrSpike]

I worked *that* out hours ago.

P.S Lie

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

Originally posted by samson

An interesting hut location: a peninsula with only grass and ocean squares, no specials, and it produces Nomads when your NONE settler is disbanded. Out of curiousity, I went into Cheat Menu and created a Japanese setter on the square where the hut was. It moved two squares SW and founded a city there. Another confirmation of the connection of Nomads/Tribes to AI city site selection.

Finding nomads from this hut convinced me that the program must make some determination as to the viability of a AT-city when determining the (nomad or AT) outcome of a hut.

IIRC there were 3 grass squares, so food isn't a real issue, for the short term, anyway. Lots of trade with the ocean squares. But, only 1 or 2 shields in the city radius, again IIRC. I really do think that the program will require a certain minimum number for each resource (shields/food/trade) for a city to be generated on a particular site.

"STYOM corollary" - well I'll take glory where I can find it

I'm glad it all makes sense now!

[War4ever]

so why is it some times i get nomads when i have one city down and the hut is three- four squares away from the city

i thought the safe zone for barbs was four squares? that can't be, i have had tons of barbs one square away from a city radius, ie three squares away

how do you explain building a city with a non set, and popping a hut on the same turn and recieving another non settler, not once, but twice in a row before 3k bc?

are the huts calculated on a civ specific rule, or in an all civs specific..ie ming rah war4 and FF , or just a war4 in a game?

have we yet figured out what the odds are of getting 25g 50g or 100g?

and have we yet determined why we get those weird techs after invention?

about barbs, what is the timeframe for the first hut that produces an encirclement of barbs, ie more than the easily defendable on flat terrain barb horse or archer/legion?

[samson]

Originally posted by War4ever

so why is it some times i get nomads when i have one city down and the hut is three- four squares away from the city

No problem with that. You can get Nomads anywhere on suitable terrain.

Originally posted by War4ever

i thought the safe zone for barbs was four squares? that can't be, i have had tons of barbs one square away from a city radius, ie three squares away

"Squares away" and distance are two different concepts.
The safe zone for Barbs is within a distance of three to a city. "Less than 4" is how I described it above.

Originally posted by War4ever
how do you explain building a city with a non set, and popping a hut on the same turn and recieving another non settler, not once, but twice in a row before 3k bc?

Again, not a problem. As long as you keep using up the nomads to build cities, you can keep getting more nomads from huts. I don't think you read the post very carefully.

Originally posted by War4ever
are the huts calculated on a civ specific rule, or in an all civs specific..ie ming rah war4 and FF , or just a war4 in a game??

Huh?

Originally posted by War4ever
have we yet figured out what the odds are of getting 25g 50g or 100g?

Yes.
Now, I know you didn't read the post carefully. Answered above.

Originally posted by War4ever

and have we yet determined why we get those weird techs after invention?

What are you talking about?

Originally posted by War4ever
about barbs, what is the timeframe for the first hut that produces an encirclement of barbs, ie more than the easily defendable on flat terrain barb horse or archer/legion?

You start getting them after 50 turns. After 75 turns, you always get them.

[samson]

Originally posted by Elephant
My prevailing "feeling" on hut outcomes was that it was predisposed toward whatever I was light on: if low on Gold, I thought I tended to get more Gold, if low on Tech, more Scrolls, etc. Samson, did you do all these tests one after another, which would tend to even out the distribution over time, or did you test one situation over and over, then try another similar situation? Perhaps a series of tests where you were really low on Gold, or had significantly less Techs than the rest of players (or just KeyCiv?), or an OCC with very few military units?

My testing used both reloads and real-game logs with hut outcomes tracked. Both produced similar probabilities when circumstances understudy were identical.

Your "feeling" is most likely the result of random reinforcement. When a hut gives you something you really need, you remember it because it saved your game, if not you forget. But think about what you're saying. The game isn't trying to help you win by giving you what you need, it's trying to beat you.

[Elephant]

Yes, there is a "psychology" to that - sort of like when you approach a foreign city with a caravan and the demand changes at the last moment. I was just making sure you had not relied on one form of testing. Thanks.

[samson]

Yeah, and now we know why cities' demand changes "at the last moment" too: solo-cycle years.

[War4ever]

ok...i reread it and am still a bit confused...i will try to post more specific questions tomorrow, for now i will look and try to make heads or tails of some of this stuff.

problem is, i am not sure what i specifically don't understand....

[samson]

No problem, War.
I'm happy to answer whatever questions I can, or look into new issues if you've got them.

[War4ever]

ok....heres one..... if the safe zone as you say is 3 squares from the city....woudn't that mean a hut one square away from the radius would not produce barbs?

yet i have had many barbs within this area?

and one more question i don't think you adressed.....

are you able to figure out the odds on what a hut will give you when the hut is in the city radius?

i know you never get barbs, and i have never received a tribe or nomad, at least not that i can remember.

which mean the %'s fall into other categories? if so, how much and into which categories do they fall into?

i would assume techs , gold, and maybe deserted???

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

@War

Maybe a better way to express the no-barbarian safe zone would be to say:

Turn the map grid on. If the hut is in a square that 'touches' the white city radius grid (even if only a corner touches) there will be no barbarians from that hut.

And within this radius, the hut results will be in a ratio of 3:1:1 mercenaries:techs:gold. Samson described this in his first post, as the 'Near City Rule'.

Hope that helps...

[War4ever]

STYOM appreciate the answer....however that theory is false, too many times a hut right next to the city radius produces barbs.... and i always play with the grid on

and i use MGE ....