(1)Advanced tribes; (2) Barb warning

[Jarouik]

quote: If you get one advanced triobe and tip another hut in the same turn you are very likely to get a second. (Indeed that is true of all outcomes except barbs and wandering tribes).

quote: The "pattern factor" in huts has been noted before. If you get more than one of some result, then you seem to get a lot of that result -- often several in a row. Be it money, barbs, tribes, advances, or nomads -- the results often come two or three at a time, as much as four or five out of group of ten.

Indeed, now that you mention it, this probably is true of most of the outcomes. I remember some games where I repeatedly got money or free technologies early on from the huts... the continuing appearance of advanced tribes just leads to the most memorable games, so I must have paid more attention to them than the ones where the huts e.g. just gave me lots of money

[East Street Trader]

Well, a long sequence of similar results after tipping is not my own experience (save for one special case).

My approach to exploration and tipping can sometimes lead to a turn in which I tip half a dozen huts or more. What seems to me to happen is that I get a sequence of results which run in pairs. A wandering tribe is always a one off (except for once when I loaded the settler onto a boat and the next hut - on the same continent - yielded another wandering tribe). Barbs very often are a one off. The other results come in pairs.

I have speculated that whenever any civ tips, the game is programmed to give results in a set sequence but with a dice roll each time which can result in the sequence being displaced in favour of a barb outcome.

I would readily accept that there must be some further randomising because I can recall a number of occasions when the outcomes did not follow a sequence. I, too, have fond memories of an occasion when it seems to have got stuck on advanced tribes and I got a succession of them. Also, as I mentioned in an earlier post, I think that the first hut tipped on a new landmass (whether a large continent or a small island, is weighted to give an advanced tribe result more often.

The exceptional case arises when you delay founding a capital. The time comes, after 10 huts or so, when a long sequence of units starts up. I have known it run unbroken for thirty or more huts.

[solo]

EST, as for pairs of hut results, I can verify this from thousands of huts tipped when looking into which techs were most likely to come from huts under different conditions. Although I was mostly interested about techs, often I would go 20 or 30 tips without a tech, and then a group of 4-6 techs, usually coming as pairs in the next 10 to 20 tips, followed by another stretch with no techs or hardly any, before the next clustered bunch of techs. Ditto for gold results, for military units, for barbarians, and for advanced tribes, each having their own stretches, where they dominated the results. For nomads, I believe only one per continent at one time is permitted, making them an exception, but loading a new one straight onto a boat makes a continent immediately eligible again.

The way results are bunched (even after a reload after every tip, which is the way I was testing the same hut over and over), has me thinking that the results may be dependent somehow on the actual TIME when the hut is tipped. A hypothetical explanation: The game first obtains the time of day from the computer's clock when a hut is tipped. Each hour may be split into 6 groups, with perhaps advanced tribes being chosen for domination when it is between 20 and 30 past the hour. Each minute may be split into groups too, giving advanced tribes the biggest chunk of available seconds, say maybe 75% of them. Then the actual second at which the hut was tipped is used to randomly select the hut result. A randomizing system similar to this may be in use and would explain how results often come in bunches, yet remain fairly unpredictable.

Tech results from huts mostly depend on what techs are eligible at the moment, and a sufficient number of tests in a particular situation can predict the probability of one over another. While researching this, I also discovered that terrain on which a hut is found is another minor factor in this equation, influencing probabilities enough to make further testing (all terrains types for all combinations of eligible techs) impractical and too time-consuming. The most likely tech from a hut, if you don't have any yet: as many already know from experience, Horseback Riding or Warrior Code, depending on the terrain. Least likely: Ceremonial Burial.

[Blaupanzer]

Solo, admire your willingness to research. Do you know how likely one is to find post-invention techs, such as EC's Medicine, if you haven't yet developed Invention?

On a second point, I would note that either your research is wrong for 2.42 relating to nomads/wandering tribes, or you are perpetuating a rumor. I am in a game now in which I found 3 wandering settlers and three advanced tribes in my first 7 huts. At two points I found a new NONE Settler while another was still alive on the same vast (almost world-girdling) continent. I thought this theory had been put to rest, so I didn't save the game at those points. This is by far the best I've done at deity in a long time. Is this "no second nomad" theory based on you recent research on 2.42 deity? For this one instance, I am certain of my results, but anecdotes don't substitute for real research.

[solo]

Blaupanzer,

I never progressed much further than the beginning of the tech tree, and given the enormity of the task, would rank the amount of testing necessary to be equivalent in tedium to one of the high point score games. So sorry, no tests after Invention.

You set me straight about nomads, as I was perpetuating an errant theory, and thanks for the correction. Because I was reloading before every tip of a hut, I never got 2 nomads at the same time because I was always starting with none around, so my results neither confirm nor deny multiple nomads per continent.
[This message has been edited by solo (edited May 15, 2001).]

[EthnicCleanser]

my belief on nomads is that you get as many as possible from the poles...

in my mp game tonite i got four nomads.... no more than one per turn.... as soon as i build a city..... next turn.... nomad.... only one advanced tribe and not till late but whose complaining.....

my belief is that don't tip a hut on the same turn you build a city with a nomad....wait until next turn.... i did this tonite and got a crazy amount of nomads.... why i was kicking someones rear

Nomads on huge landmasses.... i have had more than one..... i think on large maps it increases...... seems to me i have had three or four in large maps later in the game.

small maps..... one nomad per continent.....

[Marquis de Sodaq]

quote: Originally posted by EthnicCleanser on 05-16-2001 12:09 AM Nomads on huge landmasses.... i have had more than one..... i think on large maps it increases...... seems to me i have had three or four in large maps later in the game. small maps..... one nomad per continent.....

I suspect the nomads are limited to one per some area. On small worlds, a continent would fit within the threshold, on large worlds not. I, too, have found several nomads on the same landmass, this is not uncommon. Maybe the game randomly chooses nomad, and only changes it to something else if there is already a NON-settler within a ten (or whatever number) square radius. I've never paid close attention to how far apart my multiple nomads pop up, so this is just speculation...

------------------
"There is no fortress impregnable to an ass laden with gold."
-Philip of Macedon

[Marquis de Sodaq]

EST, that sounds worth a try! I've always kept the second start-up NON-settler for improvements (free work, no support). That one unit ends up having irrigated, mined, and built roads on scores of squares - all for nothing. But clearly a second city in 3850bc and a NON-settler would be even better. I'll try my luck next time the chance comes...

------------------
"There is no fortress impregnable to an ass laden with gold."
-Philip of Macedon

[EOL]

In a game last month I received nomads from successive huts (adjacent in the pattern) on a continent only big enough for 5 (perhaps 6 at a stretch) perfectionist cities on a large map game. This is the only time I can remember getting 2 nomads on such a small land mass. Perhaps its just rare with the chance of nomads decreasing rapidly with each nomad operating on the continent already.

EOL

[EthnicCleanser]

EST......

My thoughts on large landmasses and nomads are as follows.......depending on the amount of civs on the current landmass and depending on the amount of NON settlers on the same landmass determines how many can be on the continent at one time.

Plain english as i don't know if i even understand that gibberish..... zulus, romans and french one one continent means up to three NON settlers can be on the board at any one time.....

However it could also be based on the amount of tiles on the landmass.....

for example i never have received two nomads on a 50 tile island.... but have repeatedly received two or three advanced tribes....

Another factor in this could be NON nomads = amount of civs in the game..... ie 7 civs = up to seven nomads.... remember this is nomads for all tribes..... does the ai receive nomads or just advanced tribes.

The one thing i noticed in my last couple of SP games and also my MP game last night was that nomads came after i built a new city. i didn't open a hut until one turn after i built the city with my nomad...... i found even if i built a city that turn with the nomad all huts produced gold, units, advances, or barbs. When i waited a full turn after i built the city nomads were far more frequent.

Its my belief that nomads must be laid down as a city for a full turn in order to receive another one..... either that or its just another quirky thing i am noticing the last three games

[East Street Trader]

Plainly, then, multiple nomads are possible on large landmasses. But I hesitate to ditch the one per (small or medium sized) landmass theory because of that. Indeed, if there is a bit of programming governing this I think I would expect the programmer to write something in for that special case.

A link to area rather than landmass is an attractive idea. But I can neither support that nor contradict it from my own gaming experience.

Your experience, EthnicCleanser, is consistent with the one nomad per area/small or medium landmass proposition and I'm rather with you that using a nomad to found a city with seems to increase the chance of getting one shortly afterwards when tipping a hut on forest/hills or mountains (you get advanced tribes from huts on flatland, never nomads).

I used always to keep the second NONE settler in deity to build roads etc. Then I decided to try what was then the accepted wisdom here and found two cities early. I had never, before then, got a nomad on my home continent whereas after I changed style they became common.

What I often do now is to see how many huts exist nearish to the site where I have, or intend to, found my capital. If it turns out that there are one or two huts on forest/hill/mountain squares I found with both initial settlers, expecting one of those huts to yield a nomad. So far I have been getting one by these methods at what seems quite a marked increased frequency over the normal incidence.

[East Street Trader]

EOL

Did you still have the NONE settler at the time you tipped the second hut or had you used it by then to found a city (or moved it into a boat, perhaps)?

If he was still extant and on the continent that is strike one against the theory.

You get enough one off events in Civ2 to put me off junking the theory on the basis of one strike but if any more are reported then it'll have to join the ranks of all the other myths and legends we've invented from time to time!

The one nomad/NONE settler per civ on the continent is another attractive notion but I have no experience to back it up with.

Marquis

It was this point that led me to try the found two cities approach. Ribs is another commited retainer of a NONE settler and her challenge to the received wisdom is a powerful one - probably powerful enough to keep me to my old ways. But losing the chance of a nomad tips the balance for me.

So, if my early exploration makes me suspect I'm on a small landmass or there are few huts around I'll keep the NONE settler. But if it looks like there is plenty of land and a decent amount of it is going to be forest then I get a second city down.

And, of course, just because you keep the NONE settler initially you can always change your mind if huts on forest/hills/mountains start appearing. Simply save those huts up for tipping at the apropriate moment.

There is no guarantee that you will get a nomad and sometimes, even if you do, he appears inconveniently far from where your cities are located.

But the method has been working for me.

[EOL]

quote: Originally posted by East Street Trader on 05-17-2001 11:51 AM EOL Did you still have the NONE settler at the time you tipped the second hut or had you used it by then to found a city (or moved it into a boat, perhaps)? If he was still extant and on the continent that is strike one against the theory.

The first one was still on the same continent (84 squares in size - just counted, so reasonably small).

EOL

[rah]

Can we all say "urban myth", that's all that one non per cont. is.
Search the boards, you will find over 100 posts that claim exceptions.

RAH
I've personally had it happen many many times, on a variety of continent sizes and number of cities.

[solo]

While a nomad from a hut with another on the same continent is new to me, too, results reported above confirms that this happens. I guess I've always whisked them away to use them at home or used them to start a new city before getting a chance to find out.

Has anyone ever got a nomad from a hut without founding a city with the second non-settler provided at the start of the game? I have never received a nomad from a hut, until using and/or losing my second starting settler.

My opinion is that the first two settlers are best used in founding cities as early as possible. It's great to have one or more NON-settlers, but they are not essential.