Goody-huts replaced with ulcer-huts?

[Ralf]

Perhaps goody-huts in Civ-3 should be replaced with "ulcer-huts" instead, which initially only have two or more babarians in them. Only after if you unleash and attack them all, you get a compensating reward. Ulcer-huts should come in two differently coloured variations:

A: Light-brown ulcer-huts (contains two half-cruel barbarians - with reduced attack-strength). If unleashed and killed, you are compensated either with a lumpsum of money, or a fastmoving scout-unit (like the horsemen).

B: Dark-brown ulcer-huts (contains 3-4 very cruel barbarians - with full attack-strength). If unleashed and killed, you are compensated with, either...

- A free tech (from ancient era, only though).
- A fastmoving attack-potent unit.
- A somewhat bigger lumpsum of money.

No Civ-3 settlers though - that unit is too powerful to be given for free. Now, some perhaps argue that there is not enough incentive to open them. Well, thats the whole point: they are not called ulcer-huts for nothing. Above bonuses only acts as after-action compensations, for you trouble cleansing your empire from these barbaric scumbags.

[El hidalgo]

Interesting idea, interesting name. I like it. I hate the usual goody huts. Too easy to get too much stuff -- units, techs, cities, etc. I would prefer that they all be converted to barbarian settlements. That makes sense. There were barbarians living all over. If you want to take over their land, you'll have to kill them. It was just too easy before (Civ2). And I hated it when the computer found advanced tribes a continent away from the rest of its cities, especially when they were too close to my civ or in an area I wanted to expand into.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by El hidalgo
And I hated it when the computer found advanced tribes a continent away from the rest of its cities, especially when they were too close to my civ or in an area I wanted to expand into.

Oh, I forgot about those. But you are right - No "advanced tribes" either. They just mess up your expansion-plans - beside a free city is way too beneficial, anyway. About the graphics: I called them "huts" here, but of course they should look like tiny villages with a barbarian-unique look.

[Inverse Icarus]

i suppose the goody huts ARE too good sometimes, but it really does promote exploration.

if you haven't noticed, the best prizes (settlers / techs) were mostly given out early in the game.

i also believe that the new resource structure will promote exploration a lot more than huts ever could, and therefore agree with you, except that i believe they all should be the same color, just to piss people off

the concept of sending 5 legions to get a hut still scares me.

[Ralf]

Originally posted by UberKruX
the concept of sending 5 legions to get a hut still scares me.

The point is that one perhaps want to found cities and improve terrain-tiles around them as much as possible, at first. At least then it comes the stronger ulcer-huts. On wouldnt like to "awaken the sleeping bear" so to speak - at least not unless properly prepared.

On the other hand; these barbarian ulcer-huts get stronger units over time too, if left alone. Not above knights however. Also; once you improved one too many of the surrounding hut-tiles, these scumbags suddenly gets very provoked by the fact that everything starting to get so damn organized around them. They leave the hut, either divided (for terrain pillage) or forged to an army (for unit-killings, or even city-conquerings).

Nice blokes!

[Darkknight]

Maybe you could have barbariab huts that have barb. units come out of them every now and then. if unleashed you get several barbs attacking you. This way if you want to take over their land you cant just leave them alone.

[Pilfur]

That's a great idea. Where do barbarians come from in CivII anyway? They just randomly materialize from thin air?

[Captain]

I like the idea, but how about if you don't take care of these huts after a while a barbarian unit will come out of it and start pillaging or attacking your civ. Therefore you are forced to cleanse the land of them - subjugating them. It will slow down expansion, but if you defeat them, then you get either a free worker unit, a free powerful military unit, some cash, some tech, or a combo of these, depending on how strong the barbs you defeated were. Or perhaps if you get your culture rating high enough, they will voluntarily join you for X amount of cash (you get a military unit or worker or something).

I think this is better because in reality when a civ started out, it had to subjugate its neighbours. There was rarely unoccupied land you could just settle unopposed. These "ulcer" huts will mimic those minor native tribes inhabiting the land. This will also deter ICS players.

[El hidalgo]

What can I say? This is so much better than my original idea (which I conceived of soon after I bought Civ) of completely eliminating goody huts, which I hate hate hate with a passion . It also clears up that eternal mystery of Civ: mommy, where do barbarians come from? (Out of thin air, my son). I really hope Firaxis does something like this. Seems like it wouldn't be too hard. In the beginning it might even foster cooperation among the civs -- let us ally against the evil barbarians.

Originally posted by Captain
I like the idea, but how about if you don't take care of these huts after a while a barbarian unit will come out of it and start pillaging or attacking your civ. Therefore you are forced to cleanse the land of them - subjugating them. It will slow down expansion, but if you defeat them, then you get either a free worker unit, a free powerful military unit, some cash, some tech, or a combo of these, depending on how strong the barbs you defeated were. Or perhaps if you get your culture rating high enough, they will voluntarily join you for X amount of cash (you get a military unit or worker or something).

I think this is better because in reality when a civ started out, it had to subjugate its neighbours. There was rarely unoccupied land you could just settle unopposed. These "ulcer" huts will mimic those minor native tribes inhabiting the land. This will also deter ICS players.

[Geoff the Medio]

Has anyone played Master of Magic?

The proposed quasi-cities/goody huts sound like the neutral towns from MoM. They were sort of like barbarian controlled cities from Civ, except that they were already there when the game started (and were brown). You could capture them (useful because they sometimes contained races which allowed you to build different units), but you had to kill off the units defending it, which were sometimes quite numerous. They would also intermittantly send out groups of units to attack your cities, but they weren't organized to work together like the cities of another enemy wizard (civ).

I suppose this could be what a minor civ is?

[Rollo_CH]

Well there was hut-like structures on the last screens on Firaxis site, didnt see any reply to my earlier post about this however. My guess they represent the "Goody-huts", Barbarian towns or maybe the much debated "Minor Civs"...

[Buck Birdseed]

There will be Barbarian Towns aikin to the Neutral Towns of MoM in Civ3, last I heard...

[Captain]

Are these barbarian towns the same as the goody huts or a totally new feature altogether?

If they are spearate, I'd like to suggest to Firaxis that goody-hut benefits be reduced.
Or that goody huts should be placed only near barb towns, so you have to fight the barbs to get the goodies.

[dainbramaged13]

i love it. the only problem is that probably no one is listening and if they were it would be too late... if there are goody huts on the screenshots, they will probably stay goody huts, the only input from us they might take would be to decrease the hut value, which is not very useful in my opinion


Now, back on fantasy track that they will actually listen to me -
The best idea is to have barbarian villages with large rewards for killing all the barbarians, then to have them come at you later randomly later if you dont deal with them initially, and instead develop around them.

I dont know what is up with minor civs, but i definetly think that if there are no barbarian villages, then there should be many minor civs that you must defeat, and if you do, they will reveal an advance, or give you a city or a settler - a good reward.

anyway, see what you think

[Urban Ranger]

I disagree.

First of all, what is the logic of having all these minor tribes violent and hostile? I distinctly recall barbarian raids were the exception instead of the norm during European Colonisation period. Heck, when the Puritans came to North America they found friendly natives.

If you feel the goodie huts are giving too big an advantage to the human players, place them further apart, or make their reaction to you directly related to your civilisation level.