06-12-2002 21:28									#31
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: samson - nope it was rivered grass - hence our amazement

Can you please post a save? Either from before or soon after the hut tip?

	06-12-2002 21:32									#32
	Increase Your PM Length

samson

The hut was on rivered grassland. I have enclosed the 4000BC save. (180 x 180 giga map) The hut in question is at 76, 82.

One (untested) aspect of huts appears to be your position on the Powergraph.

Results seem less likely to be Barbs if pathetic to moderate. As the Powergraph place affects tech gifting it's possible this comes into play here as well.

---------------------------

SG(2)

Attachment: sc_b4000.zip
This has been downloaded 2 time(s).

	06-12-2002 21:35									#33
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by atawa Its my observation from playing 1000+ games. Not that I get an archer every time from a forrest but I get much more archers from forrest then horsies or chariots. If I have time this weekend I'll test this.

Please do. And report the exact conditions of your tests as well as the results. As I learned from the great nomad dispute, there may be some obscure factor which creates different results under different conditions. For now, I stand by the statement that no direct correlation between terrain type and mercenary unit type exists.

	06-12-2002 21:48									#34
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by Scouse Gits samson The hut was on rivered grassland. I have enclosed the 4000BC save. (180 x 180 giga map) The hut in question is at 76, 82.

These is no hut at 76,82.
The location of your chariot in the snapshot is 73,81 and there is a hut there. That square, however, is rivered Forest, not Grassland. Which explains the occurance of a nomad at that location.

quote: Originally posted by Scouse Gits One (untested) aspect of huts appears to be your position on the Powergraph. Results seem less likely to be Barbs if pathetic to moderate. As the Powergraph place affects tech gifting it's possible this comes into play here as well.

That's possible. I haven't concluded my testing of the Barbarian outcome yet.

By the way, I seem to remember a post about the pattern of Barbs from huts (the number and location of barb units) being related to year-cycle. Was that one of your (SGs) studies by chance? Do you still have a link to it?

	06-12-2002 21:48									#35
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

It is my prior belief that Atawa's claim has some merit, but I appreciate that is it is easy to be fooled by other factors that are not controlled for in a game environment. Test away.

STYOM: Were your results due to a small sample then?

	06-12-2002 22:18									#36
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

DrSpike -

Yes, the idea of terrain influencing the resulting unit of a mercenary outcome does have merit. That's why I specifically tested it. But my conclusion after examining the results of those tests is that it isn't true.

	06-12-2002 22:24									#37
	Put an end to popups!

Yeah I got that. More testing is never bad though......a Popperian falsificationalist approach is the best approach here.

BTW Did you see STYOM's results before? Did you test the same thing?

	06-12-2002 22:36									#38
	Increase the size of your Attachments

More testing is definitely good.

I did see some results STYOM posted under a thread called "Huts and Scrolls of Wisdom" where he got a very large number of Tribes in 3850BC. But there isn't enough information to tell whether or not another factor was at work. I suspect the Continent Rule was in play, because that would explain the large number of Tribes outcomes.

And yes, I did test Oedo years. No correlation to outcome as far as I can see. The only year-related effects I have found so far are to the specific years: 1550BC (50 turns) and 1000AD.

	06-12-2002 22:51									#39
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

So we WERE more drunk than we thunk!

The SGs in contrition

	06-12-2002 23:19									#40
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by DrSpike STYOM: Were your results due to a small sample then?

50 hut tips, reloaded. Quite different results in 3850 BC than in 3800.

The continent rule was NOT in play. I had put down 1 city - obviously in 3850 BC I was still on the same continent. The results in 3850 were 9 units, 7 barbs, 25 techs, 9 gold. In 3800, it was 13 units, 13 barbs, 11 techs, 13 cash. I'm willing to chalk that up to statistical aberration, but at the time it seemed meaningful.

Here's the 3850 save:

	06-12-2002 23:21									#41
	Remove this text

and the 3800 save:

Attachment: test3_1.sav
This has been downloaded 1 time(s).

	06-12-2002 23:26									#42
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I know you were referring to the 3850 save with a lot of tribes... still looking for that save file!

	06-12-2002 23:31									#43
	Suffering from ads?

Here's the 3850 BC save that for me, produced a LOT of tribes.

Attachment: test9.sav
This has been downloaded 4 time(s).

	06-12-2002 23:31									#44
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Samson?

	06-12-2002 23:47									#45
	Put an end to popups!

quote: Originally posted by Six Thousand Year Old Man 50 hut tips, reloaded. Quite different results in 3850 BC than in 3800. The continent rule was NOT in play. I had put down 1 city - obviously in 3850 BC I was still on the same continent. The results in 3850 were 9 units, 7 barbs, 25 techs, 9 gold. In 3800, it was 13 units, 13 barbs, 11 techs, 13 cash. I'm willing to chalk that up to statistical aberration, but at the time it seemed meaningful. Here's the 3850 save:

Yes, the continent rule is not in play here, but the Nomads Rule is. The hut square you are tipping produces Nomads not Advanced Tribe even though it is Grassland. Yet, you already have one Nomad, so nomads are suppressed in the situation and the Tribes chance is added to Scrolls.

Thus, the high number of techs you saw on turn 3850BC is expected. Scrolls should occur twice as often as each of the other outcomes.

It is the results from the year 3800BC that are aberrant. However, when both results are added together to produce 100 chances, you have:

22 units, 20 barbs, 36 techs, and 22 gold.

This is nearly what is to be expected from Scrolls getting the benefit of Tribes' chance. Techs are a bit light here, but not too much. A couple hundred more tips and the results should even out.

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.

	07-12-2002 00:31									#46
	Support Apolyton

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?

	07-12-2002 00:36									#47
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: 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.

	07-12-2002 00:50									#48
	Increase the size of your Attachments

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!

	07-12-2002 00:53									#49
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I worked *that* out hours ago.

P.S Lie

	07-12-2002 01:26									#50
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: 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!

	07-12-2002 02:27									#51
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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?

	07-12-2002 03:10									#52
	Remove this text

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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.

quote: 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?

quote: 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.

quote: Originally posted by War4ever and have we yet determined why we get those weird techs after invention?

What are you talking about?

quote: 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.

	07-12-2002 03:17									#53
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: 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.

	07-12-2002 03:22									#54
	Full PM-box? Change here!

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.

	07-12-2002 03:25									#55
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

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

	07-12-2002 14:30									#56
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

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....

	07-12-2002 22:11									#57
	Support Apolyton

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

	08-12-2002 05:31									#58
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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???

	08-12-2002 23:38									#59
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

@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...

	09-12-2002 05:33									#60
	Inflate your Upload Space

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 ....