I think huts were not in the earliest versions. And, in fact, huts don't matter at all on your turn, only on your opponents' (when they may be smashed to destroy your bank, or serve to defend your territory). In the implementation, you can click on anywhere in your territory to show your bank; you don't need to, and rarely do, click on your hut.gruff wrote: when your turn starts, your money has to be in your hut already. Without a hut, you can't have any bank.
There is no reason to implement this restriction, for the reason stated above.Also, would you have to build all huts before building any men?
This is an irrelevant argument, since changing any rule (e.g. huts have no defense strength) is a "zero sum thing", as long as the change applies equally to all players. The issue is, whether the change improves the game or not. And the reasons why I think my suggestion improves the game are as follows:Thirdly, the automatic regeneration of huts is a disadvantage for you as the attacker, but an advantage for the defender. Changing it would be a zero sum thing.
1. The player should be given the choice of where to rebuild his hut. This gives him more strategy options and eliminates the inelegant method of having the program arbitrarily select one for you.
2. The attacker should not have to deal with regenerating huts within his turn. Lands which rely on regenerating huts to defend themselves are mostly hopeless anyway; allowing them to survive longer merely slows down the pace of the game.
There are also some other minor problems with the regenerating hut. For example, if an area which is fully occupied with one castle and several men gets cut off, the hut regenerates over my castle (because it cannot regenerate over a man), destroying it and allowing the land to be conquered easily. My suggestion provides an elegant solution to this situation.
On the very contrary, one deals with regenerating huts (when attacking) far more often than one would have to position new huts. How many huts would you have to place on an average turn? Mostly 0, 1, or 2. And most of the time, that is an immaterial decision (for a hopeless land) that can be completed in a second without any thought. But when you need to do so for an important land, it'll be important to give the player the decision.Sean O'Connor wrote:I agree with gruff and I think it would get tediuos to have to position loads of new huts on tiny territories at the beginning of each turn when you wanted to get on with slaying.
In my suggestion, you don't have to place the huts in the beginning of your turn, or even at all. They become a third kind of build item, available for any land without a hut already, and are built at no cost at any time in your turn. If you don't build it, you get an end-of-turn warning, and you lose any unspent money when you end your turn.
I believe that my suggestion already has a clear algorithm, while the algorithm for figuring out the "middle" of a territory has yet to be figured out. And what if that hex is already occupied?In the next version I'll make it so that the huts appear in the "middle" of a new territory rather than use my cop-out method of just using the first hex in the array (i.e. the top left one).