Opening a hut with your second settler

[rah]

Unless I think I'm far behind and need to take some risks, I won't open a hut with my second non-settler. Losing him to a barb in an MP game is usually the kiss of death.

Normally if someone loses their second settler to another MP player or their capital early, I'm willing to offer a restart so the person doesn't have to suffer the whole evening. I occasionally will offer a restart if someone loses it opening a hut, but I resist this because the person doing it is aware of the risk and it's hard to feel sorry for them.

When will you open a hut with your second settler?
I've been known to do it if I think I'm behind. Or if the hut is on a mountain or a hill where even If I get a barb, the settler has a good chance of surviving. (never if there is a mountain touching in the early clock position that could lead to a legion.

But If i'm near where I'm going to plant, I'll just build the city and send the first warrior to harvest the hut.

Sometimes the barb won't even attack and moves off. (to later return when you create the city. )
So while there is not a lot of risk doing this, it happens enough that you have to consider the risk.

What do you guys think, and how do you feel about offering restarts. In a three man game I'm more likely to offer someone a restart if they have an awful start, only because I'm not fond of duels.

[Ming]

In any number of player game, if a player loses his capital, a reset is in order... but losing the second settler to a hut, it depends on the number of players.

In a four person game... I say no. Why should you get all the advantages of opening the hut, and not the downside of losing the settler. Yeah, it sucks, and puts you at a terrible disadvantage... BUT THAT'S WHAT YOU GET FOR OPENING THE HUT IN THE FIRST PLACE. Should we get a reset if you get a free unit... or 100 gold... or a good science... While the odds are good, you are taking a chance... and if you lose, your problem.

I was quite impressed over the weekend when somebody did lose their second settler, and didn't really whine (too much) about it. That's the chance you take.

If I'm far behind, I will take that chance... otherwise, I won't, because I don't want to lose the settler.

[-Jrabbit]

I got burned once doing this and it was an evening of extreme misery. The fact that I did it to myself made it all the worse.

I can't imagine a situation where I would do it again.

[atawa]

You need the extra tech anyway so your only problem is barbs, all other outcomes are good so I'd just chance it.

But after the first tech I'll bypass them untill rep.

[finbar]

Never in a million years would I risk opening a hut with Mr Second Settler.

[trev]

Rarely do I find a hut with my 2nd settler, I usually find somewhere to build quickly with it, but I always open huts I find, the potential benefits outweigh the risks in my opinion by a long way, and I never would ask for a restart if things went wrong, I do not need one, I am good enough to recover

[rah]

I'll bypass them if I'm about to finish code and select on Monarchy, but if I'm still 6 or more turns away and I think I'm behind, I'll open the damn hut.

[deity]

A lot of games lately are with the Villages setting anyway. I know this doesn't prevent hut barbs though. Regardless I'll still open a hut.

[Ben Kenobi]

Nope,

I'll build a city right beside the hut, to remove the possibility of barbs.

[Zylka]

Good stuff Rah.. I've always thought of starting general opinion threads on many an MP wonder, even this specific question

To answer: after experience of two or three entire game nights wasted on the risk, no - I'll never (in Rah Rules games) open a hut with the second set*. Regarding restarts - As Ming mentioned with the unspoken, 4 player rule of "THAT'S WHAT YOU GET"; it's not statistically worth the risk. I generally won't even open huts with the 3rd, 4th, or 5th set (on their own)

*Now IF the second settler (or any following) is guarded by a same turn attack able unit popped from a pre-capital hut - I'll near definitely use the second set; even if it means getting the hut a single turn earlier than sending the mentioned unit. Rare, but that situation does happen. The other exception for opening with second set would be if it's on a straight river and the set opens the hut with 2/3 escape moves. In this situation, if capital backup can be produced to buffer any attack before the barb unit catches up, it's bonus inclination. And since barbs never pop out of huts by the 8s in rah rules, either situation on a straight river finds the settlers' survival chance quite high.

For a 3rd, 4th or 5th unguarded set (being on it's own) - I'll definitely open a hut as long as the settler falls on a mountain. Depending on location of the found hut (ie it's situation decided worth); I will probably open with a 4th or 5th set if (he) lands on a hill, forest river, etc.

After which - mass warriors sent for exploration will be used for any future opening(s). For grasslands and non defense terrain - say even with a 35th produced settler, I wouldn't ever open a hut, unless being lazy/tired/bored. A rare occurence for a RR game

[...]

Now for 2x2x.. the strategy is almost always open the hut, regardless of unit used - though for military units, so long as they have one move left to attack or fortify after. Totally different world of gameplay

[Ming]

Yeah... 2x2x is a whole different story.

I'm also more open minded to opening a hut with a settler if there are other factors to consider. Being on a mountain is indeed one of them... or having an attack unit in range... or a good escape route down a river.

I'm also a big fan of not opening a hut with multiple movement units on their last movement point. But I will admit that the last time I wasted a turn to open a hut with a horseman so that I would have a movement point left... somebody else walked up to the hut, got an archer, and destroyed my unit

[rah]

Especially knowing that if you had opened the hut you would have released a barb that would have destroyed your unit.

Or the happy/bad luck, you get a city, and the next turn the other player attackes your unfortified horse on surprise with a warrior, and kills the city.

[Caesar Jon]

RAH....lol....are you making fun of me Well since I lost my second settler to a hut barb last game my opinion is I will always open the hut...I'm just a risk taker type of guy.

[rah]

No, not at all, but the circumstances made me think what parameters I use for making the decision you did, and I thought it would be interesting to here what others thought. I have done what you did, but not frequently. And the last two time that I did it and got barbs, the first time the barb walked away without attacking and the second time the barb lost. So I was also interested to see what others thought the actual risk was.

[-Jrabbit]

It's just not worth the pain of being Pathetic for a whole night.

I have enough problems with my game technique (like last week, accidentally clicking "Buy" on a settler build when the city was still size 1). I'll play a bad lie, but I'd rather lose the hut than my 2nd sett.