Impact of huts on 2x or 1x

[rah]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
Therefore Deity will now become the official way of play.

There is no official "level", that is determined by the players.


But having said that. 99% of the games I've played in the last 3 years have been deity, So I won't accuse Markus of making me play deity level.

RAH

Still waiting for Markus to join the fun. That stealth bomber looks so out of place

[Ming]

Originally posted by rah
That stealth bomber looks so out of place

Yeah... but if you think about it... the stealth bomber is probably a bigger joke than the muppets

[markusf]

Originally posted by atawa


So if I understand correctly if you have 10 city's only 4 can celebrate to size 8?

I believe 8, that is your size 3 city won't go into we love the king day even if you have 60 luxeries.

[SlowwHand]

...the stealth bomber is probably a bigger joke than the muppets ?
HEY!

[markusf]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
This is just markus trying to tell the world that he is indeed a "trade god" and that there is no stopping his trade genius. Which is why King is no longer a real settings because on King it's too easy to stop his trade strategy. Therefore Deity will now become the official way of play.

Gee funny, i don't ever remember posting anything about king since no one here plays using those settings. But none the less Trade beats all, king or not.
Of course if your playing duels trade doesn't apply, unless you can afford it and the reward is extremely high.

[Deity Dude]

In general, the impact (postive or negative) of any single unit, city or tech is half as important in 2x1x as it is in 1x1x. As other posters have pointed out, there are numerous modifiers to this simple postulate but, in general, the postulate holds true.

This holds true for all aspects of the 2x1x game vs 1x1x game not just hut luck. (IMO) Thus, each individual strategic decision is roughly half as important.

Note: I am certainly not saying that 2x1x is a less strategic for this reason, I am just saying each individual decision becomes less important because its impact can be made up twice as quickly.

Pick the strategic decision it really doesnt matter; move a unit incorrectly and lose it - you can replace it twice as fast; spend gold foolishly - you can replace it twice as fast; etc.

[markusf]

Originally posted by rah
What the heck does any of that have to do with Huts. quit changing the subject. Except that they help you get wherever you want to go/ or kill you, and he who gets lucky has one heck of an advantage.

A common strat is to get to go alpha, code of laws and try and find a hut.. if you get bronze or horse you can go straight to monarchy. Now if you find a non monarchy tech just stop tipping huts! After you get monarchy go open all the huts you can find.

and he who gets lucky has one heck of an advantage.

Sure you can get a tech or 2 froms huts, but the more techs you have the faster my tech rate is going to get (makes little dif on 2x but huge in 1x. You can't build more then 5 cities in dep, you can't build more then 7 -13 cities in monarchy without temples.. You have no chance to get a run away lead at the start of the game. You can have few cities and wonders, or many cities and no wonders. Its extremely hard to have many cities + wonders

[atawa]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
This holds true for all aspects of the 2x1x game vs 1x1x game not just hut luck. (IMO) Thus, each individual strategic decision is roughly half as important.

Note: I am certainly not saying that 2x1x is a less strategic for this reason, I am just saying each individual decision becomes less important because its impact can be made up twice as quickly.

You might replace units twice as fast etc but remember the other player plays 2x1x too so basicly you're still one unit behind....

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by atawa


You might replace units twice as fast etc but remember the other player plays 2x1x too so basicly you're still one unit behind....

Yes but the 1 unit lead is less important in a 2x1x game. For example: In a 2x1x game you can build 2 horses in the time you can build 1 in a 1x1x game. Lets say it takes 2 turns in the 2x game and 4 turns in 1x game. If I lose 1 horse in the 2x1x game our relative strength at that moment is 2 - 1 in your favor and it will take me 2 turns to replace it. In the 1x1x game our relative strength will be 1 - 0 and it will take me 4 turns to replace it. I'd much rather be down 2-1 for 2 turns then 1 - 0 for 4 turns

To carry that 1 step further. A 2-1 advantage for 2 turns gives you the potential of uncovering 8 squares to my 4. A 1-0 advantage for 4 turns gives you the potential of uncovering 8 squares to my none.

[Eyes_Of_Night]

"Note: I am certainly not saying that 2x1x is a less strategic for this reason, I am just saying each individual decision becomes less important because its impact can be made up twice as quickly.

Pick the strategic decision it really doesnt matter; move a unit incorrectly and lose it - you can replace it twice as fast; spend gold foolishly - you can replace it twice as fast; etc."

You're absolutely right. I've been so blind. Lets meet on the zone and play 2x1x so you can show me how foolishly you can spend gold yet still be able to win.

[rah]

The two games are completely different, SP vs. MP
The two games are quite different, 2x vs 1x.
The two games are different, deity vs king.
The two game vary, raging vs. villages
All are possibilities and I don't believe any can claim to be "pure".

Different strokes for different folks
But hut luck is more important in 1x

RAH

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
You're absolutely right. I've been so blind. Lets meet on the zone and play 2x1x so you can show me how foolishly you can spend gold yet still be able to win.

Eyes the only time we played 2x1x you quit in about 2000bc and blamed it on being on an island. To be fair you kicked my ass in the only 2x2x game we played. BUT MY POST WASN"T INTENDED TO GET IN A FLAME WAR WITH YOU. Nor was it intended to say that I could "foolishly spend gold" and beat you or any other good player.

It was an attempt to contribute my point of view to an intelligent discussion regarding the impact of huts in a 2x1x game vs a 1x1x game.

As always, I am willing to play you 2x1x or 1x1x anytime you want but please save you BS for someone else.

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by rah
The two games are completely different, SP vs. MP
The two games are quite different, 2x vs 1x.
The two games are different, deity vs king.
The two game vary, raging vs. villages
All are possibilities and I don't believe any can claim to be "pure".

Different strokes for different folks
But hut luck is more important in 1x

RAH

RAH you summed it up perfectly.

Maybe I was misunderstood, but as I said in my post - I don't consider 2x1x less strategic then 1x1x. I do think every individual tactical decision has less of a total impact in a 2x1x game then a 1x1x game for the reasons I stated earlier.

RAH, I think you would agree but maybe not, if 50 gold is less important/impactful if discovered in a hut in a 2x1x game (as you said) then wouldn't it also be less important/impactful if that 50 gold were lost in another way in a 2x1x game then a 1x1x game.

Again, I'm not saying that one is a better game (although I know which I prefer). What I am saying is if production is doubled in one game vs the other, then a double amount of output is equal between the 2 games (i.e. 100 gold in a 2x1x game = 50 gold in a 1x1x game or 2 settlers in a 2x1x game = 1 settler in a 1x1x game) As I also said, there are a lot of modifiers to the simple ratio stated here - but in general I believe it to be true.

[markusf]

With the settings rah plays there is no stratagy. Build on mountains and attack is impossible.

[SmartFart]

I have to agree with Markus. Even hills are impenetrable. In x1x1 you can build on mountains,but if you do it in early game you're doomed.