Impact of huts on 2x or 1x

[rah]

I'm not sure where I read it, (and I'm way too lazy to look since I'm stuck at work) but someone stated that huts had a greater impact on 2x production games. To me that is the exact opposite of what I would think. Anything you get from a hut in a 1x game would be twice as valuable to be than in a 2x game, since it would take twice as long to build it yourself.
Getting that free nomad early in 1x games seems way more unbalancing. Getting anything (except for barbs) from a hut early would seem to be more valuable.

Following that logic, luck plays an even more important role in 1x1x games than it does in 2x1x games.

Am I missing something? (besides my marbles )

RAH

[Ming]

Yeah... I noticed that comment too... and I have to agree with you.

A free unit or settler in a 1x pro game is huge.

I have to go find that quote so I can see what I might have missed the first time reading it

[SmartFart]

I know this post will provoke negative reactions from huthunters,but I don't think huts are as much valuable,no matter the settings (except x2x2 king maybe),but I do like when I see one in my starting position.
But to get back on topic....you're right. Definitelly.

[rah]

I found at least one mention.

Check war4's post in.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=49721

Upon a second read though, it could be interperted differently. Maybe He'll come and defend or clarify it.

What do others think?

Rich

[Ming]

Well... he could be refering to 2x movement games... but if he is, I don't really see how huts are any better or worse

[War4ever]

I am sure we can all agree that a nomad/free city gives that player a huge advantage on any setting but while playing x2 the advantage is even greater.

The player with a 3rd city down has potentially 50% more building power than his rival, and this can have extreme consequences in x2 games.

The beauty of the third city in x2 production is that it gives you the ability to pump out units of your choice....all sets , phalanxes, warriors, or horsemen. With these extra units on the board at a pace which eclipeses that of x1 games, your uncovering the map at record speeds.

I am not saying it can't be used this way in x1 games either...sure it can...but not with the same building power and speed....many events in x2 games will have a greater impact that those of "real" civ

The same type of arguement can be made for terrain as well...x2 greatly distorts this aspect of the game. In x2 games you can build anywhere.... just plop a city down and with some good defenders, and an early warning system, you can make taking that particular city a real pain in the a$$

But then again we see cities fall all the time

[Ming]

While I buy into the comments that 2x does allow you to plop a city down anywhere... I still disagree with your proposition that huts are more important in 2x vs 1x. In one time, a free settler is HUGE. With less production, getting that third city down fast gives you an incredable advantage. And while it REALLY helps in a 2x game, you will have the third city down fast anyway thanks to double production...

[War4ever]

but your missing the main point, which is x2 prod. allows so many more units to be present on the board.....when everything is x2 your advantage is superior...

you not going to build your cap on gold in x1 even if you do get a free settler...therefore that nomad in x2 can go anywhere and start pumping other cities or units....

and production is so slow in x1 that the extra city doesn't really translate into such a bug advantage IMO...yes your way behind, but in x1 everything is slooooooooooower.....x2 is a fast paced civ game.... the extra 2beakers of science in x1 do not compare to the extra 5-8 you could pick up in x2 by building on gold.

nor is the extra 3 shields viable when comparing to x2 where you will easliy rake in 5-7 shields from that city.....

in dp...a third city is like having four cities or five in x1

[rah]

Gotta dissagree. That free horse you get in 1x is worth a few extra turns. And not having to support it is even bigger in 1x. Getting that free settler can be a 7 or 8 turn advantage where in 2x in monarchy it's only 4 turns. The goal in either is the same, more cities. A free city or nomad in 1x is worth twice as much just in shield count alone.

[rah]

And getting a tech on the path to monarchy is twice as big in 1x because it saves you twice the number of turns it would in 2x.

50 gold is worth more in 1x also.

and losing your first scout to a barb is twice as worse because it will take you twice as long to replace it.

Huts have a bigger impact in 1x. More luck.

[War4ever]

i guess i am seeing this from a different angle......i think its harder to run away ealry in games in x1 than it is in x2.......

i concede the fact that losing anything to barbs sucks , even more so in x1.....but for someone leading a game , i think its easier in x2 to really run away with it.....obviously the equalizer is dips, but these are costly in x1 and not so in x2.....

x2 just makes the game easier to play, but also unbalances gameplay

it takes city placement away
it makes players build on specials to protect them...often making the city extremely difficult to take out in the early years...thus negating wars
same old game , every game...and in one session like you stated elsewhere, one person generally has a huge lead, thus making continuations more difficult...

[markusf]

Originally posted by War4ever
i guess i am seeing this from a different angle......i think its harder to run away ealry in games in x1 than it is in x2.......

i concede the fact that losing anything to barbs sucks , even more so in x1.....but for someone leading a game , i think its easier in x2 to really run away with it.....obviously the equalizer is dips, but these are costly in x1 and not so in x2.....

x2 just makes the game easier to play, but also unbalances gameplay

it takes city placement away
it makes players build on specials to protect them...often making the city extremely difficult to take out in the early years...thus negating wars
same old game , every game...and in one session like you stated elsewhere, one person generally has a huge lead, thus making continuations more difficult...

2x is all about huts... THe person who gets the most tribes at the start, or techs leading to republic wins.

[Ming]

Originally posted by markusf
2x is all about huts... THe person who gets the most tribes at the start, or techs leading to republic wins.

Uhhh... the same holds true for 1x1x... if you get more tribes or the right techs... you win.

[War4ever]

yes , but the lead isn't as distorted in x1

[markusf]

Originally posted by Ming


Uhhh... the same holds true for 1x1x... if you get more tribes or the right techs... you win.

ahahahaha, NOT

you get tribes on diety 1x 1x and you have more then 7 cities, your screwed. you can't grow under republic and unhappiness is a killer. In a 4 player game, it doesn't matter how far ahead you are you can always get knocked back by a weak player.. in 2x thats not possible.