Impact of huts on 2x or 1x

[rah]

How fast you get to those numbers of cities is important.

In 2x, If i get bad hut luck, I still feel I can catch up quickly. In 1x it will take twice as long if you ever do. Or thinking about it another way, it will take twice as long to reach the same inevitable conclusion as you get in 2x. Why play two sessions to get to the same place as you could in one session.

But I will admit the stratagy is different. Those food specials and production ones are what you're looking for on the opening instead of those trade specials.

Every now and then I do play 1x, (usually because I have forgotten how boring it is) I quickly remember and vow not to do it again. But it has been awhile so I guess I'm ready to remind myself one more time

But the discussion is wandering. Even after reading peoples arguements, I still think huts add more luck to 1x games then to 2x games.

RAH

[SlowwHand]

Huts matter more in 1X, of course.
The real question being, do you really want to hit the hut before government change, due to tech concerns ?

[rah]

Risk vs. reward. Getting one tech helps, (at least till you're researching the 3 tech) Getting anything else (but barbs) helps. You must tip the hut. When you're researching the 3rd and 4th tech, then you must choose. If I'm ahead, I may wait, If I'm behind, go for it.

[SlowwHand]

I keep wanting to wait, no matter the circumstances, but feel compelled to tip them.

[rah]

There are only two times, I'll even think of waiting.
1. When it's in a location that will be in a city rad. in a few turns. (i.e. settler on the way)
2. When researching 3 or 4 tec.

[War4ever]

One last time.....its so much easier to RUN AWAY with a game in x2...plain and simple.....so an early nomad has twice the effectiveness as in x1. X1 is a slower methodical game that requires a different type of skill level. The bonuses, trade, production, support of troops is perfect in x1...in x2 EVERY aspect of the game is distorted...especially if you play with x2move

Having said that....Rich you see the nomad as more valuable in x1 b/c of its worth production wise. You remember that game with smart and i..... he got a nomad on turn two.....plunked the city down and expanded REAL quickly..... the time factor in x2is alot less, therefore getting that early nomad placed gives you a springboard of much greater value. Troops and ciites are produced quicker..there is no way to match that build speed.

[markusf]

Originally posted by War4ever
One last time.....its so much easier to RUN AWAY with a game in x2...plain and simple.....so an early nomad has twice the effectiveness as in x1. X1 is a slower methodical game that requires a different type of skill level. The bonuses, trade, production, support of troops is perfect in x1...in x2 EVERY aspect of the game is distorted...especially if you play with x2move

Having said that....Rich you see the nomad as more valuable in x1 b/c of its worth production wise. You remember that game with smart and i..... he got a nomad on turn two.....plunked the city down and expanded REAL quickly..... the time factor in x2is alot less, therefore getting that early nomad placed gives you a springboard of much greater value. Troops and ciites are produced quicker..there is no way to match that build speed.

Ya one last time... in 2x huts are the game. in 1x city count doesn't mean a damn thing on diety. I have managed to get my self killed a few times because i got to many tribes. You can't build more then 5 cities in deposition, 7 cities in monarchy without going and building temples etc. If you don't have your infustructure in place your screwed. As for techs from huts, you don't get exactly the right tech and your screwed, often times i have seen my tech rate go from 6 turns to 23 turns for getting 2 bad huts in a row. In 1x there is no certainty, especially with 4 players, it really doesn't matter whose leading because everyone has a chance, where as in 2x the person with the most cities automatically wins, because they are unattackable.

[ColdWizard]

i agree with war4. a skilled player getting that extra settler can quickly pull away from everyone else (and a semi-skilled player may be able to keep up with the others). the bigger the earlier expansion is, the bigger the growth potential is, which is amplified in 2x. 1x is slower and it's more difficult to jump to a big, insurmountable lead...

[rah]

OK, ignore nomads and cities, it's the techs/units/money/barbs.

They are all double valued. How does that not add to the luck aspect?

[markusf]

Originally posted by rah
OK, ignore nomads and cities, it's the techs/units/money/barbs.

They are all double valued. How does that not add to the luck aspect?

You get a good trade special in 2x or something like a iron, and you can crank out a settlar every 4 turns.. its boring. The game on 2x is decided in the first 10 turns. Not to mention forests are 4 shields, etc etc

[War4ever]

With the science output of your cities almost doubled, techs come quicker, so even if you get screwed by a couple of techs in x2 your not out of it....but......if someone else gets great luck.....they can be in monarchy by 3250 bc...republic by 2650-2850...and EVERY single turn extra in a govt form other than despot. in x2 games is critical. X1 games are slow..they crawl....your not expecting monarchy by 3050..and like markus said, too many tribes/free cities can be your death...... in x2 , dont' worry about the red guy....just remove production and use the city square....oh look at that nice wine.....5 beakers even though i am using only one square....

Units...haha.... the x2 prod. allows for an obscene amount of units on the board....there is virtually no unit support cost.... just spit out sets and units...

terrain is grossy exaggerated in x2...like you say..its luck...i get river silk , with forest and wine..you get afghanistan....even if you walk and find good gold somewhere....i will have had 4-6 turns on you....enough to beat you to a representative govt, an early wonder, philo...etc....

there is a reason why our x2 games don't get continued.......we play with enough of the same people these days that a continuation this week or the next isn't too hard to come by....its the fact that one or two people are so far out of it........

x2 ruins wars as well.....warrior on a mountain...ok i am safe until metallurgy hahaha

[markusf]

Originally posted by rah

Every now and then I do play 1x, (usually because I have forgotten how boring it is) I quickly remember and vow not to do it again. But it has been awhile so I guess I'm ready to remind myself one more time


RAH

I have played 3 player turn based games that take 6 hours to get to space flight.. I assume if you have no skill at those settings it would be boring.
But once the game gets past the initial stages 1x is sooooo much faster then 2x, and a lot more interesting/intensive.

[War4ever]

agreed markus.....x1 was the way the game was meant to be played and the way we all learned to play it in SP

However , i do like the company i keep when i play x2 games

[markusf]

Originally posted by War4ever
agreed markus.....x1 was the way the game was meant to be played and the way we all learned to play it in SP

However , i do like the company i keep when i play x2 games

Ya but it grows old fast.. You do the same thing every single game.

1. Crank out sets
2. straight rep
3. 80% lux get your cities up, all workers on water.
4. trade, set up trade routes.
5.phil, mono.
6. Fall asleep watching your tech race ahead for the rest of the game.

[SlowwHand]

I'll play any setting, I don't quibble.

Some of the reasons I say 1X:

Techs- Slows you down even more if you get an unwanted advance.
Units- If it's supported by a city it can cause unrest (talking Deity).


War4 is looking at it from the aspect of one pulling ahead, which is true enough.
I'm looking at it from the negative viewpoints of impedement of progress, which also exists.