Impact of huts on 2x or 1x

rah · May 9, 2002, 19:05

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 · May 9, 2002, 19:27

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 · May 9, 2002, 19:37

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 · May 9, 2002, 19:38

I found at least one mention.

Check war4's post in.
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...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 · May 9, 2002, 19:43

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 · May 9, 2002, 20:09

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 · May 9, 2002, 20:18

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 · May 9, 2002, 21:08

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 · May 9, 2002, 21:59

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 · May 9, 2002, 22:00

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 · May 9, 2002, 23:06

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 · May 9, 2002, 23:18

Quote:

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 · May 9, 2002, 23:24

Quote:

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 · May 10, 2002, 00:22

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

markusf · May 10, 2002, 01:07

Quote:

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.

rah · May 10, 2002, 08:53

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 · May 10, 2002, 10:05

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 · May 10, 2002, 10:15

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 · May 10, 2002, 10:23

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

rah · May 10, 2002, 10:58

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 · May 10, 2002, 11:40

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 · May 10, 2002, 11:55

Quote:

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 · May 10, 2002, 11:57

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 · May 10, 2002, 12:02

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 · May 10, 2002, 12:15

Quote:

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 · May 10, 2002, 12:17

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 · May 10, 2002, 12:18

Quote:

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 · May 10, 2002, 12:21

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 · May 10, 2002, 12:28

Quote:

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 · May 10, 2002, 18:23

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.