stealth_nsk
Deity
Of course balance exists in a single player game, why not ? For example, balance between the game's systems allows each to work well with each other and lets the game flourish into many more possibilities, and depth. If you throw anything out of balance it does the opposite. It can also mean of course balance in terms of how much of a chance to win or lose you may have (an extreme example of imbalance making it impossible to win). In the case of goody hut, we have opportunity cost of not rushing for discovering as many goody huts, luck factor of getting or not the best goody hut, and what happens in the higher difficulties of the game such as AI opponents having more opportunity to catch the goody huts.
If you place a few really imbalanced bonuses in there you can see there can be imbalance in a single player game, e.g. a goody hut that gives you a nuke at the start of the gameA swordman unit with 100 combat strength.
Balance does not at all mean only making chances to win equal to every players in a multiplayer game ; even in a multiplayer game it means other things.
Yes, such things exist, but they are different from usual meaning of balance. For example, having one good hut bonus stronger than others (but still far from game-winning) doesn't limit number of strategic choices and could actually enrich game by offering other strategies.
EDIT:
I was going to agree with you but then I thought of the super-unbalanced trade routes in CivBE, essentially (for as little as I ended up playing the game at least) making all of the other neat mechanics and ideas for the game unimportant.
Yes, that's the same thing. Balance in single player exists in this dimension where some things could destroy strategical decisions. But it doesn't have relations with, for example, Civ vs. Civ balance or, as it is here, goody hut bonuses.