why dbl production?

[biru biru]

Due respect to the players who have developed a preference for 2x production; but I find myself resisting the switch.

1) I can't build new cities fast enough, my pop is constantly growing and expanding at a frightening rate with no obvious end in sight. How many cities do you need to play a good game of civ?

2) Huge cities, seemingly without effort. If they get to big, I have specialists to burn. I have disorder, it seems that I should just grow bigger, and add enough scientists to drive the angries out. (the specialist combinations required with this kind of food surplus don't even require the use of elvis's)

3) No need for irrigation, at least if you have a piece of grass in sight. calculated agriculture was always a part of the game.

4) Every sea square becomes a trade special worth 4 trade! My goodness gracious.

5) mines actually harm production in hills?

Am I missing any?

Anyway, I've only played a couple games this way, but they didn't really feel so much like the civ i grew up with where happiness, expansion, growth, development, luck, ( ) trade/food/resources, were all interwoven aspects of the game that had to be carefully navigated.

So far seems like a simpler, not so interesting game.

Also, up for a game anytime;
r_u_d_d@hotmail.com
any settings, of course

Yours Truly,
br

[OzzyKP]

I agree. I don't like 2x2x. Changes the game around completely.

Gimmie 1x1x anyday. Not that I play anymore... but ya know, in theory.

[atawa]

Re: why dbl production?

Originally posted by biru biru
Due respect to the players who have developed a preference for 2x production; but I find myself resisting the switch.

1) I can't build new cities fast enough, my pop is constantly growing and expanding at a frightening rate with no obvious end in sight. How many cities do you need to play a good game of civ?

Depends on your preferences, I considder 20-30 cities a nice number when starting a good war.

Playing 2x2x only means you'll get this number earlyer and people will start attacking with cats and crusaders instead of completing the wonderrace first, makes for less sim-city imo.

2) Huge cities, seemingly without effort. If they get to big, I have specialists to burn. I have disorder, it seems that I should just grow bigger, and add enough scientists to drive the angries out. (the specialist combinations required with this kind of food surplus don't even require the use of elvis's)

Not realy, either use them for settler or caravanproduction, specialists are normaly not worth it in 2x2x. (Unless you have terrible land)

3) No need for irrigation, at least if you have a piece of grass in sight. calculated agriculture was always a part of the game.

True, so you can do better things with your settlers

4) Every sea square becomes a trade special worth 4 trade! My goodness gracious.

Actualy 5 in rep or demo

5) mines actually harm production in hills?

Compared to forest they do, I agree this is a strange one.

Anyway, I've only played a couple games this way, but they didn't really feel so much like the civ i grew up with where happiness, expansion, growth, development, luck, ( ) trade/food/resources, were all interwoven aspects of the game that had to be carefully navigated.

The things you name are still just as important in the game except maybe food. But being able to wage a war becomes much more important.

So far seems like a simpler, not so interesting game.

This is always a funny one as I hear that a lot from 1x1x Deity players. If this was true then why do I beat them on a regular basis on their settings and they never seem to be able to beat me on 2x2x

Fact is that it doesnt realy matter witch settings you play, as you both play with the same parameters. Learn how to play different settings and they all will lead to interesting games as long as you play against good players.

I've seen some players who are considdered good on German liga etc who play 2x2x for a couple of games, then realise they have no idea what they are doing and getting their ass kicked bigtime they decise they dont like the settings

The arguments are always the same:

1, Not real civ (Help my normal gameplan doesnt work )

2, Too easy (Help my normal gameplan doesnt work )

3, 2 move cats are stupid ( Help, this guy is attacking me before Ironclads )


Just my 2C

[Ming]

I'm not a big fan of 2x movement... but I love 2x production. When I play solo, 1x1x is fun... the turns move quick enough that you can accomplish stuff. But in MP, the turns take a long time, and 1x production seems like watching grass grow... 2x production gets the game moving faster... and more action.

[biru biru]

Appreciate the responses!

I have always assumed that the best civ player is well- rounded, and can play all settings. Like anyone though, I expect that I will have favorite settings, and I may remain a x1 production fan.

My argument remains the same; 1) game changes that i have noticed so far, especially which terrain is most valuable and why, are significant. (help my normal gameplan doesn't work) and 2) Strategy differences, particularly the use of settlers, and possibly military strategies could be significantly different (help this guy is attacking me before ironclads)/(help my normal gameplay doesn't work).

Ozzie perfectly summarizes my point:

I agree. I don't like 2x2x. Changes the game around completely.

In certain ways, the game doesn't seem that much different. For example, although wonders may seem　'less important', I find myself building them anyway (why not, a small city built near a large forest is doing 18 shields per turn). The tech pace is similar, barring slick new coastal cities and trade special dbl-bonuses that might speed it up a bit.

Of course I should not have said that this game was simpler. no doubt the new terrain surplus may change my strategies for using settlers, where and how many cities to build, how big to let my cities get, which military advances to go for, etc etc. In other words, maxing out the new potentials for the game will be very complex.

The question remains, are the changes worth it? I am giving up a lot of classic things, like agriculture and mining, presumably for more units and cities, possibly for different tech-path priorities, and military strategies.

So far, my 2x games have been similar to my 1x games. For example, knights and crusaders have been important in almost all of my 1x games, and I suspect that the very powerful ironclad remains very powerful in a 2x game. If all I am exchanging though is my 2 caravels loaded with knights bent on a raid against a medium sized civ, for a navy of knight armies against a giant civ, I've really just changed the scale.

What other strategy changes are so interesting that can entice me from classic settings, that retain essential elements like terrain development?

I have to agree with Ming and Atawa that 2x production might seem to get the game moving faster; especially with Atawa's early 20-30 cities. But is civ a stoney game, or a speedy game? I admit that I would like to be able to play (finish) a game, either way. This might get me playing some 2x.

Last question; for people that play both. I understand that getting to build so much faster means that your civ is doing more earlier, aka speeding up the game. How is the real-time trade-off since your opponent is spending so much more time each turn moving all those units? You may get the pyramids hundreds of years earlier in the game, but probably doesn't help to finish a game in a single night, right?

[Deity Dude]

I prefer 1x1x but play both alot. One thing I keep trying to point out to 2x1x players who don't play 1x1x is that the game is no quicker. The tech path moves a lot quicker but with twice as many cities and twice as many units it actually takes longer to get to 1ad in a 2x1x game then it does in a 1x1x game.

My major problem is in 2x1x u can build anywherewhich means less strategy in building. What typically happens is everyone builds on the high grould because of the defensive bonus. A fortified vet phal in a mountain city is a 13.5 on defense. Thats a pretty tough city to capture and in most cases that is the 1st military unit earned. In 1x1x u cant build on a mountain.

Either way I enjoy both games. Just no 2x2x king for me.

[rah]

I build on gold all the time in 1x1x games.

[Deity Dude]

There are exceptions to every rule.

[rah]

I'll build on any trade special in 1x1x since it's the best way to take advantage of it with a small city and good for defense. The free food and shield makes it easier. Growth may be hindered but you have other cities for that.

[Ming]

Originally posted by Deity Dude
it actually takes longer to get to 1ad in a 2x1x game then it does in a 1x1x game.

While that may indeed be true... it's not the year that really matters. It's what you can actually do in the time allowed. In a 2x pro game, you can move through the tech path a lot quicker and actually build some units, so the game "in reality" is moving along faster.

I hate 1x1x games where you build on grassland and can't even afford to send a unit out and leave one behind for defense because you don't have enough shields Those free non units can make or break you.

When I play solo, it's not really a problem because you can whip through the years. Since you don't have to wait for anybody else... I don't have to wait for very long for the cities to grow big enough.

[atawa]

Last question; for people that play both. I understand that getting to build so much faster means that your civ is doing more earlier, aka speeding up the game. How is the real-time trade-off since your opponent is spending so much more time each turn moving all those units? You may get the pyramids hundreds of years earlier in the game, but probably doesn't help to finish a game in a single night, right?

I think 2x2x speeds up the game in rt. Off course the turns will be longer then in 1x1x but then again you dont play that many turns compared to 1x1x. Also things like irigating take up a lot of time with pre-working settlers walking on a road/river or just clearing all orders before ending turn when mining.

On average I would say I usualy get more done in one session 2x2x then on 1x1x.

[atawa]

I have to agree with Ming and Atawa that 2x production might seem to get the game moving faster; especially with Atawa's early 20-30 cities. But is civ a stoney game, or a speedy game? I admit that I would like to be able to play (finish) a game, either way. This might get me playing some 2x.

I enjoy a game more with 2-30 cities then with 10. I have played some med-map 1x1x deity duels over the past month but it realy is kinda boring when you dont even meet untill HG/LH/COl/Pyr and Mikes are all built

There is a lot more human interaction in 2x2x or even 2x1x becouse you have more units on the board. And while the strategic side of the game stays intact the military side becomes a lot more interesting becouse you have a lot more options.

[StarLightDeath]

2x2x is alot harder to play than 1x1x, and King is a far more balanced setting for MP than Deity is.

1. 2x2x reduces the luck of starting positions. A whale in 1x1x is almost game winning really in the right hands. There is no way you can keep up with someone who has 50% more production that early in the game, not to mention the trade bonus. On 1x1x you don't have the option of using forest to make up the gap because you will then be at a 100% less food rate. 2x2x a whale is nice, but not game winning. Using a forest mimics a whale in every way except trade and using an ocean square is actually a viable way to make up for trade whereas in 1x1x you can't use forest or ocean. Plus you can try to add a little trade by building a road but then you've lost 2 turns. In addition if you have a bad starting position you don't have the option of walking to a new spot.

2. Expansion is more balanced in 2x2x. In 1x1x it takes forever to walk anywhere. If your resources are further out you are ****ed plain and simple. Rivers become all powerful roads that further increase the gap between players simply by having a better starting position. The combinations of resources that can be used is greatly decreased due to the lack of food on many resources like gold, gems, wine, etc. Did I mention whales are overpowered in 1x1x?

3. Wonders are more balanced in 2x2x. HG on 2x2x is not as powerful as HG on 1x1x due to the increased trade of 2x2x. And when you add in Deity, HG is game winning. I have never lost a game on deity 1x1x where I got HG first, and I have also never won a game where I didn't get HG first. Getting HG first comes down to who has the best resources plain and simple. Especially since on Deity the riot factor makes the use of further out resources impossible. This is made even worse by the fact that you can't make up for resource gaps by expanding so Deity pretty much comes down to start position on 1x1x. Pyramids is all powerful on 1x1x whereas on 2x2x it is a nice bonus, but not game winning.

When it comes to balance, 2x2x and King have Deity and 1x1x beat hands down. There is no game winning wonder on King, and you have to have ridiculously bad land to lose because of start position on 2x2x. King 2x2x is actually more difficult to play than Deity 1x1x. The Deity setting was created for play against the AI, not against other humans. Everything that Deity offers as a "challenge" is created to handicap the human player while the AI suffers no such thing. How does having cities get mad at size 2 and having a riot factor that literally kills you after 10 cities increase the MP experience? If it does anything it simply brings players down to the same level by taking away options. There are no options on Deity, but there are tons of options on King. 2x2x offers hundreds more resource combinations and building spots, but 1x1x has none of these.

1. On 2x2x resources such as silk, spice, wine, etc. can be used without completely destroying your expansion speed. This is not so on 1x1x. By using any of these you are already working at a 100% less rate. Expansion wins, plain and simple. Every game I play no matter what setting, I continually expand. Now I'm sure this will bring up the argument that Deity stops this, but that is exactly my point. Deity does nothing more than punish the player who does better. The only way to overcome someone who has better resources is to out-expand them, and without this option there is no way to beat someone who has whales while you are working on plains and grassland. The numbers simply won't add up and you will lose. 2x2x this is not so because you have the option to build on certain places you couldn't build on 1x1x. Many though have the misconception that this somehow makes it easier...in reality it makes it harder. Why is this? Quite simply because more options=greater opportunity to mess up. Everything in 2x2x has to be optimized for resource use. Building on gold for example will absolutely kill you. Same with building on hills or on forest. There are only a few instances building a forest is ok. Also, you have to build on a grassland shield square everytime plus you must never build on plains unless you absolutely must. Every city has to be placed perfectly or you will not have optimum resource usage. Maybe this sounds simple to you, but try this out: 100 cities by 1000AD with gun powder in communism by building SOL on a small map 2x2x King. On an average 2x2x small map game this is possible to do. With a great start you can do it even faster. Just try this and see how difficult it is. Everything has to be built in the right place at the right time using the correct resource in the correct government and spaced properly. Plus certain resources must be used before others. Then take all this and do it while someone is sending horsemen at you all game and explorers. It's a thousand times harder to expand on 2x2x than it is on 1x1x.

2. 2x2x King has far more strategies than 1x1x Deity. There is only so much you can do on Deity because of the happiness problems and the movement factor. You can't really horse rush on 1x1x. There is no explorer rush because you can't afford to research seafaring. You don't have the option of leaving cities open in order to increase your expansion speed. 2x2x you have to leave your cities open or you will fall too far behind too fast. On 2x2x you have different tech paths you can take because you don't have to rush for HG. Once you have HG on Deity it is very easy to get Mikes first because you now can expand for the most part without any real problems. Plus, there is a bug that makes it so your cities under HG will riot more with units on them than without which only further allows someone to expand faster because now they don't have to worry about using units for happiness. If you are spending more time trying to beat the settings than actually playing against the other guy, why are you playing MP?

Some people actually play with raging hordes on here which is just completely stupid. There is no other setting that adds so much luck than raging hordes. Imagine your first 3 huts are barbarians while the other guy's first 3 huts are a horseman and 2 cities. Sound fair? At least on villages only it will be empty and you won't lose your unit in the process of exploring the hut. I don't even need to bother saying more about this because all you need is a little common sense to see that the probability of having lopsided luck goes up by adding in barbarians.

There's a reason why all the ladders used 2x2x King, and there's a reason why people like woke23 and Jes are playing 1x1x Deity now when they kept losing on 2x2x King.

[rah]

Raging hoards forces you to make decisions. How to defend an empire instead of not worrying about defenders like most ultra expanders. How to set up traps for the 150 gold bonus early when it really means something. How to use those barbs against an enemy.

Without barbs on medium sized maps in king, you don't need to choose, you just don't bother building many defenses until someone finds you in force. So I say it makes for more choices, not less.

[atawa]

Come on Rah, defending against barbs is as simple as playing any AI

I have to agree with Eyes here, it only adds luck to the game.