Impact of huts on 2x or 1x

[rah]

Not impossible, just harder. I took out cites on river forests and hills just the other day. It took a lot of resources but in 2x you generate lots of resources. On mountains, you can only hit early with cats (or rooks before pike) or you have to wait for cannons or calvary. But in 2x, you can get there if you're playing with fast players.

But yes, it is a downside for 2x. 1x also has a downside too.

RAH

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
"Note: I am certainly not saying that 2x1x is a less strategic for this reason, I am just saying each individual decision becomes less important because its impact can be made up twice as quickly.

Pick the strategic decision it really doesnt matter; move a unit incorrectly and lose it - you can replace it twice as fast; spend gold foolishly - you can replace it twice as fast; etc."

You're absolutely right. I've been so blind. Lets meet on the zone and play 2x1x so you can show me how foolishly you can spend gold yet still be able to win.

Since 2X means double, DD's point has validity.
All the chest beating you display doesn't change that fact.

[Eyes_Of_Night]

You guys are stupid and I'm going to prove it once and for all.
1x1x
grassland: 2 food 1 shield
whale: 2 food 2 shields
Forest: 1 food 2 shields
hill: 1 food
mountain: 1 shield
ocean: 1 food

See a trend here? Anyone figured out where I'm going yet?

Now compare the 1x1x terrain to 2x2x...notice a difference? Suddenly forests are now a valid option at all times, your city can still grow no matter what. Whales no longer become must haves. All resources are now useable at all times and still your city can grow. 1x1x you only have so many options and most the terrains have pretty much the same value to them. There is far more versatility in how you can use terrain in 2x2x than there is in 1x1x. And military is FAR more ballanced in 2x2x. Yes, catapults SHOULD have 2 movement. In 2x2x you can't just sit back and mine all your cities. It's incredibly easy to defend on 1x1x, it takes real skill to defend properly on 2x2x. Why do you think there are so many good 1x1x players and so few good 2x2x players? All the whinning you little 1x1x players do is simply because you can't cut it on 2x2x. I've played both and I'm better than all of you on both and I can say that 2x2x is FAR harder to play than 1x1x. There are twice as many options, strategies and styles of play in 2x2x than there are in 1x1x. Put a great 2x2x player on 1x1x and they can easily win. Put a great 1x1x player on 2x2x and they can't even make it past 3000BC...so what do they do? They whine and cry that 2x2x is unbalanced and that it is not a true form of play in order to make up for the fact that they suck at the game. Why do you think so many brand new MP players play deity? Ever see someone play King on their very first MP game? NO! Amazing how the preferred setting of rookies is 1x1x Deity. LOL Look at all the strategies I've written for 2x2x...how many strategies have been written for 1x1x? ANd I mean REAL ones, not bogus strategies like the size 5 city strategy or markus's super growth strategy. It doesn't take a genius to grow a city, it does take a genius to grow a city, attack, defend, expand, advance all at once.

[rah]

Not to appear to be a smartass, but where do you think 2x1x fits in, since I RARELY play 1x1x or 2x2x? But I do agree with a lot of what you say about 1x1x.

[Eyes_Of_Night]

And lets take another thing. Species spent 2 years playing nothing but 2x2x. He never was more than an average player and only hung in the top 20 in the world never really becoming one of the better players. Then he suddenly decided that he would only play 1x1x from now on. What was it he said? Oh yes, he said 1x1x is the true form of play. Imagine that! He couldn't cut it on 2x2x so he now plays 1x1x deity. Basically he's whittled the game down to a race for lighthouse. You can't expand, it's an island map so you have to build a navy, whoever gets lighthouse basically holds the game until Magnetism, then he just sits there and floods caravans. He needs to basically take the game down to 1 thing in order to be successful. He's on apolyton now because he feels emboldened by the fact that nobody wants to paly him on that stupid rookie german league he plays on. He's spent 3 years jumping from ladder to ladder trying to find somewhere he can say he is number 1, guess he finally found it bashing rookies. Pathetic really.

[Eyes_Of_Night]

2x1x is basically the growth without the worry of military. It's basically massive growth in republic and a race for all the wonders. The growth is so fast that if you skip the wonders and try to go mass military you'll arrive too late and you'll have no wonders. And 2x1x deity is just plain stupid. I guess if you can't handle the military tactics of 2x movement 2x1x is ok. Has more versatility than 1x1x at least.

[rah]

I disagree (what a surprise) 2x1x is more balanced. Growth plus military. (and deity/raging helps keep you honest defense wise)


Play on small worlds large continents and your military never arrives too late because it's already there. You can go for growth or take it from someone else. Granted it isn't the complete wargame that you obviously seem to prefer, but it is far from warless. I think it takes better planning to successfully attack. Moving a horde of elephants/diplos 12 squares down a road/river doesn't take an advanced degree.

Different strokes for different folks. But I do respect your opinion.

RAH
I guess this shows why we haven't played many games together

[Eyes_Of_Night]

I don't think you can really talk to me about settings RAH since you play on invalid maps. Yes, anything smaller than 40X50 usually gives an invalid map. What is an invalid map? A map where there isn't enough grassland to put everyone on a good spot. Probably why in some of your games you start on a mountain or a jungle. Not only that but your games are basically building on mountains and securing positions. There's so much **** on the map that it's basically impossible to get any sort of expansion speed going not to mention it makes it impossible to explore quickly. On top of it all there is either no water or there is just a very thin line of water that seperates the map so the only route into someone is by land, hence why you all build on mountains. Your idea of war and my idea of war are two different things. Your idea of war is throwing mass crusaders and catapults at mountain cities, my idea of war is is a war fought on land and sea and it's all over the entire map. One gigantic war of enormous proportions. But see I also allow expansion and other forms of play where your rules basically allow for only one form of play.

[rah]

Well since we haven't played much, It's difficult to compare/argue our Ideas of war, so I won't waste our time.

But I will disagree on the only route being on land. There is always a water approach to a high percentage of cities. (but you're right, it's not islands) Control of the sea is very important, but not getting lighthouse isn't a death sentence either. There are always alternatives.

And I am unaware why people think we always just build on mountains. I would be willing to bet that If I pulled up any old map, I would find only 33% or less of the cities on mountains. ANd those cities are usually not the ones you're targetting. Granted people like building on mountains when they're encroaching in order to harass, but if you don't like it you have to stop them before they do it. (which usually requires a good navy)


Again, different strokes for different folks. And I really do enjoy your comments, even if I'm unsure of whether I'm being insulted or not.

RAH

[atawa]

Originally posted by rah
I would be willing to bet that If I pulled up any old map, I would find only 33% or less of the cities on mountains.

33%

And you dont think thats a lot

[rah]

I said or less It probably is less but I didn't want to say too low of a % and open the first map and find out it was more
I have absolutely no problem with 20-25% cities on mountains. Mostly they're either on the boarder or encroachments. (yes a few are actually on gold or iron and producing), but if a person puts too many on Mountains, he will pray the price in many other areas.

But to listen to people around here, you'd think every city was on a mountain, which is so far from reality.

[atawa]

Well even in the 2x2x games I play usualy no more then 10% is on a hill or mountain, I can imagine in 2x1x with this amount of city's on high places attacking would be almost impossible

[SlowwHand]

You want a challenge? Play with strat and Eyes.
During the time it would take for a mountain to erode would give Eyes a lot of room to do a full length dissertation.

[rah]

No where near impossible. (granted not that many of them fall each game but some do) But that's not the point. Those cities should not be and aren't your primary targets. They're blockers or annoyers. Just like in ancient times when there was a target that would cost too much to take, GO AROUND. If not by land, then by sea. (it actually makes control of the seas important.) I think people make way too much from this.

[atawa]

If you have enough sea to go around then it wont matter that much, but on a large land setting you could easily build a ring of those city's around your core making it a big fort