Impact of huts on 2x or 1x

[War4ever]

While vet cats can take out units on a mountain, the problem lies with getting them there. Majority of cities are built in x2x1 on forests or rivers...(even better is the river forest). Which isnt' all that different from x1x1 other than the fact that your not likely to build on a forest unless your into monarchy/rep and/or you need that square to maximize growth elsewhere.

However, most games are not a race to catapults, which means your defenders are likely vets by now as well.... Buzzing around the opposition is a good idea early, but unless your troops are vet, you have alot of them, and you don't mind sending your boys to the slaughter, war is not such a smart plan. While your spending the resources to capture/destroy a city, someone else is pumping trade routes/wonders/cities

So although i am not a fan of x2x2, which as many players have stated is often over by 2500bc, x2x1 is an expansionist/defenders game which can often lead to nothing more than a race through the tech tree.

X1X1 offers a slow but realistic empire developement and its not a slow as others make out. Yes, you can get screwed, but you can get screwed on any settings. Yes unit support can be tough, but then again, where would the challlenge be.

I also agree with eyes that usuing a smaller than standard map, skews the land ration, thus making alot of the map unihibitable in x1 games.....but all you have to do is customize the settings properly

Having played this game through all its phases, i can see the points made by all the players and why they prefer "their" settings.

I guess the beauty of this game is that it appeals to all of us for many different reasons. Civ has a melting pot of players, a few supreme, a few more mighty, the majority are average and there are some who lack mp skills. It gets even more interesting when you throw game settings and timezones into the mix.

All in all, i find it amusing that a game has captivated our attention , drawn out so many debates, and yet 4 years after the release of MP.......were still fighting amongst ourselves

[markusf]

Originally posted by 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.

Pretty much every border city is on a mountain, and to top it all off you allow the great wall and no city bribing.
There is no comparison between you style of maps, and the ones the rest of us play on.. last time i hosted on a small map with no mountains and you where all lost

[rah]

AMEN

But...
"I also agree with eyes that usuing a smaller than standard map, skews the land ration, thus making alot of the map unihibitable in x1 games.....but all you have to do is customize the settings properly"

SUUURRREEEE. I tried those settings you recommended and you saw what we got.

RAH

[War4ever]

i didnt' say i had it right, i just said its all you have to do

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by War4ever
X1X1 offers a slow but realistic empire developement and its not a slow as others make out. Yes, you can get screwed, but you can get screwed on any settings. Yes unit support can be tough, but then again, where would the challlenge be.

Agreed. Sure defending is easy in 1x, but it should be. With good planning a successful attack is usually possible. The game is meant to be 1x1x, and both 2x movement and production have nasty side effects. For me playing 2x anything reflects an understandable desire for games to finish in one sitting, but you have to pay the price in depth.

It is in 1x deity the balance between govts is at its finest, and it is with 1x the balance between expansion, infrastructure (and I don't mean barracks) and military is best realised. Again this is especially true on deity. If you want a quick wargame, sure, play 2x2x, I'm sure it's very skilful. But IMO a civ game is 1x1x, preferably deity, where all aspects of this great game are required for mastery.

[Eyes_Of_Night]

Refer to my comment about rookies and newbies liking 1x1x Deity the most. I rest my case, you proved everything I said.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
Refer to my comment about rookies and newbies liking 1x1x Deity the most. I rest my case.

I'm really sorry. I only did it once, and it was only to see if it would work.

[Deity Dude]

Now that we are off the topic of huts in a 1x1x game vs huts in a 2x1x game, and have moved to why we each preer our own favorite settings, here's my 2 cents.

Cent 1:

2x Movement: my least favorite modification to the original game. Diplos moving 4 spaces, catapults coming off a trrirene and attacking on the same turn - No Thanks.

There is a reason that contemporary units like horses/chariots that have 2 movements have reduced power compared to a catapult. It's one thing for a 2 or 3 attack unit to be able to hit a city in one turn without being seen (when the best defender is a 2) its a whole other thing when a 6 attack unit can do it.

Some will say that improves the game because it makes it more of a war game and/or it speeds it up. I just don't agree.

Cent 2:

2x Production: I can live with it but....

It minimizes the importance of differences in terain in city building. In 2x if you build on a mountain and fortify a phalanx it has a defenisve strength of 18. That city is basically an impregnatable fortress for centuries and yet it is still able to produce reasonably well once it gets to size 3. In 1x it is almost impossible to grow it or even keep it from starving.

Thus as 2x movement skews the balance between movement and strength, 2x production skews the balance between defensive terrain and production.

I am also under the opinion that the 2x options were added only to make multiplayer games quicker, not necessarily better. Granted a 1x1x game takes longer (to develop but not necessarily to finish) but so does a good bottle of wine.

[Makeo]

Originally posted by Ming


Yeah... but if you think about it... the stealth bomber is probably a bigger joke than the muppets

THATS WHAT THAT IS!!

I always thought it was a weird looking wall. Never looked at it closely.

[rah]

Originally posted by Deity Dude

In 2x if you build on a mountain and fortify a phalanx it has a defenisve strength of 18. That city is basically an impregnatable fortress for centuries and yet it is still able to produce reasonably well once it gets to size 3

Defense 2
X
fortify 1.5 = 3
X
Terrain 3 = 9

Where does the 18 come from. Or are you useing NEW MATH?
Even a vet doesn't make 18.

A couple of vet crusaders can usually take out that phalanx and if the city is size one. SEEE YA. A vet pikeman is another story.

RAH

[SlowwHand]

Originally posted by EyesOfNight
Refer to my comment about rookies and newbies liking 1x1x Deity the most. I rest my case, you proved everything I said.

Not too surprisingly, I disagree.
Newbies prefer 2X, as they really believe it speeds up the game.
That perspective is a mystery to me, as movement time alone is doubled.
They also prefer King.

[SmartFart]

I don't understand why do you argue about settings? EVERY settings haves advantages and disadvantages. You don't like it,you don't play it. End of story. Nobody can prove me how good is stewed cabbage or how bad are cigarettes,so what's the point?

[DrSpike]

Most aren't arguing, they are explaining why they prefer the settings they play. It is largely an interesting thread; I am sure virtually all would agree that there is no best setting.

[rah]

Yes, I have never said which settings are "BEST", just which one I enjoy playing more. And yes it is a fun discussion. Some are a little more passionate about it than others

[Deity Dude]

Originally posted by rah


Defense 2
X
fortify 1.5 = 3
X
Terrain 3 = 9

Where does the 18 come from. Or are you useing NEW MATH?
Even a vet doesn't make 18.

RAH

Oops I've never been very good a calculating those things, but I thought there was an additional bonus for being in a city (I'm probably wrong though)

Originally posted by rah

A couple of vet crusaders can usually take out that phalanx and if the city is size one. SEEE YA. A vet pikeman is another story.

RAH

IN a 1x1x game the city is far more likely to be size 1 thus the tradeoff between defensive terrain and production is more balanced in a 2x1x game that city will grow to to size 2 and above fairly quickly. As for the vet crusaders, by the time they comes around people usually have pike's and assuming your formula is correct (which it probably is)

Vet pike = 4.5 x 1.5 x 3 = 20.25
Pike or Vet Phal = 3 x 1.5 x 3 = 13.5

How many Crusaders does it take to take out a 13.5 or 20.25 even if they are vets. And who leaves only one in the city. So for 20 - 40 shields (cost of 1 or 2 pikes or phalanxes) the city is virtually inpenetrable.

I just think it makes a little easy to establish and defend borders if they are mountain cities because in 2x1x the city will be self-sustaining and produce enough shields to crank out a pikeman as fast as you can crank out however many crusaders you need to destroy it. In 1x if the city doesn't starve it most likely won't grow and thus becomes an outpost that needs to be defended by the production of other cities. Thus the balance between defensive terrain and production I spoke about.

The original math may have been wrong but I think the point is still valid.