Tweet
1. More is Better
The more you have of something, the larger amount you will need in order for a lead to be useful. For example, if I have 100
cities and the opponent has 97 cities, that's only a 3% difference. However, if I have 2 cities and he has 1 city, even though there's only a 1 city difference it's a 50% advantage. Now lets apply this to a 1x1x vs 2x2x argument. Lets say I start with a whale, my opponent has only grassland. My production is up 50% compared to his, and if he tries to catch up in production by using a forest then my food is up 50% which is an enormous bonus. As you can see, starting with a whale on upper levels in a 1x1x game can practically win the game on it's own. And that's without even counting the trade you get from it. In effect my city is 50% better than my opponent's city. That is an ENORMOUS advantage so early in the game. But on 2x2x if my opponent gets a whale I can use a forest to even it out since I'll have the exact same production with only minus 1 food. So basically I will be getting 4 food a turn while he gets 5 food a turn. See the difference? 2x2x also opens up the use of silk early on in the game, which means I can mimic a whale with the exact same trade, production, at the expense of 1 food. This can be seen with all resources in 1x1x due to the fact you are working with such small numbers. In 2x2x the advantages of resources is greatly reduced hence making it more an even playing field.
2. Arguement 1 Applies to Argument 2
But not in the same way. On 1x movement there isn't a whole lot you can do to stop someone who has good huts. Reason for this being that you can't get to him to stop him. You can't take open cities, you can't rush him, and unless you get good huts to there is nothing you can do to even it out. On 2x you can send out horsemen to rush him, you can reduce the amount of huts he has by using different strategies. On 1x you can see everything before it attacks you. It's ridiculously easy to send out a warrior out of your city leaving it undefended to stop an oncoming horseman. On 2x you can't do that, hence the reason I wrote the luring strategy which lures a warrior or other unit out of its city to allow another unit to come in from behind. Again, more is better and when it comes to options you have far more options on 2x2x. 1x movement makes the huts you get that much more precious, and when you factor in 1x resources each advanced tribe you get is an enormous advantage since 1x deals with such small numbers.
3. Deity and Unhappiness
Again we are dealing with restrictions. Restrictions are what kills games. When you restrict the player you run into balance issues and it can be seen in any game out there. Civ3 has about 2 people playing it right now because the restrictions imposed on the player in order to make the AI stronger were too great and thus killed any sort of strategy in the game. Deity is the closest civ2 can come to being like civ3. Defending your cities for martial law is required on Deity, you have no choice. When you are required to do something everyone is brought down to 1 level, and when everyone is forced to play on the same level lesser players can make up for their weaknesses. I can name a zillion strategies that will work on King that won't work on Deity. In fact I can't think of any strategies that work on Deity that are special and game winning. There has not been 1 person to come out and give a strategy that can be done on Deity that can not be done on King or is not useful.
4. Hanging Gardens
I don't care what anyone says, in a duel and the game lasts until then HG will decide the winner. Again, rule 1 applies here. You have a 50% happiness advantage over your opponent by building HG. Your cities will get mad at size 3, his at size 2. However on King your cities get mad at size 4 while yours will get mad at size 5. Is this an enormous advantage? It's a nice advantage, but it's not game winning. When you start dealing with percentages so high big imbalances occur.
5. Expansion On Deity
On 2x2x King anywhere is expandable no matter where it is on the map. Even on 1x1x but it takes forever to get there. On deity you need to stay tight knit or your far away cities will be basically useless. In fact on deity you are at times forced to stop building due to the enormous corrpuption and riot factor. How can anyone argue that playing on a setting that forces you to stop building is somehow all part of the strategy? How can you even begin to argue that this doesn't slow down the better player and help the lesser player? If you have a bad spot on Deity, you are stuck with it, and that even applies to 1x1x King to an extent. On 2x2x King you can expand anywhere you want so if you aren't in a good spot you have the option to expand elsewhere.
6. Raging Hordes
I feel sorry for anyone that plays this. This is perhaps the most ridiculous setting in the game, even more so than Deity. Plain and simple, it adds the biggest random factor in the game. Entire games can be decided simply by who gets barbarians out of their huts and who doesn't. I can guarantee that if you lose your first exploring unit to a barbarian and I get an advanced tribe that you are done for. Not to mention that yet again this forces you to defend...but against what? You're defending against the AI. How does this make the game more strategical between humans? It doesn't and there has yet to be anyone that can even begin to argue it. It's just another random factor in an already very random game.
The more you have of something, the larger amount you will need in order for a lead to be useful. For example, if I have 100
cities and the opponent has 97 cities, that's only a 3% difference. However, if I have 2 cities and he has 1 city, even though there's only a 1 city difference it's a 50% advantage. Now lets apply this to a 1x1x vs 2x2x argument. Lets say I start with a whale, my opponent has only grassland. My production is up 50% compared to his, and if he tries to catch up in production by using a forest then my food is up 50% which is an enormous bonus. As you can see, starting with a whale on upper levels in a 1x1x game can practically win the game on it's own. And that's without even counting the trade you get from it. In effect my city is 50% better than my opponent's city. That is an ENORMOUS advantage so early in the game. But on 2x2x if my opponent gets a whale I can use a forest to even it out since I'll have the exact same production with only minus 1 food. So basically I will be getting 4 food a turn while he gets 5 food a turn. See the difference? 2x2x also opens up the use of silk early on in the game, which means I can mimic a whale with the exact same trade, production, at the expense of 1 food. This can be seen with all resources in 1x1x due to the fact you are working with such small numbers. In 2x2x the advantages of resources is greatly reduced hence making it more an even playing field.
2. Arguement 1 Applies to Argument 2
But not in the same way. On 1x movement there isn't a whole lot you can do to stop someone who has good huts. Reason for this being that you can't get to him to stop him. You can't take open cities, you can't rush him, and unless you get good huts to there is nothing you can do to even it out. On 2x you can send out horsemen to rush him, you can reduce the amount of huts he has by using different strategies. On 1x you can see everything before it attacks you. It's ridiculously easy to send out a warrior out of your city leaving it undefended to stop an oncoming horseman. On 2x you can't do that, hence the reason I wrote the luring strategy which lures a warrior or other unit out of its city to allow another unit to come in from behind. Again, more is better and when it comes to options you have far more options on 2x2x. 1x movement makes the huts you get that much more precious, and when you factor in 1x resources each advanced tribe you get is an enormous advantage since 1x deals with such small numbers.
3. Deity and Unhappiness
Again we are dealing with restrictions. Restrictions are what kills games. When you restrict the player you run into balance issues and it can be seen in any game out there. Civ3 has about 2 people playing it right now because the restrictions imposed on the player in order to make the AI stronger were too great and thus killed any sort of strategy in the game. Deity is the closest civ2 can come to being like civ3. Defending your cities for martial law is required on Deity, you have no choice. When you are required to do something everyone is brought down to 1 level, and when everyone is forced to play on the same level lesser players can make up for their weaknesses. I can name a zillion strategies that will work on King that won't work on Deity. In fact I can't think of any strategies that work on Deity that are special and game winning. There has not been 1 person to come out and give a strategy that can be done on Deity that can not be done on King or is not useful.
4. Hanging Gardens
I don't care what anyone says, in a duel and the game lasts until then HG will decide the winner. Again, rule 1 applies here. You have a 50% happiness advantage over your opponent by building HG. Your cities will get mad at size 3, his at size 2. However on King your cities get mad at size 4 while yours will get mad at size 5. Is this an enormous advantage? It's a nice advantage, but it's not game winning. When you start dealing with percentages so high big imbalances occur.
5. Expansion On Deity
On 2x2x King anywhere is expandable no matter where it is on the map. Even on 1x1x but it takes forever to get there. On deity you need to stay tight knit or your far away cities will be basically useless. In fact on deity you are at times forced to stop building due to the enormous corrpuption and riot factor. How can anyone argue that playing on a setting that forces you to stop building is somehow all part of the strategy? How can you even begin to argue that this doesn't slow down the better player and help the lesser player? If you have a bad spot on Deity, you are stuck with it, and that even applies to 1x1x King to an extent. On 2x2x King you can expand anywhere you want so if you aren't in a good spot you have the option to expand elsewhere.
6. Raging Hordes
I feel sorry for anyone that plays this. This is perhaps the most ridiculous setting in the game, even more so than Deity. Plain and simple, it adds the biggest random factor in the game. Entire games can be decided simply by who gets barbarians out of their huts and who doesn't. I can guarantee that if you lose your first exploring unit to a barbarian and I get an advanced tribe that you are done for. Not to mention that yet again this forces you to defend...but against what? You're defending against the AI. How does this make the game more strategical between humans? It doesn't and there has yet to be anyone that can even begin to argue it. It's just another random factor in an already very random game.
Comment