14-05-2002 17:33									#61
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

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

	14-05-2002 17:53									#62
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: 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.

	14-05-2002 20:34									#63
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

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.

	14-05-2002 20:39									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

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.

	14-05-2002 20:46									#65
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

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.

	14-05-2002 20:49									#66
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

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.

	14-05-2002 21:16									#67
	Tired of ads?

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

	14-05-2002 21:27									#68
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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.

	14-05-2002 22:00									#69
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

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

	14-05-2002 23:48									#70
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: 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

	15-05-2002 00:31									#71
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

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.

	15-05-2002 01:14									#72
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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

	15-05-2002 01:21									#73
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

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.

	15-05-2002 02:24									#74
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

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.

	15-05-2002 03:00									#75
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

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

	15-05-2002 03:01									#76
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

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

	15-05-2002 03:02									#77
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: 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

	15-05-2002 03:05									#78
	Suffering from ads?

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

	15-05-2002 03:07									#79
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

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

	15-05-2002 03:59									#80
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

quote: 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.

	15-05-2002 04:35									#81
	Suffering from ads?

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

	15-05-2002 04:39									#82
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: 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.

	15-05-2002 05:44									#83
	Inflate your Upload Space

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.

	15-05-2002 13:37									#84
	Remove this text

quote: 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.

	15-05-2002 17:29									#85
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: 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

	15-05-2002 18:23									#86
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: 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.

	15-05-2002 20:53									#87
	Remove this text

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?

	15-05-2002 20:58									#88
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

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.

	15-05-2002 21:06									#89
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

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

	15-05-2002 22:18									#90
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: 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)

quote: 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.