The Creativity of 2 x 2 - Page 2

rah · February 13, 2003, 13:31

My most common mistake in 2x movement is not patrolling. I'll put the units out there, but then I get bored having to move them every turn and get lazy. The endless patrolling adds to turn length. In 1x movement I may only have at most 3 units that are on patrol duty and if I don't do it every turn it's no biggie, in 2x, it's usually about 10. Turns are long enough, so regardless of all the other issues related to 2x movement, I don't like it because of the extra time per turn.

Ming · February 13, 2003, 13:47

I'm not a big fan of cats, cannons, and artilary moving and firing on the same turn. It just isn't right

ColdWizard · February 13, 2003, 13:54

it's nice when you're on the offensive though

but 4 move dips with city bribe allowed :shudder:

Ming · February 13, 2003, 14:05

What about spies... :shudder:

And exploreres are just plain rediculous...

ColdWizard · February 13, 2003, 14:10

few of my 2x2x games got that far, and in those we were beating on each other with nukes and howies

Ming · February 13, 2003, 14:15

You can get espo a lot sooner than nukes or howies.

The last game we played like that, it pretty much ended when the first nukes started to fly. I hate nukes

ColdWizard · February 13, 2003, 14:21

fortunately the people in those games weren't bribe-minded. only a few nukes flew too, we were mostly building howies and a few mech inf in a feeble attempt to hold what we took.

HappySunShine · February 13, 2003, 15:42

In other words you can't handle the difficulty of defending on 2x2x. City bribing isn't that big a deal if you rookies would learn how to play. Mass units will always beat a briber. Nobody can win on diplomats alone. And 2 move catapults is a hell of alot more realistic than 1 move. Catapults should have 2 range but they don't so they must compensate by having 2 moves.

ColdWizard · February 13, 2003, 15:44

Learning how to play takes years and years, who has that kind of time?

rah · February 13, 2003, 16:43

I never said I couldn't defend, sunshine. I said I got bored of patrolling and it added to the turn lengths. But since it wasn't what you wanted to hear, you didn't.

And range of two and movement of two are TWO TOTALLY DIFFERENT THINGS. Range of two means they would still have to expose themselves prior to firing. Much different then getting off a boat and firing on the same turn. YEAH< that's realistic. So shut the heck up.

War4ever · February 13, 2003, 17:16

hehe....i don't think cats should fire coming off a boat...but i do see moving on plains/grass and then firiing as realistic..

but were not talking realism here are we....

units win out against a briber b/c the briber will run out of money.....pure and simple....

but city bribe is still crazy, who wants to trade techs and cities each turn... city cost is ridiculously low...it ususally cost more to bribe a settler than it does cities .... how is that realistic?

lets do the math....i walk into boston and ask the mayor how much its going to cost to "own" the town.

he replies 570 gold....i think to myself, thats cheap for a population of size 5

i trot off to the settler working in the nearby fields....ask him how much it would cost for him to join my team.....633gold he replies......

i am sitting there going WTF?????

city bribe is as unrealistic as it is underpriced........ not good programming by mircoprose

rah · February 13, 2003, 17:50

I wish the cats had a range of two (since it would make more sense), but moving, setting up, aiming etc. takes time, so I don't see them firing on the same turn. When they were being set up, they were exposed to already positioned cats (usually in fixed positions so the defenders already knew the range). Historically in battle, cats were screened by troops and took time to move into position etc before they could fire.

And yes bribing cities would be more palatable if the cost was a bit more realistic. The ability to unload the diplo from a boat makes it tougher to defend against also.

Ming · February 13, 2003, 20:18

Quote:

Originally posted by HappySunShine
In other words you can't handle the difficulty of defending on 2x2x.

That's would be like saying you can't handle Deity since you WHINE about how you don't play it because it isn't a real game.

Maybe you're the rookie...

StrategicKingMi · February 13, 2003, 22:20

No offense intended, ming, well maybe a little, but that was a dumb point. It doesnt take any effort at all to leave a catapult in a city and attack any unit that moves next to the city. It s a mindless, easy way to play civ. Now, defend your city when I can drop off settlers, build a city, then build a road right to that city and attack it with catapults. Thats what I call difficult and takes much creativity to defend against. This was the entire point of this post.
In 2 x 2 , you MUST be on the offensive the entire game. You MUST mass a ton of units and defend away from your citys. If I have access to your citys, I will take out thoose citys when needed or I'll attack your economy by delivering 400-600 gold caravans in mass.
The reason players play 1 x 1 . is simply, and been proven many times, they suck at 2 x 2.
Nobody sucks at 1 x 1. The difference between skill of players is limited. throw in deity, and you make everyone even, or close to it.
Its like making tests so hard, that everyone fails. Its like taxing the wealthy by 80% so they make just a little more then the poor.

DrSpike · February 14, 2003, 09:23

Quote:

Originally posted by StrategicKingMi
No offense intended, ming, well maybe a little, but that was a dumb point. It doesnt take any effort at all to leave a catapult in a city and attack any unit that moves next to the city.

So you have to actually plan attacks instead of mindlessly massing units you can use to waltz into a city halfway across the world. Yeah planning is dumb.......bring on the mindless massing.

*dribbles*

rah · February 14, 2003, 09:39

Quote:

Originally posted by StrategicKingMi
No offense intended, ming, well maybe a little, but that was a dumb point. It doesnt take any effort at all to leave a catapult in a city and attack any unit that moves next to the city. It s a mindless, easy way to play civ.

spike

Yes, actually it takes more creativity to take cities that are defended like that. Any moron can throw an obscene amount of force on a city without any risk of being attacked in the process. Yeah, that takes skill.

Now, moving up with a balance attack/defensive combos in multiple locations and trying to disguise what's in each stack and conquering that city (that you infer you can't do) takes tons more creativity.

RAH
Yes, this was equally valid or equally stupid, depending on how you look at it. IT"S JUST DIFFERENT.

Ming · February 14, 2003, 10:38

Quote:

Originally posted by StrategicKingMi
No offense intended, ming, well maybe a little, but that was a dumb point.

No offense intended, but your response is kind of silly as well. You continue to rant that it's your way or no way, and people that don't play your settings must be ignorant and don't really know how to play the game. Sad... You are just proving that you probably don't really have any skill, and you only know how to play on settings of your choice... really sad

Quote:

Now, defend your city when I can drop off settlers, build a city, then build a road right to that city and attack it with catapults. Thats what I call difficult and takes much creativity to defend against. This was the entire point of this post.

The opposite is true as well... you need a lot of creativitiy to take well defended cities when you can't rely on 2x movement and must use real strategy. That was my point.

Any moron can take a city with 2x movement. Maybe you should learn how to do it at 1x movement, or don't you have that skill

Quote:

The reason players play 1 x 1 . is simply, and been proven many times, they suck at 2 x 2.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Maybe the opposite is true as well. People that play 2x2 suck at 1x1 it's been proven many times. (Notice I offer up as much proof as you do)

Quote:

Nobody sucks at 1 x 1. The difference between skill of players is limited. throw in deity, and you make everyone even, or close to it.

Again... it just shows how ignorant you are. You probably don't have the skill to compete at those levels. You need to play your settings so your time tested strategy can work. Maybe you should force yourself to think while playing instead of being a one trick pony

Again... each setting requires different strategies. People play the settings they enjoy. There is nothing wrong with any settings, and no setting is superior to any other. It's a matter of personal preference.

I don't like 1x production games because I feel it's like watching grass grow. I don't like 2x movement games because I think it screws up the combat. A personal opinion. So that's what I play because I enjoy it. I don't think it's the only way, or the best way... just the way I enjoy playing.

If you want to continue ranting that unless people play your way, they are ignorant and don't know how to play. fine by me... but you are just showing how ignorant you really are

But keep up the ranting... it's amusing.

HappySunShine · February 14, 2003, 14:32

King: happiness level of 4
Deity: Happiness level of 2

Now lets do some really simple math. Your first warrior on deity may go out and do exploration. But you must use your other units to keep the city happy. You really have no choice in the matter but to continually add units to your city in order to keep it happy. That means a slower expansion speed and a practically useless horserush. In fact, there's really no such thing as a rush on deity which is the real reason those of lower integlligence play it. No rush means the mentally challenged will have a chance to play sim city for a bit before any war starts. Then they'll sit there and say "Oh civ isn't a war game there's much better war games out there". Well civ also isn't sim city you stupid ****. I must remind myself to take pity on those less fortunate than me who are not blessed with an above average intelligence. Lets compare the strategies of 2x2x King to the strategies of 1x1x Deity. The size 5 city strategy is an example of how to lose no matter what setting. That's the only strategy I know of in 1x1x, there really hasn't been anything gound breaking that has been written. Take a look at my strategies that are on like 3 different sites, enough said. I also seem to remember some moron saying that 1x1x is what everyone plays, even on the zone? Not even close. Every ladder ever made was based on 2x2x duels, the zone is ALL 2x2x. Only place 1x1x is played is here among the lesser players who weren't able to take it on the zone. We run into people like you in age of empires all the time with titles on their rooms like "no rush" or "no attack before imp". We've even created a word for your kind, ROOKIE. If we were to have an apolyton vs zone tournament, do you really think you would win? I've beaten majority of you on 1x1x, and alot of you even on deity. Lets face it, you all suck and I have proven it over and over again. So go ahead and reply with your lame comments like "goes to get the popcorn", you only portray yourselves as the useless little geeks that you are.

"HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA Maybe the opposite is true as well. People that play 2x2 suck at 1x1 it's been proven many times. (Notice I offer up as much proof as you do)"

Actually strat is a pretty good 1x1x player and I have proven that I am the best 1x1x player out there. So why don't you shut the **** up dork? I've lost count of the 1x1x games I've beaten markus on. Every time he loses he comes back to apolyton and offers up some lame theory on how I'm cheating him. His 2x2x record with me is a joke. Even deity players like smartfart have admitted that all deity does is slow down the game and allow lesser players a chance to play. You can't win this argument, I have already proven you wrong time and again and it's time for you just to admit the fact you are intellectually outmatched.

"Again... it just shows how ignorant you are. You probably don't have the skill to compete at those levels. You need to play your settings so your time tested strategy can work. Maybe you should force yourself to think while playing instead of being a one trick pony"

Your only defense to our argument is to say that it is more realistic or that civ is not a war game. That's also what all the fanboys say about civ3, good to see you've been taking notes. I've proven over and over again that I know more than you, that I"m better than you, and that I can play all settings. One trick pony...no, you're the one trick pony. ANd it's not a very good trick at that.

"Any moron can throw an obscene amount of force on a city without any risk of being attacked in the process. Yeah, that takes skill."

Well that just proves how stupid you are. No risk of being attacked? Wait...you're Ming's twin, it's understandable. I don't think your combined IQ even equals my shoe size.

"Now, moving up with a balance attack/defensive combos in multiple locations and trying to disguise what's in each stack and conquering that city (that you infer you can't do) takes tons more creativity."

LOL Yes, trying to disguise what is in each stack because amazingly the city view will show you each unit that is moved into your city and since only way you can attack a city from outside the city view is by using a road...yeah, you're stupid, I agree. I did find your whole statement amusing though, it reminded me of some of the lame arguments other newbies just coming off of playing the AI have put forth.

On 1x1x you'll never be able to take 1 of my cities, it's just that simple. Even with suntzu and Lighthouse combined Markus was able to take my capital and that was all. He still got spanked horribly because I got all the happy wonders and Magellans, cancelled out the lighthouse and completely owned him. Why? Because defending on 1x1x is easy, too easy.

Ming · February 14, 2003, 14:47

Yawn... I expected as much from you too Eyes.

"UH, If you don't play on my settings you're ignorant"

Typical rantings and ravings... Yeah, like there is no strategy unless people play your settings... Yawn...

Like you will never take one of my cities... Yawn...

I'm the best and you all suck... Yawn...

Well, it's nice to see that all the bragarts stick together.

I'm glad you too have each other... why don't you both play a game and then one of you won't be able to claim they are the best... yawn...

HappySunShine · February 14, 2003, 14:52

I'm sorry, do you enjoy spelling out yawn? Is that supposed to mean you're yawning? That's about as good as your *Goes to get the popcorn*. And as usual you come back with short one liners never actually disputing my claims. You're lame ming, most moderators are. Anyone who would police a forum or chat room without getting paid either has no life or has some control issues. Lets face it, you can't prove me wrong because unlike you I'm not all talk, I actually play.

Ming · February 14, 2003, 14:59

One question for Eyes... have you ever beat SK?

One question for SK... have you ever beat Eyes?

So if you both answer no, since you both claim you don't lose... The real question is, can a proven cheater beat a proven Big Mouth?

Have fun. Maybe one of you can then claim you are the greatest... until then... You can talk all you want.

Ming · February 14, 2003, 15:02

And one last thing eyes... you claim I don't have a life...

Answer this... who spent all their time playing Civ to prove they were Number 1... and cheated...

You are the one that needs a life. I play Civ for fun and entertainment... but I also have a job, a family, friends, and many other hobbies...

You played civ to prove you were great... how silly.

HappySunShine · February 14, 2003, 15:06

I've played SK more times than anyone actually. And while he has beaten me a few times, I hold the majority of wins. And I think I cheated back when I was like 17? We're going on 4 years ago now. And if you really want to talk about real life I can talk about all my friends and the business that I run that makes more money than you'll ever make. I have no problem comparing each other's personal lives, I know I'll win.

Ming · February 14, 2003, 15:10

I seriously doubt you make more money than I do... unless you started playing tennis professionally, I doubt it.

Also... You cheated... how low can you get. Get off your high horse... Cheaters are the ones rolling in ****, not people who can look down at others.

And yeah... so somebody is lying... SK says he has never lost except once... yet you claim you have both lost to each other.... So which one is the best... oh thats right, you both are...

HappySunShine · February 14, 2003, 15:22

Last time I checked majority rules and since I hold an overwhelming majority of games against him, you do the math. Again, you're bringing up something I did 4 years ago when I was 17. If that's the best you can do, I understand. You still have yet to refute anything I have said and you're simply spewing out the usual 1 liners of yours. It's pathetic, but I've come to expect that of apolytoners. If I had a heart I might actually take pity on you, but I will continue to belittle you for my own amusement. And unless your income is a very very healthy 6 figures...well, I wish you luck then.

Ming · February 14, 2003, 15:33

It's sensless to argue facts or logic with you. You will just respond that you know everything and I know nothing. Typical.

You claim there is no strategy in 1x1x... fine, that shows you are blind. Nothing I say is going to change your mind. You point to the 5 city strategy from Xin like it is the only strategy... well none of us even use that

Everything you do is a strategy... it's a strategy game. To imply there isn't any at different settings is just ignorant...

You say the cheating happened four years ago... I would respond, what does it tell you about a person when he has to cheat to prove he is the best...

It says a lot about your character...

You come here and insult everybody in all the forums... and then talk about pity... what a laugh.

Again... I don't cheat... you did. You are the one that deserves Pity...

HappySunShine · February 14, 2003, 16:09

Again, you come back with the same thing and you have yet to say anything to disprove what I have said. Again, I was 17. That was 4 years ago, I really don't care if you think it has some deeper meaning. You also have yet to list any strategies and your posts are a joke. The fact is you're a complete idiot and a washed up over the hill loser.

rah · February 14, 2003, 16:20

I do remember in the last few weeks a post in another thread where you said you hadn't played civ in almost a year and a half. Hmmmm, so either you lied there or you haven't played in over a year. So who is out of date here?

Ming · February 14, 2003, 16:28

Quote:

Originally posted by HappySunShine
The fact is you're a complete idiot and a washed up over the hill loser.

Ahhh yes... more insults. Is that still the best you can do... attempting to feel superior by throwing insults around.

Character is defined by how you act, not how you talk. And your character has already been very well definded by your actions...

War4ever · February 14, 2003, 18:31

Sean, just how tiny is your penis? I imagine your pent up anger comes from a girl laughing at you when you took your pants down that first time. She probably giggled and left you bawling in a corner. After which time you promptly went out to the nearest playground to pick on kids 10 yrs your junior....

get a life.....your a has been, a non issue, a flame that fizzled out , a guy who doens't play anymore (so you tell us).... so what do you care about what happens here.....

oh right i forgot, you have no life........your insecure, and you know you can pretend to be a superhero over the internet b/c there is no real nemesis for you to fight.

So look here Daredevil, go see a shrink, enlarge your penis over the internet, grow a sack, and when you feel you have mastered the 12 step program i am sure you can apologize to everyone and they will be happy to take you back...

until then.......p!ss off......your insulting nature is how shall we say it......so 20thC