Do you consider ''Duel'' maps fair ?

Baron2

Warlord
Joined
Sep 20, 2005
Messages
115
TBH, I play a lot of Duel maps (at Emperor or Immortal), because of their quick loading times and overal quickness.
 
In all cases:
the smaller the map the easier the game
the slower the speed the easier the game
 
I never thinker with the time, but I find that huge maps take too much time to load.
 
I consider them boring and a complete opposite of what Civ is supposed to be.
 
In all cases:
the smaller the map the easier the game
the slower the speed the easier the game

Not sure aabout this. you can win game before turn 300 on Quick speed but you can't on Epic or Marathon speed.
 
Not sure aabout this. you can win game before turn 300 on Quick speed but you can't on Epic or Marathon speed.

If you're going by turn times, of course you'll win quicker on Quick speed. The reason why slow speeds are easier is that humans make better decisions than the AI. As the AI makes more mistakes, especially in war, the length of time between them is magnified on slower speeds, leaving the human more time to take advantage. For example, while on Quick a high-level AI will always have a Carpet of Doom, no matter how many units you kill, since it can replenish the units almost immediately. On Marathon, however, it will take it way longer to repair its army, meaning it'll likely get steamrolled by a human who won't make nearly as many mistakes as it.
 
Not sure aabout this. you can win game before turn 300 on Quick speed but you can't on Epic or Marathon speed.

More relevantly:

A similarly skilled player will beat standard in less than 50% more turns than quick.
Likewise, he will beat epic in less than 50% more turns than standard.
And, similarly, he will beat marathon in less than 100% more turns than epic.

(The scaling factors are 0.67, 1.0, 1.5, and 3.0, respectively, but not everything scales evenly. Most obviously, military doesn't scale at all and retains the same potency per turn as ever, with opposing AI less able to muster defenders quickly, while workers move faster, settlers move faster, scouts move faster -- relative to the parts of the game that do scale up -- and gold buys are cheaper... among other considerations.)
 
Duel maps lead to very cheesy victories. Especially when there's only one other AI. Why bother with Science or Culture when you can just pick Atilla and Battering Ram your opponent's capital. Or Greece, get a bunch of CC with their 5 movement, wait until there's some clear space around the enemy's capital, DOW and win that turn.

Small maps are ok, but even Standard sized maps are small enough that a computer with 4gb of RAM will have no problem at all.
 
It's not a matter of fairness, rather a matter of difficulty. 1 v 1 is definitely way easier than 4 player map. It takes the AI most of it's advantages - rapid expansion does not work cause of little land, conquering weak neighbours that don't know how to defend and becoming a runaway does not work cause there is no one to conquer. Make alliances to take down human player from all directions don't work - these are all things that the AI does the best, staying small is only an option for the human player, the AI does not know how to win that way. In addition human can go for quick army and there is only one city to conquer to get a victory. Even in 4 player map, when you commit to an early army an conquer one of the opponents, the other ones might invest into wonder/tech and become runaways. On 1 v 1 you don't need to worry about that.
However when increasing the size to larger map a little further the corelation in difficulty increase isn't as simple, as some victory types and some strategies are more difficult on 4 player map than on 10-12 player maps. But 1 v 1 is definitely the easiest, which doesn't change the fact, that it is fair. As it is one of the options to choose from (just like policy saving or promotion saving, which make the game a lot easier).
 
It's not about being fair. I just do not feel the world on map lesser than large cluttered with added civs.
 
Back
Top Bottom