The rule of mobility - A guide to 1v1

klaskeren

Prince
Joined
Aug 11, 2013
Messages
449
Location
Denmark
I was reading a very interesting blog post about general strategies in turn based board games of pure skill (Checkers, four in a row, chess etc.) and came across the rule of mobility which applies for civ aswell.
Basically the rule states that in a turn based board game, if other parameters are somewhat equal, then the player with more mobility has a crushing advantange usually.
The article is written by 2 times pentamid world champion Andres Kuusk.

http://fightingthesharks.com/important-mind-sports-tip-ever/

If we are to trust him on his word about games (and he has alot of experience with these games) He states that in all these games, mobility is the very most important rule.
Lets look at how this applies to 1v1 skirmishes.

A simplified version of 1v1 civ is basically this: Players place cities on the map and those cities grant you points each based on the quality of the land and amount of land, and the amount of time developing that city.

There are limited resources though, they are:

Wonders
Land

Claiming the limited resources is critical but lets see how they compare.

Since 1v1 is a zero sum game (Opponents disadvantage is your advantage) Expanding becomes extremly important in comparison to getting wonders.

The rule of mobility clearly tells us that in this case you should expand fast, and in your opponents face. And that this is the single most important thing in the game.

In a normal game, lets say getting a wonder is as good as getting your cities 10 turns later. Well in 1v1 this is very different. Getting those city spaces (which are few because of the small map) Now gives you the land, AND takes away opponents expansion opportunity. The comparison is this:

Wonder early means a long term advantage, allowing opponent to expand.
Expansion early means faster hammers and units, but the point is that your expansions fast is also a very solid long term advantage since you deny your opponent city spots. This advantage is even greater than any advantage you will have gotten from a wonder, and on top of it, it is also the best play in the short term!

Often in duels with limited space, if you can plant 2 cities in the middle of the map, this means 2 more cities for you, and and 2 less for you opponent. this huge discrepancy can not be compensated by wonders. Wonders works in a simlar way but there is a big opportunity cost associated with wonders, and if you simply expand rather than build wonders you will be better off guaranteed.

Expanding defensively is no good either. If you are not going for any wonders early, you need to secure some of your opponents land, and you should have hammers to defend it when you dont invest it in wonders.

TL;DR: Expand, do it fast and offensively, and dont waste your time with other things until this advantage is secured. Better cities is a more important long term advantage than a stronger religion or faster early tech.
 
I enjoy 1v1 MP compared to a 6 player FFA. I find that public 6 player FFA games usually are a lot of work to get that one good game that was epic for 6-8hrs. I played about 2000 hrs of 6 Player FFA public and some NQ games. I find that NQ games tend to be a bit of a click and I see a lot of collusion in these games. You might think collusion is a strong word so I will change that to soft play. This means that you will run into players who play with each other often and tend to play each other soft compared to how they play against someone who is unknown. A huge problem is the double or triple teaming that happens at times in these games. The main problem for me with NQ games is that I do not connect well to most of the Europeans that get the games going so I am forced into Public Games.

My solution was 1v1. The games are usually pretty fast lasting 1-2 hours depending on map type. Sometimes the land is a bit tricky but usually you can rush your opponent since I find most players falling for early Wonder Building. I think your post is spot on and not only applies to 1v1 but in general the more land you can take away from opponents the better your game will be. At times you may have a problem holding the land but in most cases rapid expansion is the best plan for any type of Civ game IMO.

One major problem with 1v1 is finding a good way to get balance with Civ vs Civ. If you go random it can be game/set/match before it begins when you roll someone like Venice or some other horrible 1v1 Civ. The only real solution is playing the same Civ's against one another but something seems wrong with England vs England or Japan vs Japan.

I find that religion is usually a waste in 1v1 games depending on the map type once again. Of course you can always use Holy Warriors if you get some early faith rolling and it can be an amazing combo adding in Terracotta Army!

On a side note... I am trying to get a 1v1 MP Ladder started so if anyone has interest do not hesitate to Private Message me here!
 
I tried settling really early and aggressively. Ended up having my second city crushed by Atilla. I had his capital taken in retaliation, and then some. Now the whole world hates me. Haha!

I think this strat has less impact in larger maps. You can still limit expansion somewhat by forward settling, but only in the immediate area. Also, unlike chess, settling doesn't threaten squares so it has far less impact. Not to mention, there's a possibility of them just passing through your borders and forward settling you instead, or again in larger maps, simply expanding elsewhere.

This is going for a more peaceful approach, of course. If you're up for it, war will definitely deter your rival civ greatly, regardless of whether the map is large or not, and if you can secure your forward settlement, you've already won.
 
I tried settling really early and aggressively. Ended up having my second city crushed by Atilla. I had his capital taken in retaliation, and then some. Now the whole world hates me. Haha!

I think this strat has less impact in larger maps. You can still limit expansion somewhat by forward settling, but only in the immediate area. Also, unlike chess, settling doesn't threaten squares so it has far less impact. Not to mention, there's a possibility of them just passing through your borders and forward settling you instead, or again in larger maps, simply expanding elsewhere.

This is going for a more peaceful approach, of course. If you're up for it, war will definitely deter your rival civ greatly, regardless of whether the map is large or not, and if you can secure your forward settlement, you've already won.

this guide is only for mp 1v1 :)
 
The last 2 days this thread inspired me to play some public 1v1 matches. Most of them have been cake walks but I had a couple of matches that were close. I let my opponents have first choice of Civ every time. To my surprise in 11 matches not one player chose Poland. I like to play all the Civs but in in 1v1 matches it is obvious that if you go random the game can be over before it starts so I think it is better to choose.

So of course in all 11 matches I play as Poland and only lose my last match against the Celts who I beat to a Panth and Religion. The map type I choose every time is Hemispheres/Dual usually using random on most choices but going with Strategic Balance almost every time except for the last match since I found a problem with Strategic Balance in my 10th match.

I always thought Strategic Balance gives the same amount of things like coal, iron, horses... etc. On this map my Cont. had Iron and Uranium whereas my opponent did not. This is not Strategic Balance and I was not happy about it. It is not fair in the least for one player to have these and the other does not. Especially on a water map where you need Iron. So now I start the matches with Abundant Resources instead. Perhaps it was the random island option as well so I am putting it at No Tiny Islands.

The match that I lost was a map with Polar Ice to the North and South and our Capitals were on Opposite Sides so I could not get my Navy over to my Expos to defend and decided to resign.

I think Hemispheres is a perfect 1v1 map but what do you players think the best and most balanced map and choices are for 1v1?? I also think Poland is 95% unstoppable in 1v1 being able to go Full Tradition and Liberty is pretty insane and building the Oracle every game gets you two GS's faster to get to Navigation first.

So what is the best way to balance Civ vs Civ? I really think it has to be the same Civ vs the same Civ but that seems silly as well? What Civ do you think can compete in a 1v1 Dual against Poland? If anyone is interested in playing 1v1 duals I am still trying to set up a MP Ladder so contact me and we can play the first match!
 
The last 2 days this thread inspired me to play some public 1v1 matches. Most of them have been cake walks but I had a couple of matches that were close. I let my opponents have first choice of Civ every time. To my surprise in 11 matches not one player chose Poland. I like to play all the Civs but in in 1v1 matches it is obvious that if you go random the game can be over before it starts so I think it is better to choose.

So of course in all 11 matches I play as Poland and only lose my last match against the Celts who I beat to a Panth and Religion. The map type I choose every time is Hemispheres/Dual usually using random on most choices but going with Strategic Balance almost every time except for the last match since I found a problem with Strategic Balance in my 10th match.

I always thought Strategic Balance gives the same amount of things like coal, iron, horses... etc. On this map my Cont. had Iron and Uranium whereas my opponent did not. This is not Strategic Balance and I was not happy about it. It is not fair in the least for one player to have these and the other does not. Especially on a water map where you need Iron. So now I start the matches with Abundant Resources instead. Perhaps it was the random island option as well so I am putting it at No Tiny Islands.

The match that I lost was a map with Polar Ice to the North and South and our Capitals were on Opposite Sides so I could not get my Navy over to my Expos to defend and decided to resign.

I think Hemispheres is a perfect 1v1 map but what do you players think the best and most balanced map and choices are for 1v1?? I also think Poland is 95% unstoppable in 1v1 being able to go Full Tradition and Liberty is pretty insane and building the Oracle every game gets you two GS's faster to get to Navigation first.

So what is the best way to balance Civ vs Civ? I really think it has to be the same Civ vs the same Civ but that seems silly as well? What Civ do you think can compete in a 1v1 Dual against Poland? If anyone is interested in playing 1v1 duals I am still trying to set up a MP Ladder so contact me and we can play the first match!

skirmish is usually the most balanced map, if you want a completely balanced map download the noval 9.1 mirror map script (on civfanatics), yeah add me on steam if you want to play some 1v1s, steam name: Klaskeren
 
I signed up to that site and would like to get in on this or the next 1v1 tourney. You guys are pretty serious though playing for cash! I am sure I won't win any money but I like the idea!
 
Top Bottom