You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

RoN Strategy for Beginners
Moderated by alincarpetman

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.11 replies
Rise of Nations Heaven » Forums » RoN Strategy for Beginners » How is 2v2 different from 1v1?
Bottom
Topic Subject:How is 2v2 different from 1v1?
G0dSpiral
Member
posted 12-10-03 12:09 PM EDT (US)         
How does strategy differ in 2v2 games?

Is it fair to sy that strategy is still more similar to 1v1 than to 3v3? After all shouldn't your primary concern be to take care of your closest opponent?

Is raiding or rushing more or less viable?
Does losing one city "hurt" less than it does in 1v1?
Any conditions that might make you build cities backwards/towards your ally?

AuthorReplies:
Out_4_Blood
Member
posted 12-10-03 12:52 PM EDT (US)     1 / 11       
Well with regard to published strategy: NO, not really.

However, there are differences.

  • Position is more important so that you can combine forces and provide mutual protection.
  • Rares are important to get because there are a lot more of them (except on maps like African Watering Hole) -- the map is bigger (so there are more) but you also have double scouting (so you find them faster) From the beginning of the game you can sometimes see up to 3-4 rares right away.
  • Risk for rushing increases. It's more difficult to successfully rush, because his ally can send reinforcements or gold to help fend you off, and that might put you behind. And even if you completely take him out, you still haven't won the game. You'll have another opponent to deal with. If both of you are economically weak from a rush, then a good boomer might be able to defeat your side.
  • Teamwork is an important factor to consider. Communicating key terrain, enemy movements, locating rares, sharing advice. All of these things are importnat and are non-existent in 1on1.

[This message has been edited by Out_4_Blood (edited 12-10-2003 @ 12:53 PM).]

half_lotus
Member
posted 12-10-03 02:17 PM EDT (US)     2 / 11       
City leapfrogging is where its at. ^^ Not that i play much teams.
G0dSpiral
Member
posted 12-10-03 02:55 PM EDT (US)     3 / 11       
Cool Lotus... hadn't thought of it b4.

is building your 2nd town ahead of partners 2nd a common option? or is waiting until 3rd or later towns more sensible?

War
Member
posted 12-10-03 03:09 PM EDT (US)     4 / 11       
Depends on the map. Good on Waring states as part of an aggressive statgey and on african watering hole it can bag you all the rares.

Also, better players should do it to protect a rookie partner.

El_Capitan_
VIP
posted 12-10-03 03:09 PM EDT (US)     5 / 11       
2v2 games differ plenty than 1v1 games. Your conventional games make 2v2's like two separate 1v1's going on at once, but in RoN that's not always the case.

1. There will be a weaker and a stronger player. If your best player can take out their stronger player, then you can try to hold out vs. the weaker player and win that way. If neither of you can match their stronger player, then you'll have to plan a coordinated attack that will take out their weaker or stonger player first.

2. Team/Nation combo's that double one player can utterly defeat that player in less than 5 minutes if done correctly, and if the opposing teammate does not help in time.

3. You don't want any General Yule's. Meaning you don't want a teammate to not attack or not put any pressure on their opponent. If one of your opponent's is basically out, but the other player is booming an age or two ahead of both of you, you need one player to keep attacking, raiding, etc. to put pressure on them while your other teammate can outboom and eventually win you the game.

4. You have to plan ahead to successfully defend against getting doubled. Most of the time, this involves sending a ville to your ally in preparation to build a BX or Stables for defensive aid... or just be sure to tribute your ally some resources when they're in need. Those are the 2 ways to stop a double Ancient Age rush.

G0dSpiral
Member
posted 12-10-03 04:17 PM EDT (US)     6 / 11       
General Yule? I googled for that, and got just a vague mention that he was involved in a 1900 English-Dutch conflict. But no description of what he did. From your comment, I'm assuming he sat on his army doing nothing, but it might be interesting if you can provide historical annectodes of what he did and what it cost.
violin
Member
posted 12-10-03 05:07 PM EDT (US)     7 / 11       
I think he means the Civil war leader from the South against the north during the battle of Gettysburg, where he sat there and didn't take the heights (little round rock), which gave the north a big advantage and subsequently won the battle and turned the war around for the north.
Fogel Xanadu
Member
posted 12-10-03 05:22 PM EDT (US)     8 / 11       
Pardon my ignorance, but I thought gettysburg was signifigant because it was the only battle fought north of the mason dixon line, not because it was really "decisive"
violin
Member
posted 12-10-03 05:42 PM EDT (US)     9 / 11       
It was decisive because up to that point, the South was very successful in its campaign (winning battles at Fredericksburg, Manassases Junction, Chancerllorville etc.) against the north and the north was losing. If Lee had won and destroyed the northern army, then i think it's fair to say that Lincoln might have agreed to a peace agreement.
El_Capitan_
VIP
posted 12-10-03 06:36 PM EDT (US)     10 / 11       
Lee never needed to fight the decisive battle in the first place. If Lee chose to bypass the whole Gettysburg battle and head north, it would've been an easy victory for the South. Oh well... even the best generals make mistakes. One reason we're not the Confederate States of America.
Deecie
Member
posted 12-11-03 02:23 AM EDT (US)     11 / 11       
You'd LIKE to be the confederate states of America?
What an age we live in...
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Rise of Nations Heaven | HeavenGames