The Tortoise and the Hare

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • The Tortoise and the Hare

      Yesterday a comment was made that 1x games are more skill-based than 4x games. I honestly never play 1x games, and the very few times that I have, I either didn't know what I was doing yet or I didn't try very hard. So, I honestly don't know if the skill claim is valid or not. I'm interested enough to check it out, though. So, today I joined a 1x WWIII game.

      WWIII is what I'm used to playing so I wanted to rule out the variable of a difference in maps. I picked my favorite country (India), because I'm very familiar with them, so it will be a good basis for comparison (how India "feels to me" in 1x rather than 4x).

      Obviously, because this is a 1x game, it's going to take forever and a day before I have any results. So, in the meantime, does anyone have any thoughts on this? Do you think a 1x game requires more skill than a 4x game? If so or if not, why? I'm actually more interested in why you think what you think.
    • I certainly do. Granted, they happen more quickly, but yes, I time attacks after/between AA-ticks and artillery/ship attacks.

      I think this probably looks like a more continuous process when playing 4x because the time goes by faster. A 10-minute patrol/radar tick in 4x is 2.5 real life minutes, so I'm pretty continuously working during those 2.5 minutes to get things done. To me, a 10-minute tick in real time seems like me just staring at the screen for 8 real life minutes in between commands.

      It sounds like you think ticks are more of a factor in 1x than in 4x. Why do you think that? It seems to me that an attack that happens every 15 real minutes would be more of a factor than one that happens every real hour. No?

      To me, 1x seems much more "set it and forget it" than 4x, because 4 times more stuff happens when you walk away from 4x. Again, though, I fully admit that I don't really know because I don't play 1x. That's why I'm going to try to find out. I could be completely wrong.
    • abdul_the_brave wrote:

      In x1 every troop loss is a problem as others don't but in X4 u just keep losing units (when u sleep when go out when u do anything else u can lose units
      I'm afraid I don't quite understand. Wouldn't the number of units that one can mobilize in a 1x game and a 4x game be about the same? Wouldn't unit-loss therefore have about the same impact in both versions?
    • abdul_the_brave wrote:

      yes but I mean for example u can in X1 game if played good not to lose any units in the first 15 days. but in x4 that's nearly impossible as huge inaccuracies happen.

      I mean due to inaccuracies little wins doesn't really matter did I save 1 extra motorized? who cares I lose 5 in night anyway.
      Oh, right. I completely agree with this. I think that @Buckeye and I hit on this yesterday. There does seem to be a greater threat of unavoidable loss in 4x (due to the amount of time that passes while one is offline).
    • Okay, here's something that I think is more of a challenge for 1x players than 4x players:

      As a 4x player, I can start an 8-hour action/movement at 6:00pm local, and it's going to be concluded by 8:00pm local. There aren't too many simple tasks I attempt to begin performing that can't be concluded during a time that's convenient for me in real life.

      I think a 1x player probably has to plan the schedules/timetables for their own units a little more carefully than that. If I'm sending a stack of units on an 8-hour trip to an enemy city, and I don't start that untl 6:00pm local, that stack's not going to arrive until 2:00am. So, I'm either going to have to be up at 2:00am to oversee it, or I'm going to have to take the chance of fighting blind (I wouldn't do that). For this reason, 1x players probably have to be a little more routine in the scheduling of their actions; i.e. long travels have to begin in the local morning hours in order to conclude before the player goes to bed at night, etc.

      That's a restriction that 4x players don't really have to deal with. Sure, we have our entire game day of downtime at night, but when we wake up, we could easily begin a 20-hour game time assault and still keep checking in on it frequently.
    • PerigeeNil wrote:

      **builds Military Logistics in every single province while waiting for units to move between homeland cities**

      "FOR THE LOVE OF ALL THAT'S HOLY, GOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!"
      That so needs to be a meme :thumbsup:

      As far as whether or not 1x involves more skill, to summarize what I said in the other thread, it doesn’t involve more or less skill than 4X, activity simply has an elevated effect on overall skill, thus perhaps diluting other skill factors relative to real-time activity equivalent across real-time in both gamespeeds, but not affecting it for equivalent activity measured in game time.
    • ok its more 4x time rewards active players disproportionately.. 1x or 4x if good skilled/strategic players probably same.

      Cant remember who had the analogy but a 4 x is like you standing still (offline) and bamb\ an \ active 4x speed boxer runs around you and whacks you on side of the head.

      so think you may have misinterpreted.. 4 x rewards higher pct online as its escalated. If you are off 6 - 8 hrs 1 x might lose 1 city.. 4 x might lose whole country.

      But I do greatly appreciate your digestion of peoples comments/threads/posts and restate / question in a different angle.
    • Yeah, I'm actually writing down my thoughts on 1x and 4x offline as I try to figure this out (I'll share them when I'm done), and things like "down time" and how game time translates to real life time do seem to cause some obvious differences in effective approaches to the game. The statement that was made was something like "4x rewards activity while 1x rewards skill" or something along those lines. I definitely agree with the first part of that on its own, but I would reword it as "4x more harshly punishes inactivity."

      The implication of the second part, though, was that skill is a bigger factor in 1x than in 4x. That's what I'm trying to figure out. Like you said, Buck, I would expect a good/skilled player to do equally well in either 1x or 4x given a proportionate amount of activity in each. I didn't understand that to be the meaning of the statement, though. But, like you said, maybe I just misunderstood it. To me, the statement sounded like it was saying, "Being successful at 4x only requires button mashing while being successful at 1x requires skill." I'm trying to figure out if that is true.
    • 4 x has less margin for error.. and those more active have an advantage and less active disadvantage (same applies to both 1 x and 4x but 4x magnified). so you seem a deliberative planned approach which although slow rewarding would better fit 1 x.... imo a 4 x ultra aggressive (maybe your suiciders.. although unskilled make damaged you ) or if a skilled ultra aggressive player on 4 x against you i have dis proportionate advantage over a temporarily inactive