connor3491 wrote:I dont think this is a good idea. As you make game smaller diplomacy (a huge part of the game)is completely removed and it becomes a game of luck. The player closest to dormant outposts and with good early specialist hires will win in a landslide...taking a couple extra outposts early snowball and there will be no way for the losing player to recover bc there's no diplomacy.
I was in the 2v2 tourney and this felt too small. The games weren't that great because there was no diplomacy involved..teams were predetermined. In the final game one of my opponents had 2 kings within the first 4 specialists draws. His ally had pretty good hires too, think he got a tycoon early. I'm had bad hires and there was no way my team could overcome those early hires. Magnify this for a 1v1 game.
Ahh yes but the lack of diplomacy is just another reason why I want to try a 1v1. Because when you play with more than one person it's hard to make sure that you win, even if you have the most skill. With a 1v1 it is largely determined by your own skill, and not some diplomacy thing you can't really control (you can really only influence the diplomacy in the game). And that added with the other rules about the 24 hour ceasefire and stuff ensure that both players start out in an equally fair position
