Which Mode do You Prefer?

[Ace Rimmer]

Thanks to bert there are now a multitude of servers running and one (anybody with config files) can play whatever type of game they enjoy the most. This, combined with the lack of a 1v1 Ladder (Master Challenge doesn't count) has given rise to a greater appreciation of 2v2 (survivor) than 1v1. That's my answer, 2v2 is (currently) my favorite mode, edging out diplomacy just slightly.

In my opinion, if you have four decent players it takes a bit more skill (teamwork) to accomplish a win rather than just pure Defcon ability. And, if you teammate isn't up to the task but your enemies are, it's a challenge (read that "the fun part") to make up the difference.

So, what's yours?

Here's some recent 2v2 games just cause. In the second one, the other two for some odd reason didn't get the point.








One last note, /me thinks bert should convert one or more servers to 2v2 and add them to the ranking tables somehow.

[Gulidar]

2vs2 indeed.

[(MOR)]

1 vs 1 is the fair Challenge for me..

PS:
2 vs 2 anyone ?

[ynbniar]

Well despite being very average I prefer 1v1 particularly if our skills are matched or I'm playing someone inexperienced...thing is I make a lot of mistakes which makes it interesting...

That's not to say I'm afraid of the big guns or anything...I always believe I can win...

Haven't really tried 2v2 yet as I'm afraid I'll let my partner down with some mad tactic...beware teaming up with me...

[Nightwatch]

Six Player Deflaut is still the way to go.

[Why?]

Definitely 2vs2, because of the social aspect. You've got the camaraderie with your partner, and banter across the board. However, if the teams are uneven it can get boring for both sides. Like if your partner has no clue what they're doing(spread-out silos on the coast, sets of 6, etc.), and your two opponents are good, there's a really nothing you can do to win.

[trickser]

My favourite is still 6 player totaly random. And its not the same as 6 player default in my opinion

[Why?]

yeah, when playing 6 player, I prefer random cities. It helps prevent the same old game where everyone races to the same big cities. Makes for interesting silo placement as well.

[Blackbeard]

NOT speed Defcon ...2v2, but I suffer the same problem as with 1v1 - I get so carried away with the naval battles, that I forget that I should be scoring points .

[Gulidar]

2vs2 anyone btw?

[tllotpfkamvpe]

.

[wu.j China]

long time no playing . 2vs2 before , but may 1vs1 this time !

[MikeTheWookiee]

Orgazmo! I'm still technically undefeated on it. It's a shame no-one with keys / server availability has one set up (I have my key, but no server to host it on).

Although if you're only counting gametypes played nowadays, it'd have to be 6-player diplomacy, any variety thererof. You can play it (and win) in so many different ways, unlike something like default scoring which is generally a race, whatever you do.

[trickser]

unlike something like default scoring which is generally a race, whatever you do.

Once more i wanna defend against this view. While its kind of true, that its a race for points, people use that argument to devalue the mode.
But i want you to consider: In a 2vs2 or 1vs1 its alot about tactics and mircomanagment, you need to get upper hand in the naval battle. Saving 2 battleships while your foe lost all, might get you the victory.
In contrast to default mode, where the big picture is more important. I make my plan by placing, send fleet there, defend sub position here, go for suisilos or save them for later to know where its worth to strike. I can loose half of my bombers in the 1st attack, but i got london, so my plan is still working.
Sometimes i see 1 of the 1vs1 stars in a 6 player game mircoing thier fleet through 2 ozeans, killing all enemys, but not making the win.

Err, ok, short story: The - 6player default is a race, not a strategie game - argument makes me mad, cause i am good at it, cause my strategies work and not cause my ships are sailing faster.

[(MOR)]

Extreme Orgazmo is online..

Anyone ?