Difference between 1v1 and 3v3

Hello,
While I was playing a 1v1 somebody told me that I was playing like a 3v3 player but he couldn't explain me why, so I hope that somebody wiser could explain to me the difference in style between 3v3 and 1v1 ?

TL:DR: I suck at 1v1 in comparison to my 3v3 level, why?

3v3 and 1v1 ain't the same.In 1v1 you can do more and more expansion,rush,not to worry if you don't get this country,not fighting in two fronts,etc.But you will more learn by playing 3v3 in 1v1 you just test your skill against someone.It is wise to play 1v1 against experienced player.In 3v3 you have to think,cooperate with your friends,etc.

Tarafından yazıldı THE_Militia, 17.02.2015 at 04:10

3v3 and 1v1 ain't the same.In 1v1 you can do more and more expansion,rush,not to worry if you don't get this country,not fighting in two fronts,etc.But you will more learn by playing 3v3 in 1v1 you just test your skill against someone.It is wise to play 1v1 against experienced player.In 3v3 you have to think,cooperate with your friends,etc.

I think you are degrading too much the meaning of 1vs1.

@Sator, what that player means was probably that you used a 3vs3 expansion in a 1vs1 game. For example, typical UK going for scandinavia, typical spain rushing rome, typical germany expanding through scandinavia and balkans, then stop expanding for go at the offensive (A VERY BIG ERROR), typical turkey not taking rome, and typical ukraine that for some reason does not take the rich zones of scandinavia.

Most of the expansions made for 3vs3 have the idea of one ally in one place, while in 1vs1 you are alone against an enemy. For example, check out some moves that are pretty strange for 3vs3, but common in 1vs1 gameplay:

- UK expansion including madrid with 10 infantries.
- Germany taking whole northern russia, baltic and balkans.
- Ukraine's empire also expand through whole scandinavia.
- Turkey's expansion to rome, and turkey having full italy (pretty useful in 1vs1 for income).

IMO, in 1vs1 you need to multitask more.

Alright but everyone have their opinion.For me 1v1 is much easier than 3v3 or 2v2.

Tarafından yazıldı clovis1122, 17.02.2015 at 07:16

Tarafından yazıldı THE_Militia, 17.02.2015 at 04:10

3v3 and 1v1 ain't the same.In 1v1 you can do more and more expansion,rush,not to worry if you don't get this country,not fighting in two fronts,etc.But you will more learn by playing 3v3 in 1v1 you just test your skill against someone.It is wise to play 1v1 against experienced player.In 3v3 you have to think,cooperate with your friends,etc.

I think you are degrading too much the meaning of 1vs1.

@Sator, what that player means was probably that you used a 3vs3 expansion in a 1vs1 game. For example, typical UK going for scandinavia, typical spain rushing rome, typical germany expanding through scandinavia and balkans, then stop expanding for go at the offensive (A VERY BIG ERROR), typical turkey not taking rome, and typical ukraine that for some reason does not take the rich zones of scandinavia.

Most of the expansions made for 3vs3 have the idea of one ally in one place, while in 1vs1 you are alone against an enemy. For example, check out some moves that are pretty strange for 3vs3, but common in 1vs1 gameplay:

- UK expansion including madrid with 10 infantries.
- Germany taking whole northern russia, baltic and balkans.
- Ukraine's empire also expand through whole scandinavia.
- Turkey's expansion to rome, and turkey having full italy (pretty useful in 1vs1 for income).

IMO, in 1vs1 you need to multitask more.

Might be it, thanks clovis

Tarafından yazıldı clovis1122, 17.02.2015 at 07:16

Tarafından yazıldı THE_Militia, 17.02.2015 at 04:10

3v3 and 1v1 ain't the same.In 1v1 you can do more and more expansion,rush,not to worry if you don't get this country,not fighting in two fronts,etc.But you will more learn by playing 3v3 in 1v1 you just test your skill against someone.It is wise to play 1v1 against experienced player.In 3v3 you have to think,cooperate with your friends,etc.

I think you are degrading too much the meaning of 1vs1.

@Sator, what that player means was probably that you used a 3vs3 expansion in a 1vs1 game. For example, typical UK going for scandinavia, typical spain rushing rome, typical germany expanding through scandinavia and balkans, then stop expanding for go at the offensive (A VERY BIG ERROR), typical turkey not taking rome, and typical ukraine that for some reason does not take the rich zones of scandinavia.

Most of the expansions made for 3vs3 have the idea of one ally in one place, while in 1vs1 you are alone against an enemy. For example, check out some moves that are pretty strange for 3vs3, but common in 1vs1 gameplay:

- UK expansion including madrid with 10 infantries.
- Germany taking whole northern russia, baltic and balkans.
- Ukraine's empire also expand through whole scandinavia.
- Turkey's expansion to rome, and turkey having full italy (pretty useful in 1vs1 for income).

IMO, in 1vs1 you need to multitask more.

Being a ukraine player your opponent can get scandavanian from you. and over expanding is not good when you have a turk on your border threatening your ukraine's kiev

The militia is correct. 1v1s and 3v3s are not the same, there are a few good 1v1 players who do not quite shape up as 3v3 players and vice versa. The difference within 3v3s is the ability to cordinate and cooperate with your teammates ofc, but also to be able to identify your role with the country and strat you pick in relation to your opponents picks and to be as effective as possible within that role. Skills such as risk assessment and efficiency all come into play ofc but this is the primary difference which many more 1v1 orientated players do not seem to grasp. However 1v1 players tend to have better lategame skills, as its not a situation often encountered in teamgames, particularly on smaller maps.

If someone told you you were playing like a 3v3 player, i would presume they meant you werent taking full advantage of the map available to you. As players familiar with teamgame confines on a map are susceptible to doing so.

I think the biggest difference is that in 1v1 it is hard to decide when to go offense, or when to keep expanding. In 3v3 the majority of countries are taken by 2-3. You cannot gain more territory without attacking another player. But in 1v1 there are so many places to expand to. You have to keep expanding to keep up with your unit count against your opponent, but when do you go on offense? That's why I prefer 3v3 to 1v1. In 3v3 you only worry about expanding for one turn and the rest of the game is based on teamwork, ability to predict opponents moves, and true offensive power.

It is true what they say ''you will learn more by playing 3v3''.As everybody said in 3v3 you work with your team,you already know what strategy to choose,you plan your work,rush some countries,don't think about money (because allies can give you),etc. In 1v1 you will only learn how to play if you play against high experienced players such as me,etc. I played 1v1 4x more times than i did CW or 3v3.It is just what players like.I learned to play many countries in 1v1,such Ukraine vs Turkey,etc.I played against Acquiesce,Mou,all good players and that's how i learned 3k,5k,10k, and other countries.Be aware that 1v1 expansion won't work in 3v3,especially if those expansions are big and takes a lot of money,it is not worth.Since you know that Germany will take Poland against Ukraine (well usually),Turkey rush Russia south,so it is better to attack 1 country and take it then to split your troops and get 3 plus it could happen fails,critical,etc.And in 1v1 you have a big choice of strategies which makes you worry what to choose.

Also in 3v3 don't use expensive strategies because if you don't make good economy,you die even if your friends give you money.They may go bankrupt because of that action.Always before 3v3 start,work with your team like it is CW.You must take plans.If you play with no plans then you gonna fail.Like your friend take Paris and you also attacked it which was necessery.If you lose in 3v3 don't be mad,just think positive.Each time you lose you learn more.You learn that using that was bad,etc.And you try to be better every time. Playing 3v3 and 1v1 against low ranks won't give you anything... So in short version 1v1 and 3v3 isn't the same.It is whole different thing.

Tarafından yazıldı Htin, 17.02.2015 at 12:21

Being a ukraine player your opponent can get scandavanian from you. and over expanding is not good when you have a turk on your border threatening your ukraine's kiev

Expanding is away good, you will earn troops and money. So is overexpanding.

Where to expand?When to expand? How do I know if is the right time for expand? Those question are not relevant to this issue.

All those situation that I've said were previously specified as "common", based on my experience watching games. I do no mean they happens 100% of the times.

---

1vs1 games are superior to 3vs3 games in every aspect.

(from my experience) rushes are so much easier in 1v1s, since once you take their cap you can get capped and as long as you take their cap first you still win

So I guess a difference is in 1v1s you can afford to be really agressive