How different is 1V1 and 2V2 from 3V3 and 4V4

I know they play differently, I have read that all over this forum and it's not that I do not believe you all but I'm just wondering in what way is it different? Does it "feel" different, do you need to use other tactics, different units or something else? Is it harder to play 1v1 and 2v2 than large teamgames? What is it exactly?

I'm essentially looking for the core difference between the two.
I usually play large teamgames (3v3 and 4v4) but I'm looking to branch out to 1v1 and 2v2.
I have played a few 2V2 matches in the past but not enough to really notice any difference. Haven't played 1v1 yet though.

I know they play difefrently, I have read that all over this forum and it's not that I do not believe you all but I'm just wondering in what way is it different? Does it "feel" different, do you need to use other tactics, different units or something else? Is it harder to play 1v1 and 2v2 than large teamgames? What is it exactly?

I'm essentially looking for the core difference between the two.
I usually play large teamgames(3v3 and 4v4) but I'm looking to branch out to 1v1 and 2v2.
I have played a few 2V2 matches in the past but not enough to really notice any difference. Haven't played 1v1 yet though.

When you play 1v1s you are the only one to blame if you lose and you take all the credit if you win. All that matters is your skill and maybe meta, this is why it's the most competitive mode. Some also have a kind of '1v1 anxiety' and prefer playing bigger modes. 2v2 is probably the balanced point between 1v1 skill and 4v4 teamplay possibilities.

And yes, they do play differently and you have to use different units. I mean, you don't have to, but if the opponent is at your level and uses the meta you most propably lose. Also 1v1 has most capture points per player out of all gamemodes, so while there is a constant frontline in bigger ones, everything changes very quickly here.

1v1 to go if you want to become true #mlg dorito quickblobber

One thing: the maps for 3v3, 4v4 are much bigger. On them I feel like it takes forever for units to get into position, retreat, etc. Forward reinforcement becomes more important on big maps, for the same reason.

The biggest and most important thing for me, is that 1v1 is running and capping game, while 2v2 and higher is fully positional battle with pushing forward and being pushed back fronline. I prefer frontline battle over running and capping.

1:

Resources

4v4 tends to have significantly higher resource income, initially because 4 players have more capping power so more points get capped faster, later because almost all points will get cached up sooner or later

This tends to mean that teching is faster and that there are more vehicles on the map


2:

Game Length

Because 4 players are harder to drive off the map and kill than 1, and because of the higher resource income, comebacks are easier and it is harder to win a game in a single offensive. As such games tend to be longer.

This means that large late game units and abilities with high CP values are more likely to come into play and you can afford more of them

3:

Map Size

Greater map size makes it slower to get back into action and benefits factions with forward retreat points.

eg:

USF Fast MAJ is often more important than getting CPT tier or any light vehicles


4:

Rhythm

Because of the higher resource income in 4v4 build orders are different to 1v1. There is also the issue that in 1v1 you cannot specialise so much, you cannot for example rely on your teammates for hard AT and tech through without building them


5:

Tech and Strat decisions

As resources are plentiful, teching is fast and the game will probably go to distance you generally want to get the best units you can as soon as possible.

Intermediate tech choices such as going P-IVs had better be something that wins you the game, or they will be out-classed later on.


Kaitof has observed that 4v4 often comes down to making most efficient use of your pop-cap than anything else


Further the fast teching often out classes medium level call in vehicles, going mobile Defence and getting a Puma at CP6 loses some impact when Panthers and Shermans can hit the field at CP4 or so


There's also synergistic strat decisions through picking complementary commanders


6:

Different Units

Not just because of all the above, but also because in 1v1 you only have to worry about one opponent and what he might do, in 4v4 there are 4 opponents whose units can threaten you

As such fragile units that require careful micro, such as snipers, have a short life expectancy in 4v4 and don't get used that much

7:

Different Skill Sets

4v4 involves reading the game, observing 7 other people and what they are doing

1v1 only needs to focus on 1 opponent and control your own units


For this reason 1v1 skills in micro translate better into 4v4 than 4v4 skills help in 1v1

Conversely though 4 people who try to play a 4v4 as 4 1v1s will generally lose to people who play it as a 4v4


8:

Balance

Late game comes faster and lasts longer, so the balance in 4v4 is more heavily focused on late game where Axis have the advantage through better Vet (OKW) and better tanks

The biggest and most important thing for me, is that 1v1 is running and capping game, while 2v2 and higher is fully positional battle with pushing forward and being pushed back fronline. I prefer frontline battle over running and capping.

Capping and capping orders are important aspect of 1v1s. But if you have squads harassing your important sectors without a fight your frontline is leaking.

Biggest difference in teamgames and 1v1s is that you don't really need to split your forces. You can have your whole army in same spot so it's easier to control. In 1v1 you may have multiple engagements in different locations.

People here have more or less have stated the differences clearly, I'd say.

And, of course, caches having far more potential (+3 fuel for one player < +3 fuel for four players) with far less cost opportunity (In a strictly theoretical manner: 200 MP cost for one cache in 1v1 from a player that has 200 MP takes away their side's entire pool of 200 MP. 200 MP cost for one cache in 4v4 from a team that has 200 MP each takes away 25% from their side's entire pool of 800 MP).

1 vs 1s = Elit ... Others Mod have maps too much small

+1 to van voort's reply with the following:

Commanders:
There are only a few commanders good in both 1v1 and 4v4 (Guard Motor, Shock Rifle, CAS, Mechanized Assault, Airborne). I normally have different loadouts for each mode. For example, my favorite OST commander is Mobile Defense (Osttruppen, panzer technician, command P4, Puma) but I don't use it in 4v4's. The commanders that are good in all modes are generally the ones that people complain about the most as being OP.


4v4 often dominated by heavies in late game, 1v1 rarely sees more than 1 heavy per side, and some heavies not often built. For example, I've not seen an Elefant in a 1v1 (though not a lot of games as soviet), and rarely see more than 1 IS2. A heavy is 1/4 of your pop cap in a single point, and the support it usually needs takes it to half of your total.

Impact Units:
The USF lieutenant sucks to deal with as OKW in 1v1, as does the followup M20. In 4v4, they're nowhere near as big of a deal. In 4v4, there is less of a window for impact units until heavies arrive.

Teamwork:
One of the most fun games I ever played was with Beemer in a 2v2 where we had several battles that probably turned out much better than they should have because we played as a team (him with Su76's and SU85's, me with penals, guards [before the last patch, when they were pretty awful], and AT guns). It's a lot of fun when everyone plays together. On the other hand, playing in a 4v4 when one of the players decides to go off and do their own thing results in an hour-long train wreck. Probably everyone who is reading this has experienced it if they play a 4v4 with randoms. ie - the player who goes to the top left VP on Steppes and builds a lot of defenses, while the rest of their team continuously loses a 3v4. Then the other team flanks those awesome defenses by coming in between them and their base and they wipe literally every single unit on retreat.

axis get op once you hit 3v3 and 4v4

Much more easier as Axis in big games.

1v1s and 2v2s are small enough that you (and your ally) have a feasible chance of predicting your opponents' moves and of being aware of where their forces are. You can make strategic and tactical decisions based on your opponent's moves.

In 3v3s and 4v4s you rarely can keep track of all the action on the field, and even if you beat an enemy opponent, there's nothing stopping another player's entire army from rolling you over after an extended engagement. 3v3s and especially 4v4s allow for players to go all-in on specific tactics or highly imbalanced army compositions. Going for, say, two Katyushas is rarely feasible in 1v1s but it's very common in 4v4s. Also, having three players send their artillery and offmaps on a single player is something that can't ever happen in 1v1s and 2v2s.

For instance one player could do well against their opponents on one side of a 4v4 map and then decide to drop an opportune arti across the map to help out their allies. That offmap for the most part comes straight out of the blue if your ally and their opponents have been isolated in their engagements. You won't ever face a 2v1 or 3v1 in the smaller matches, and even when you are double teamed in a 2v2, it's not as overwhelming as having 3 or 4 players focus their attention on the VP or fuel point you're trying to hold.

Also, the rate at which you gain CPs is much slower the more players there are. It is very possible to be fielding panthers as Ostheer long before you can call in StuG Es.

One of the most important differences that hasn't been mentioned yet is just how battles play out. In 1v1, there are far fewer units on the field, so it's much more important to get tactical and positional advantages by flanking, etc. In team games, units tend to just drive straight into each other because one, it's harder to get behind an army when they're more numerous and spread out across the map, and two, the maps tend to just be designed in a more straightforward way where flanking it harder to perform.

This is the biggest reason Axis has the advantage in team games- their units tend to just be stronger pound-for-pound than their Allied counterparts. Even if they do cost more, the resources in team games tend to be higher, so it doesn't matter as much when late game comes sooner.

1) Regression to the mean - making a significant mistake in a 1v1 gives your opponent a huge advantage, sometimes it's the end of the game right there. With each new player, the likelyhood of at least one of them making a mistake is higher on both teams, and teammates exist to cover for your mistakes temporarily, meaning you won't automatically collapse just because you lost an important squad early.

2) Games tend to go on longer - in 1v1s, it's not uncommon for a game to be 30 minutes or less, especially if a mistake is made early and exploited well by the other player. In a 3v3 or 4v4, the games almost always reach late game unless it is an extremely experienced team vs an extremely inexperienced team. Even sucky players can usually drag the game out until the King Tigers roll on.

3) Fewer holes in teching - as player count increases, teching choices are no-longer "do we go for that tier" and more "which one of us will go for that tier?" You are less likely to have holes in your tech structure, and more likely to have at least one of every kind of important unit. The effects of tech decisions are diluted, and the strengths and weaknesses of specific factions are diluted similarly when you have players of different factions on the same team. Everything sort of averages out with larger player counts.

4) More plentiful resources - Since resource sectors give to everyone, and caches give resources to everyone, the number of caches on the field increases dramatically in larger team games, often every single safe sector will have a cache on it. This means that tiering happens faster than in smaller game modes, and more expensive units are more frequent per player.


Since USF is designed to be strong early but have (relatively) poor late game, and since OKW is designed to be fuel starved, points 2) and 4) lead to large team games being axis-favoured. The larger the player count, the more axis favoured. Statistics have supported this.

Great replies everyone! Much appreciated!