il put it more simply, i believe im just as good at FFA as i am at H2H whatever skill level that is ,the game doesnt change drastically from my point of view.
Also, your own record represents the same thing...you were 10-2 in h2h last i checked and that is much better than your ffa record. packrat, myself, and most people are in a similar situation.
It is quite simple: In FFA there are 4 players. In H2H there are 2. So you have to beat 2 more players in FFA to win. So do your opponents. Of course you are going to win less games in FFA due to the variance in the game. You cannot always overcome that with skill since at least one of the other 3 players will have a much better start when yours is crappy.
Does this mean FFA is more about skill than H2H - not really. In H2H, you can overcome a bad start with skill, in FFA you might be stuck with your bad start if there are enough decent players in the room.
I am pretty sure that most of the guys who have a stellar FFA record hardly ever play with more than one other decent player in the game (if at all). Playing against 3 kittens does not tell you anything. Playing against 1 good guy and 2 kittens can be more difficult than H2h. But can also be much easier since there are many players out there that are worse than the AI and they preferably play FFA (quick match). And there is only one AI to grab. So whoever starts close to it, gets an advantage.
There are strategies that work better in FFA that have little merit in H2H. But you cannot always turtle and watch the others kill each other if one of those guys is bringing the fight to you even if you donīt want to. Then you are stuck with wasting your resources on defending and watch somebody else take off in tech etc. Not fair, is it? Or what if two of the other guys team up on you?
I am really tired of reading how "FFA players" discredit the opinion of "H2H players" which in their minds equals "established forum members" just by categorically denying every point and not really providing reasonable info other than personal opinion in bold font with exclamation marks as absolute statements.
Also the whole luck thing is annoying. Yes, many game summaries refer to battle luck or starting positions. But it still takes skill to leverage that properly. "If my KA had won that even battle..." There have most likely been many more decisions taken before it even gets to that battle and you probably could have taken another route (horses, legions, cats, expansion, ...). Or could have simply brought more force. So maybe that one battle that you deemed so crucial, could have been avoided by better play. Nobody ever talks about that.
I am by no means saying that the right decisions always work in your favor. Sometimes you are just losing too many battles that should not have been lost, but in most cases it is not battle luck that ultimately decides the game, it is you choosing the wrong battles or the wrong timing for them or the wrong city for your attack.
Done with this thread... But REM0 said it the clearest to me. I just know when there is conversation about some dang luck, Ill stick to the sidelines as I used to do before I came to the forums. Guarantee the next people throwing luck into the equation of a game (Civ Rev) they discrediting any skill that person has/had to make a decision or not but stick to himself or whatever but the person claiming luck simply feels he should always win. It stays HILARIOUS people who rage quit, get silent after they were talking, cuss a storm or start making excuses when the game looks bleak. I have been victim to probably getting a bit silent because Im focusing but when people don't even answer anything someone says after the game is over... too funny. You win in this game and ya lose. Some people think they GOT to win every time and find some oblivious factor to blame it on when probably your decision weighed more heavily than what you determined luck.