G0dSpiral poses this question: How is 2v2 different from 1v1?
How does strategy differ in 2v2 games? Is it fair to sy that strategy is still more similar to 1v1 than to 3v3? After all shouldn't your primary concern be to take care of your closest opponent?
Well with regard to published strategy: NO, not really.
However, there are differences
- Position is more important so that you can combine forces and provide mutual protection.
- Rares are important to get because there are a lot more of them (except on maps like African Watering Hole) -- the map is bigger (so there are more) but you also have double scouting (so you find them faster) From the beginning of the game you can sometimes see up to 3-4 rares right away.
- Risk for rushing increases. It's more difficult to successfully rush, because his ally can send reinforcements or gold to help fend you off, and that might put you behind. And even if you completely take him out, you still haven't won the game. You'll have another opponent to deal with. If both of you are economically weak from a rush, then a good boomer might be able to defeat your side.
- Civ choice makes a difference because certain civs can complement others.
- Teamwork is an important factor to consider. Communicating key terrain, enemy movements, locating rares, sharing advice. All of these things are importnat and are non-existent in 1on1.