Relatively new to the Civ IV world, having only recently upgraded my pc.

Was a long time casual player of Civ 2 and Civ 3, playing at the best on the difficulties similar to Noble in Civ 4.

I'm interested in really improving my game and being a smarter player. That being said, I was wondering what most players play Civ 4 on, and also the pros and cons of the different speeds.

Thanks in advance. Oh, and let me get one of these little icons in here, just for fun!

:stupid:

Used to play Normal, but now it's Epic for me. Makes the game last longer, giving more tactical and strategic decisions. Marathon is too long for me though.

Normal and Epic are pretty similar. Quick makes culture a less expensive victory condition, and drastically raises the difficulty of war since on moderate to high levels the AI starts getting 1 unit/turn.

Marathon was added later and is the least balanced of the speeds. I won't go so far as to say it's easier, but it's different and favors warring far more than other speeds. Cities all start with a free military academy (it's hidden, but it's there), barbs are more problematic, and troops move 3x faster than on normal speed. In other words, marathon makes the AI build disproportionately fewer units relative to what you're capable of building. However, if you neglect military you won't have time to recover - you're toast.

I see.

So in an Epic game, do you get techs earlier and such?

I've seen games here on the forums where people have tanks in the 16-1700s, and I can get them in the late late 1800s at best.

Would that change if I were playing on Epic? Or, with time and skill improvement, would I be getting tanks in the 16-1700s on normal?

Thanks!

Slower speeds do allow the player to have things happen in earlier years (especially marathon), but tanks in 1600-1700 is mostly going to be a skill improvement.

The best player I've seen had them in the 1300's on deity and used them along with bombers to completely flatten an entire map. I'm usually happy with infantry around 1600 but I do want to improve also.

I only play marathon. Every other speed is way too fast for me.

...troops move 3x faster than on normal speed.

Is this true? So an axeman can cross three plains/grassland squares in one turn? :eek:

I have not had a chance to try an Epic or Marathon game yet. I never understood what the advantage was. According to http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=9043 (this) (on page 75) a Marathon game has 3 times as many turns, but just about everything takes 3 times longer to complete. So as far as I can see it is "one step forward, one step backward".

The guide I referenced does not say anything about movement speeds. But if this 3x movement thing is true that could really change the calculation.

Is this true? So an axeman can cross three plains/grassland squares in one turn? :eek:

I have not had a chance to try an Epic or Marathon game yet. I never understood what the advantage was. According to http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=9043 (this) (on page 75) a Marathon game has 3 times as many, but just about everything takes 3 times longer to complete. So as far as I can see it is "one step forward, one step backward".

The guide I referenced does not say anything about movement speeds. But if this 3x movement thing is true that could really change the calculation.
As someone who almost always plays Marathon (I like my games long), I have never had an axeman that could move three tiles per turn. Unless it was on a road. I wish I did.

Is this true? So an axeman can cross three plains/grassland squares in one turn? :eek:

I have not had a chance to try an Epic or Marathon game yet. I never understood what the advantage was. According to http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=9043 (this) (on page 75) a Marathon game has 3 times as many turns, but just about everything takes 3 times longer to complete. So as far as I can see it is "one step forward, one step backward".

The guide I referenced does not say anything about movement speeds. But if this 3x movement thing is true that could really change the calculation.

What TMIT means is that in the same amount of game years, you will have moved 3x more squares, since each turn is a smaller amount of years on marathon.

An advantage of marathon/epic is that units don't get obsolete as quickly since techs take longer to research and resources take longer to hook up

I almost always play on Normal; my understanding is the game's been "optimized" for normal speed. I think it's the best compromise between the slower majestic speeds or the hurry up let's get tanks speed.

I play on epic. I wish I could do marathon but it's just to slow for me.

So my inability to get good techs early is directly a result of my (ahem) stinkage at this game?

I've been watching on this site some master's games, but I can only seem to win on Noble 1/3 times.

Dang, they make it look so easy!!

Back to the drawing board. :aargh:

I would recommend reading:

Sulla's Civilization IV Walkthrough
Sisiutil's Strategy Guide for Beginners
War Academy

Welcome to the Forums JaySabz. :beer:

I prefer normal and epic speeds.

But IMO the more important factor in this decision is the mapsize. I'd never play Marathon at Normal mapsize or lower, and never Quick speed at Normal mapsize or larger. I wouldn't go outside the following settings in my usual games. As much as Marathon is supposedly unbalanced it is still reasonable for Huge maps IMO. Going Marathon for a normal map is overkill though.

Duel map: Quick, Normal
Tiny map: Quick, Normal
Small map: Normal
Normal map: Normal, Epic
Large map: Epic, Marathon
Huge map: Epic, Marathon

I prefer Marathon, but I've seemed to run into some problems with it. Most of my games get to a certain point (not 2050AD) and then I run out of turns, and it's a pain in the $%& to keep playing with the "somebody won a time victory" up, even when a Time victory is not an option.

I prefer Marathon, but I've seemed to run into some problems with it. Most of my games get to a certain point (not 2050AD) and then I run out of turns, and it's a pain in the $%& to keep playing with the "somebody won a time victory" up, even when a Time victory is not an option.

It's a problem in scenario saves usually. Open up the WB save in notepad, and where you see "game speed" and "number of turns", set those to 0.

It's a problem in scenario saves usually. Open up the WB save in notepad, and where you see "game speed" and "number of turns", set those to 0.

I found

MaxTurns=460

which I set to

MaxTurns=0

I'm hoping this is what you meant.

I found

MaxTurns=460

which I set to

MaxTurns=0

I'm hoping this is what you meant.

That should do it.

Looks like you don't have BTS...shame :p.

But, that will work regardless.

I would recommend reading:

Sulla's Civilization IV Walkthrough
Sisiutil's Strategy Guide for Beginners
War Academy

Welcome to the Forums JaySabz. :beer:


Thanks!

Been reading a lot on this site and I've seen a drastic improvement in my play. Installing BtS tonight so we'll see if the AI changes throw me for a loop, but I'm looking forward to it. :thanx:

That should do it.

Looks like you don't have BTS...shame :p.

But, that will work regardless.

Umm... Dude, I paid for BtS. Steam billed me for BtS. It says BtS when the game loads up. I know the scenario was built in Warlords, so maybe that's why the scenario parameters are different. (shrugs) No biggie, but thanks that fix has seemed to have worked on a new game I started in that scenario.

I go between Normal and Marathong. TBH, Epic feels weird and I never do well on epic (usually thinking I have more time for stuff than I do).

Normal is fun for a quicker game, but if I feel like RPing or really getting to know my civ, I'll play Marathon. I'd say it's 70/30 marathon/normal for me.

I play on Marathon, because I'm masochistic. :p

My only Marathon game was excruciating. I compare it to watching paint dry. Epic for me!

I'm a normal person :lol:

I'm a normal person :lol:

Who says? :p

Hence the LOLZORS my Lemony chum ;)

Lets say it takes 10 hours to complete on normal speed. Could I expect a epic game to take 15 hours because of the 50% increase in turns?

10 hours! I finish my Marathon games in 15 hours!

10 hours! I finish my Marathon games in 15 hours!
:lol:

I just used 10 as round number for an example.;)

My average Epic game lasts between 14 and 16 hours, so your estimate would be correct if I'm halfway normal.

I'm sure that ParadigmShifter will insist that I am not, however. :lol:

Your as normal as the rest of us dollface ;)

My marathon games last 35-45 hours but I am slow.
Normal games last 9-15 hours.

Marathon speed you can play the first 200 turns quick but if you are in a big war and like to check your cities alot (like me) it takes a long time.

Umm... Dude, I paid for BtS. Steam billed me for BtS. It says BtS when the game loads up. I know the scenario was built in Warlords, so maybe that's why the scenario parameters are different. (shrugs) No biggie, but thanks that fix has seemed to have worked on a new game I started in that scenario.

Yeah, if it's a warlords-based scenarios it will still have the same # of turns as warlords in there by default. My bad.

Lets say it takes 10 hours to complete on normal speed. Could I expect a epic game to take 15 hours because of the 50% increase in turns?

It depends how you play. Epic adds about 10-20 minutes for me, so games will be around 3 hours rather than in the high 2:40 range, assuming I'm playing at emperor or immortal and not screwing around in a sub 2 hr noble game or something. Nevertheless, epic and/or marathon doesn't HAVE to take a lot longer.

Slower speeds do allow the player to have things happen in earlier years (especially marathon), but tanks in 1600-1700 is mostly going to be a skill improvement.

The best player I've seen had them in the 1300's on deity and used them along with bombers to completely flatten an entire map. I'm usually happy with infantry around 1600 but I do want to improve also.

it's worth noting that that overall tech pace is always going to be faster on higher difficulties, because the AIs tech so fast, and you can ride their coat tails a lot (stealing/trading with them). Also, the cost of a tech decreases if other civs have researched it. So if you're playing noble, and you have a big tech lead, it's hard to tech very fast because you have to research everything yourself and pay full price.

Anyway, standard speed for life, yo.

it's worth noting that that overall tech pace is always going to be faster on higher difficulties, because the AIs tech so fast, and you can ride their coat tails a lot (stealing/trading with them). Also, the cost of a tech decreases if other civs have researched it. So if you're playing noble, and you have a big tech lead, it's hard to tech very fast because you have to research everything yourself and pay full price.

Anyway, standard speed for life, yo.

It's debate-able. The human pays more maintenance and gets increased tech costs on higher difficulties too. The fastest space launches ever are all on settler (obviously the boosts to the human trump the improperly managed deity AI bonuses). If a player is good enough that they equalize and run out in front of the AIs in tech at a given difficulty, they may benefit from a higher difficulty in terms of tech pace. However, top echelon players tech so rapidly that even on deity it's not necessarily clear.

Still, the fastest deity times are quite impressive but not like settler. Probably the middle difficulties (esp the noble-emp/immortal range) are slowest.

I'm a Huge/Marathon Player myself. It makes warfare more fun especially on Pangaea maps. The only caveat is Civ tends to dominate my video game leisure time but that's alright.

I'm a Huge/Marathon Player myself. It makes warfare more fun especially on Pangaea maps. The only caveat is Civ tends to dominate my video game leisure time but that's alright.

Huge Marathon continents for intercontinental invasions were my thing. Now I do a mix of Big/Small, Med/Small, Fractal, Hemispheres, Terra.

I usually allow whatever game I'm currently playing to dominate my video game leisure time. It's why I'll seemingly disappear from civfanatics for a couple months and then reappear. I just came back to playing CIV last week. I had been playing oblivion for 2 months before that. I usually switch between CIV and some XBox360 game.

Epic. I started on normal, but now i only play epic games.

My only Marathon game was excruciating. I compare it to watching paint dry. Epic for me!


Sounds like a problem with your girly attention span. :D

Huge/Marathon for me, and with life constraints on my play time, a game usually takes me a month or so to get through.

Sounds like a problem with your girly attention span. :D
Ok, ok, I am distracted by shiny things. But I keep them all out of the room when I play. Really.

Um... what was I saying?

:p

It's usually Epic these days. I like Marathon in the early game, but I also like huge maps, and Marathon just takes too long in the late game.

(I'd love to see a mod that allows you to adjust the game speed as the game progresses.)

It's usually Epic these days. I like Marathon in the early game, but I also like huge maps, and Marathon just takes too long in the late game.

(I'd love to see a mod that allows you to adjust the game speed as the game progresses.)

I agree. The reason I started playing Normal is b/c in the industrial+ eras/late game, Marathon takes too long (unless I'm going for a space race vic).

But I don't like (on Normal speed) how 1 hour and 30 minutes passes (real time) and I'm already well into the medieval era. I prefer a slower early game, but a quicker late game. I just think there should be a game setting that has a curved game speed instead of linear.

Huge/Marathon for me, and with life constraints on my play time, a game usually takes me a month or so to get through.

Ditto.

I started on Marathon and have since moved up to epic. But, I seem to get myself in trouble when I'm putzing around thinknig I have all this time and then realize it's 400 AD. So I just went back to Marathon for a while. It's more forgiving when I make boneheaded moves (which is all too frequently).

I like the suggestion of a slower early game then an accelerated later game.

Um... what was I saying? :p

:lol: :lol: :lol:

Normal speed for me. I miss the sense of urgency on slower speeds, and quick seems tactically shallow.

It's more forgiving when I make boneheaded moves (which is all too frequently).
I'm sorry, but I must protest. I have the market cornered on boneheaded moves in this game, thank you very much. :p

They don't call me Natasha Quayle for nothing you know... :lol:

I go between Normal and Marathong. TBH, Epic feels weird

I want to play Marathong! Especially before I decide Epic feels weird. :lol:

Seriously though, I held off moving from Normal to Epic because my games take me 20-40 hours to play, which can take anywhere from a week to a month depending on RL. I was afraid I'd either drop dead or get divorced before finishing a game if I took any longer.

However, I'm playing my first Epic game anyway, which happens to also be my first BUG game too. I rationalized it by saying if the improved user interface saves me time, I'll "reinvest it" in a longer game. :mischief: At least, that's my story.

The result? It's like a new game, and so far I like it. And even though I dropped back to Noble for the "adjustment period" I am ready to tackle Prince again.

Now if I could only figure out how not to get screwed over constantly in tech trading....

I think Marathon games are way too fast.

I think Marathon games are way too fast.

Agree. Would it be possible to slow it down even more?

Usually epic, sometimes normal.

Umm, Silver Wizard, I have to talk to you about your avatar.... :)

Umm, Silver Wizard, I have to talk to you about your avatar.... :)

You're the only one to blame for not making a custom one.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=89vPIQbk5Go
:mischief: