reddishrecue
Some dude on civfans
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,212
So what speed is preferred, quick, standard, epic or marathon by most people?
speed preference
- Thread starter reddishrecue
- Start date
I do standard but I've modded my XML to have epic research. This allows the game to feel not too rushed. I'm going to make some adjustments though and make it so that the turns move at the same speed of epic so im not using great war infantry in the 60s lol
jmartin251
Chieftain
Come you should have GDRs by the 60s
I play some on standard, and some on Marathon. Really all it seems to effect is how long research takes because by mid game your production seems to be happening just as fast a standard. Marathon just seems to help draw the game out longer
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2
senshidenshi
Switched the Red and Blue channels
I prefer quick, mainly because I usually play Science or Cultural and don't want to click "Next Turn" for even more time.
Teproc
King
Standard. I might try Epic one of these days, but not Quick and definitely not Marathon.
because in quick you can have a war where gunpowder obsoletes archers etc. games feel rushed and "thin".
for me the best alternative was to have epic research and standard eveything else, so that wars could happen but the technology didnt rush along either.
for me the best alternative was to have epic research and standard eveything else, so that wars could happen but the technology didnt rush along either.
The question is tied directly to map size.
On standard map size I much prefer standard speed because anything else is either too quick or too slow.
For a bigger map though, standard is too quick while marathon remains too slow.
On standard map size I much prefer standard speed because anything else is either too quick or too slow.
For a bigger map though, standard is too quick while marathon remains too slow.
jmartin251
Chieftain
Epic is a nice bridge between the two then. About 50% longer than standard.
Sent from my DROID RAZR HD using Tapatalk 2
KmDubya
King
Epic on large maps has a nice feel to it. Expansion is penalized less so tradition five city is not as big as you can get, makes liberty competitive. Ignoring military as you boom into higher tech is more dangerous as you can't bang out units fast enough if the AI catches you unprepared. At epic speed pillage repair does not work as even with pyramids it still takes two turns to repair.
It really depends on the map size.
It really depends on the map size.
Not a fan of waiting 24 turns to build a non wonder building. Loooooooooooooong production is what kills it for me. So quick would be my favorite , yet i still play standard because exploration is very , very difficult to do on quick.
In theory i would very much like epic and marathon.... If i had 64 12gb cores , 128gb ram and 4 graphic cards maybe it would be quick enough to keep me in the game beyond 1800 A.D
In theory i would very much like epic and marathon.... If i had 64 12gb cores , 128gb ram and 4 graphic cards maybe it would be quick enough to keep me in the game beyond 1800 A.D
Myth and Legend
Prince
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2014
- Messages
- 328
The game wouldn't utilize them anyway.
VicRatlhead5199
King
With mods, epic or marathon. Without it's standard. If I intend to stay peaceful it's quick all the way, no reason to slow things down then imo.
I use a mod that speeds up unit production but leaves buildings and settlers the same. Makes wars more fun since the AI doesn't get wiped out as easy and it's possible to build an army quicker.
I use a mod that speeds up unit production but leaves buildings and settlers the same. Makes wars more fun since the AI doesn't get wiped out as easy and it's possible to build an army quicker.
IslandBlue
Chieftain
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2011
- Messages
- 31
My vote went for 'standard.'
reddishrecue
Some dude on civfans
- Joined
- Nov 16, 2009
- Messages
- 6,212
i usually chose quick on the standard maps that I usually play. I used to choose standard, but I realized that the game lasted so much more to end. Quick speed makes games a lot quicker.
I don't have THAT much of a nasa system (just a top of the line Alienware...top of the line by late 2012 standards) and I have my turns in 2000 take AT MOST a minute. That's with 18 civs on a huge map. I have a feeling people exaggerate turn times.
Or they don't use the Quick Turns mod.
I play on Epic. Standard's nice and all but on the huge maps I enjoy, you tend to run into the whole obsolete army problem. Have an army of Comb Bows, Swords, Catapults, Horsemen, and by the time you reach your enemy, their Knights and Crossbows nuke you. Yeah, no.
bcaiko
Emperor
The game is balanced for Standard. On Quick, you're killing any Civ that has a very early UU. (As if early warmongering hasn't already been nerfed to death.) And on later speeds, you're denying access to any Civ that has a later UU or UA benefit.
Obviously there's an option to mess with the game however you want, but I'm a fan of playing the game as intended.
Obviously there's an option to mess with the game however you want, but I'm a fan of playing the game as intended.
How am I denying later game Unique civs? Its not like the game is over at the Rennaissance already unless I'm doing silly stuff like Huns on a Small Pangaea map...
Epic is great for huge maps for that reason.
Similar threads
