Harder To Win On EPIC or MARATHON...Or...

A lot of people don't like to play marathon, so your argument that lack of recorded/discussed wins equates to it not being easy, holds no water.

The same arguments that were used in Civ4 still work - the slower, the easier, because it is more forgiving of small mistakes, and you press temporary advantages for more turns.

I played a marathon game with Greece, and defeated 5 Civs with Hoplites. I could not have done that on standard speed.

You defeated 5 civs with hoplites on deity, or even emperor?

Seriously, marathon play really needs to be at least on a large map.

The average player doesn't play huge maps anyways...so your point is invalid.

The average player does not play marathon... not really sure how invalid something is because it is not average.
 
You defeated 5 civs with hoplites on deity, or even emperor?

Seriously, marathon play really needs to be at least on a large map.



The average player does not play marathon... not really sure how invalid something is because it is not average.
Emperor, I am not a deity player. I should probably move up to immortal though. It was a fun little exercise, but I was amazed by how much longer units are useful. You can also easily afford the time to heal your units and advance slowly. Since unit production is slowed, but healing isn't slowed at all, killing AI units carefully with the goal to minimize losses on your own side, and healing up after, really kills the AI production advantage.

Edit: Oh, and the remark about marathon not being played much is relevant because of the earlier remark about "where are all the deity marathon wins". The lack of marathon deity wins is not because marathon is harder, but because many people don't like to play a game of civ that lasts so long.
 
After more than 400 hours of gameplay on both standard and marathon, there is no doubt in my mind that marathon is easier. Why? Because you have that much more time to abuse the AI. Even on deity.
 
Top Bottom