Convince me about playing on any speed lower than Quick

[mintcandy]

I admit it, I play on Quick speed. It's mostly because I like the quicker pace of building and research, especially in the early game. Finally, I like how the cultural requirements for new policies are much lower in Quick games than other speeds, for the same exact benefit. Ditto that for the excess happiness requirements for Golden Ages.

I tried a game on Marathon, and I nearly threw my laptop across my room when I saw that Scouts take 20 turns+ on King Marathon, and that it took even longer to discover the cheapest tech. I hated how the only thing I was doing in the first 20-30 turns was issuing orders to my single Warrior.

Keep in mind that I'm easing into King difficulty. I haven't found any compelling reason to use any other game speed than Quick. I really like being able to finish my games in fewer turns. I'd love to hear some arguments for slowing my game down.

 

[FeiLing]

Quick/Standard for me. Epic and Marathon are just awfully slow.

What can be annoying on Quick is: Building X would just take 2 turns. Building Y just takes 2 more turns. And woops I jsut researched 3 new techs that give me 3 new buildings. And so it goes on. I often find myself buildings everything just because it only takes a turn or two - while on Standard speed these buildings would need 7-10 turns and I likely wouldn't queue them endlessly but instead only get the very most useful/effective stuff.

 

[Tabarnak]

Depend which difficulty you like to play. For immortal and deity levels, quick speed can be really a pain in the ass when you have to go to war. Units become obsolete pretty fast.

 

[Fluffball]

As Tabarnak mentioned the main advantage to slower speeds is that units become obsolete a lot less quickly and thus you can gain more use from them, specifically when they are of the game changing type such as many UU's.

Going from quick to marathon in a single jump is probably a bad way to do it as the change is drastic as you noticed.

I would say it depends on your play style a lot too as to what speed is good for you. If you like to play culturally for example then you will likely have few cities and few units and would find yourself with large expanses of turns with nothing to do which is only amplified on slower speeds. If you tend to go for a larger empire and a more militaristic approach then slower speeds aren't so effected by these slumps as you have a lot to do and when playing larger maps in particular having more turns to play with allows you to effectively travel further than you would in quicker games and thus i tend to change speeds partly based on the size of map i am playing.

Overall though i would generalise by saying that if you like games which go quickly and aren't so immersed in the experience then quicker speeds are better where as if you enjoy immersing yourself in the experience and like to take the time to develop then slower speeds are more suited.

On the note of easing into king difficulty, there is a consensus that slower speeds are easier as you have more opportunity to correct your mistakes for example or if you destroy an enemy unit it takes a large chunk of time for it to replace it but in some ways it is also harder as RA's take much longer to mature so you have to look much further ahead when looking to sign one as there is much more scope for it to be cancelled in some way before it does mature.

 

[smallfish]

Epic is a fine balance of historical and lolo gameplay

I love watching me some 600 year wars, that actually take about 300+ turns.

 

[durian]

I play on Standard/Epic. Slower speeds can allow you to use a unit for lot longer before they become obsolete, which makes warmongering a bit easier.

 

[mintcandy]

One side effect I've noticed as a direct result of my preference for Quick games is an over reliance on the Aztec Unique Ability + Raging Barbarians + Honor Starter Policy.

It's not unheard of to get 20+ cpt with that combination alone before the Medieval Age, which really jumpstarts policy acquisition due to the rock bottom culture requirements in Quick games. I won't lie, I love farming barbs for lots of early policies, but it's crippling my Civtitude.

So, I've been trying King difficulties with a non Aztec civilization...the Mongols. Yeah, I know, that's hardly a downgrade, but small steps, right?

 

[Tabarnak]

One side effect I've noticed as a direct result of my preference for Quick games is an over reliance on the Aztec Unique Ability + Raging Barbarians + Honor Starter Policy.

It's not unheard of to get 20+ cpt with that combination alone before the Medieval Age, which really jumpstarts policy acquisition due to the rock bottom culture requirements in Quick games. I won't lie, I love farming barbs for lots of early policies, but it's crippling my Civtitude.

So, I've been trying King difficulties with a non Aztec civilization...the Mongols. Yeah, I know, that's hardly a downgrade, but small steps, right?

If you like farming barbs with raging barbs option you should try marathon...quick speed doesn't bring anything better when you exploit units.

Mongols? A downgrade?

 

[mintcandy]

If you like farming barbs with raging barbs option you should try marathon...quick speed doesn't bring anything better when you exploit units.

Sure it does, the double culture gained from killing numerous barbs on Quick gets several policies way quicker in the pre Renaissance game than on Marathon, due to the lower cultural thresholds on Quick. How many social policies can one get in Marathon before the requirement exceeds 200 sans Wonders? I'd be surprised if it was more than 2. In Quick, I think it's like 6 or 7.

Raging barbs + encampment near a Militaristic City State is even better.

Given that the cultural requirements for policies are less in Quick than in other settings, and given that the Aztec Unique Ability gives the same amount of culture for a unit kill regardless of time setting, it would seem that the Aztecs gain a (small!) advantage in Quick games that really isn't matched in any other civilization.

Mongols? A downgrade?

Well, a downgrade in the sense that the Mongols don't have the Sacrificial Captives ability that I've grown accustomed to.

Yeah, I know, I know. The Keshik more than makes up for the culture gained from unit kills.

 

[blasto]

"YOU WANT TO PLAY ON A SPEED LOWER THAN QUICK.." <mental force projection>

 

[Tabarnak]

Just saying that you can kill more barbs at marathon for the same era(until 0AD for example). You can explore more land, encounter even more barbs!

 

[Atlas627]

Here is the best reason to play on Standard: the game was balanced for that speed. Unit movement and hp are balanced for the number of turns they take to build. Everything else scales correctly with speed changes, but units do not. And thus opportunity costs for units do not. Like value of buildings. And turns. And strategic resources.

 

[mintcandy]

Here is the best reason to play on Standard: the game was balanced for that speed.

Okay, that's an interesting argument. I have to ponder on that one for awhile.

 

[mintcandy]

Just saying that you can kill more barbs at marathon for the same era(until 0AD for example). You can explore more land, encounter even more barbs!

Meh. Killing barbarians is just a means to an end, or rather, several ends: gaining a capped amount of combat experience, gaining culture/gold, and gaining City State influence.

The lower culture requirements for social policies in Quick compared to Marathon means I have to kill less barbarians per turn to get the same amount of social policies in Marathon. What's not to like about that?

Besides, the amount of CS influence for killing a barbarian doesn't change, which means it takes the same amount of barbarians to get Ally status for a given City State regardless of whether I'm playing Marathon or Quick. It's not like the barbarian spawn rate for a given encampment in Marathon is that different than the rate in Quick, right?

Thus, the more barbarians argument for Marathon doesn't really hold much water for me. I can kill less barbarians in Quick games to have much more cultural impact (that is, generating more social policies in less turns) than I would killing the same amount of barbarians in Marathon. Furthermore, I'm more interested in killing barbarians near City States than I am killing them in the middle of nowhere, and I don't see how Marathon increases the chances of barbarians spawning near City States compared to Quick.

I do understand what many have said, though: a longer time period extends the amount of turns a unit is effective for, which is particularly useful for units that have promotions that are useless when the unit is upgraded...like War Chariots, Camel Archers, and Keshiks.

In a related topic, one thing I read about Gods and Kings that has me giddy is the introduction of units to avoid the hassle of upgrading promoted Ranged units into types that can't use previous Ranged exclusive promotions. I can finally put the promotions of my Crossbowmen to good use in the late game, wohoo!

I wonder if Gods and Kings will address the issue of the mounted units that have Ranged promotions.

In an even more tangential related topic, I wonder if Gods and Kings will prevent users from choosing promotions for units that can't use them. Specifically, I'm talking about circumstances like enabling the Bombardment promotion tree for Submarines, even though Submarines can't attack disembarked land units. I think Carriers are another example: the Bombardment and Targeting promotion trees are available to Carriers, even though Carriers cannot make attacks against naval units nor land units.

Personally, it'd be cool if Carriers had their own promotion branches (upgrading the Fighter capacity anyone?) although it's difficult to imagine how Carriers could gain the experience for such promotions, outside of experience from military buildings.

 

[mintcandy]

Cripes, double post. Sorry.

 

[The Pilgrim]

The lower culture requirements for social policies in Quick compared to Marathon means I have to kill less barbarians per turn to get the same amount of social policies in Marathon. What's not to like about that?

The same thing one may not like about marathon. The fact it makes the game easier if you choose a non-aggressive approach while longer speeds make it easier for warmongers.
All the points you've mentioned are the proof to what GamerKG has said: the game is balanced based on standard speed. Non standard speeds are not well balanced and favor certain group of players. What to like about that?

 

[mintcandy]

The same thing one may not like about marathon. The fact it makes the game easier if you choose a non-aggressive approach while longer speeds make it easier for warmongers.
All the points you've mentioned are the proof to what GamerKG has said: the game is balanced based on standard speed. Non standard speeds are not well balanced and favor certain group of players. What to like about that?

I see your point.

Still, it seems like Quick is all but ignored by most players, and also that Marathon is favored more than Standard.

Hmmm...I think the best argument against Quick is that civilizations tend to become less distinctive due to how quickly their unique units become obsolete.

Makes an elegant form of sense, I guess. I was playing Quick Washington games for awhile to get the Land Baron achievement, and in each game I was actively delaying the discovery of Rifling so that I could get more Minutemen out. Same goes for my favored Aztecs, in almost every game, I'm actively delaying the discovery of Metal Working to get more Jaguars out.

Is this behavior understandable for Quick games? To those that don't play Quick (everyone but me, I think. ), do you still find yourselves delaying technologies that obsolete your Unique Units?

 

[Tabarnak]

Is this behavior understandable for Quick games? To those that don't play Quick (everyone but me, I think. ), do you still find yourselves delaying technologies that obsolete your Unique Units?

Keep in mind that i never played a marathon game and most of my games were played under quick speed. So you aren't alone

Key techs are even more important at quick speed because of the relatively short period of time that you can get advantage over it. Even for UUs. Mostly because we can upgrade them to better units(example : Jags into super swordmen).

I do play standard and epic for sp games and these speeds are more well suited for sp because a human army rushes can be so stealthly and pretty fast(some wars are 3-4 turns of length only) that it's very difficult to produce in a short period of time some extra units to counter some attacks. An AI will have some difficulties to take a more direct and efficient path to victory. It was easier in civ4 because you can whip and draft units. You can also buy units in civ5 but rarely en masse in mp games.

 

[Buccaneer]

In Civ4, it was always Epic speed but for Civ5, it's been nothing but Standard. Seems to be just the right pacing and balance. But then again, each my games take a very methodical 20-40 hours to play over a few weeks.

 

[tetley]

Don't play Quick because you hate your real life job. You need to quit your job and play Civ5 full-time, on Marathon.