Does slower game speed make technological advance easier?

[rfcfanatic]

Hi everyone,

A moment ago, I finished (1704 AD, domination victory) a Huge Pangaea Marathon game as Elizabeth of England on Noble difficulty. Having discovered Liberalism in 10th century, training my first Infantry in 1496, my first Tank in 1660, entering the modern era in 1680 and discovering Flight in 1700 raised a question - does the technological advance really get easier when the game speed gets slower?

Even Hannibal, the most advanced AI opponent, had Machine Guns by mid-17th century, had finished working on Combustion in early 18th century and started working on Flight which would have taken 45 turns or so to discover. They traded some of their techs to some of their AI friends as well, so the whole world became relatively advanced.

Hannibal had discovered Hinduism and somehow it had become a global religion. Since I didn't want to go to war against the whole world, I too converted to Hinduism and spread it to my cities. The shrine must have brought Hannibal an enormous amount of gold income.

 

[lymond]

Everything is easier when the game speed slows. In fact your dates are actually quite slow for experienced players at those settings. Search for some of the Huge Mara games around here like WastinTime and Seriael. Personally, I don't like those settings at all.

 

[Manco Capac]

Does slower game speed make technological advance easier?

Yes, it has to do with the divisibility of tech number of turns. The problem with faster gamespeed, the cost/value of a tech is so weak compared to your empire science output (and notice this factor doesn't change when keeping same mapsize for different gamespeeds) that the divisibility is also weak. For instance, let imagine a fictitious tech worth 66 beakers on quick speed while worth 300 on marathon. Obviously there are more possible integers on a marathon tech cost than quick speed. And that is a location where improvement can be done humongously.

 

[Zx Zero Zx]

Everything is easier on the slower speeds because it is even easier to get massive amounts of land. And the more land you have the faster you research.

 

[rfcfanatic]

Everything is easier on the slower speeds because it is even easier to get massive amounts of land. And the more land you have the faster you research.

Indeed. When I played Huge maps on Quick speed, I usually managed to build 3 cities by 1000 BC. Now, on Marathon, I often manage to build 4 cities by 1500 BC, occasionally even by 2000 BC. In addition to that, early rush is a way easier on Marathon.

 

[rfcfanatic]

I used to play Huge maps on Quick until I received some feedback in this thread about why Huge maps shouldn't be played on Quick speed. I learned that game speed must be adapted to map size: Marathon/Huge, Epic/Large, Normal/Standard, Quick/Small. That's why I started playing Huge maps on Marathon speed.

Slavery and especially tech bulbing are game features which I found completely useless on Quick speed. But on Marathon, I have just learned how valuable these are. For example, bulbing a tech which would otherwise take 5 turns to research, seems like a waste of GP when game speed is Quick. But on Marathon, there is a huge difference if you bulb a tech in 1 turn or research it for 40 turns.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Yes, it has to do with the divisibility of tech number of turns. The problem with faster gamespeed, the cost/value of a tech is so weak compared to your empire science output (and notice this factor doesn't change when keeping same mapsize for different gamespeeds) that the divisibility is also weak. For instance, let imagine a fictitious tech worth 66 beakers on quick speed while worth 300 on marathon. Obviously there are more possible integers on a marathon tech cost than quick speed. And that is a location where improvement can be done humongously.

Everyone functionally having fast workers (with india having a diminishing-return faster worker) helps too...as does the triple-speed settlers (faster plants once they're produced) and faster military conquests/assimilations, faster healing on a scale basis, faster "forgetting" of requests/trades, etc.

Divisibility is a significant factor, but it is far from the only one. The move speed of workers/settlers compared to tech rate/growth/etc is extremely significant. Whereas a worker might have spent 1/4 or more of his improvement time moving, it shaves to less than half of that. Multiply that by 100+ tile improvements over time and the result is pretty silly. India's fast workers on normal have nothing on all workers on marathon!

 

[Mylene]

It's also that mistakes matter less on slower game speeds, while AIs researching silly techs spend a long time on that (for example when you attack, and instead of Feuda they tech something else, they will really be stuck with nothing for a long long time).

 

[TheMeInTeam]

It's also that mistakes matter less on slower game speeds, while AIs researching silly techs spend a long time on that (for example when you attack, and instead of Feuda they tech something else, they will really be stuck with nothing for a long long time).

It masks micro mistakes too. When I move my worker improperly on marathon, I lose out FAR less than I would have lost on normal.

That you have an eternity during war, which is the AI's least capable area, is arguably the single greatest advantage, though there are many.

 

[Manco Capac]

That's true, TMIT. And to add to injury, we have -33% the cost of workers/units (except settler, prolly to avoid faster cities) than expected. We expect a worker worth 180 on marathon, but it is actually worth 120 , a cost between Epic Speed and Marathon.

I do understand the intent from devs to minimize extreme waiting periods in pumping units, so to offset a bit to the down the surprise effects like a rush. Imagine one coming after you with a gigantic big stack hastened by speed and the one caught pants down is struggling to set its defensive army just because units cost 3*normal speed. I understand their intent, but it turned out marathon is too advantaged.

 

[Manco Capac]

In the modding terrain, it seems some modders created gamespeeds far far slower than marathon; I cannot imagine the unbalance.

So to resume:

• Quick edges like military bulbs are boosted.
• Units except settlers are discounted.
• Better divisibility.
• Faster units, thus faster cities and faster conquest.
• Easier diplo for some and harder for others. More forgiving in term of decay.
• Spy economy is better thanks to -50% worth mere 5 marathon turns.
• Faster healing.
• Snowball effect: fights can be lucky, but if one strikes a streak of extreme luck, then the higher number of turns allow more victims.
• Forgiving on micro errors and worker wasted turns are less weighted than other speeds.

Did I miss something?

 

[Core Imposter]

Does not the scaling of units costs apply to the AI also, and would this not lead them to have even more units thus mitigating the issue somewhat?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Does not the scaling of units costs apply to the AI also, and would this not lead them to have even more units thus mitigating the issue somewhat?

If the AI managed its units comparably to humans, maybe.

In practice, however, the slower speed mitigates their bonuses considerably because on, say, imm or especially deity the AI can produce units nearly as fast (in some cases faster) as you can heal your current forces after killing a large stack. I remember one deity game somewhat un-fondly where I had rifle/cannon vs monty on 8 cities and couldn't beat his medieval forces...I'd kill his 25 unit stack while taking a few losses here and there (well promo'd knights), then I'd heal for a few turns with a supermedic and oh look! 20+ more units. Over and over again until he "caught up" in tech.

On marathon? The win:loss ratio compounds on the AI which is now producing CONSIDERABLY slower than my units heal, I gain a numbers advantage that can attack after killing his forces, and he's slaughtered before he can sniff rifling.

Marathon unit production causes that much of a difference.

 

[Core Imposter]

If the AI managed its units comparably to humans, maybe.

In practice, however, the slower speed mitigates their bonuses considerably because on, say, imm or especially deity the AI can produce units nearly as fast (in some cases faster) as you can heal your current forces after killing a large stack. I remember one deity game somewhat un-fondly where I had rifle/cannon vs monty on 8 cities and couldn't beat his medieval forces...I'd kill his 25 unit stack while taking a few losses here and there (well promo'd knights), then I'd heal for a few turns with a supermedic and oh look! 20+ more units. Over and over again until he "caught up" in tech.

Well, did you win that game and if so, how?

I'm struggling with immortal marathon at the moment so I have yet to learn how to be so dominating.

 

[cseanny]

A moment ago, I finished (1704 AD, domination victory) a Huge Pangaea Marathon game as Elizabeth of England on Noble difficulty. Having discovered Liberalism in 10th century, training my first Infantry in 1496, my first Tank in 1660, entering the modern era in 1680 and discovering Flight in 1700 raised a question - does the technological advance really get easier when the game speed gets slower?

To answer the highlighted text, yes it does. But in general, all your tech times given seem extremely slow on Marathon and in 90%+ of most normal game settings you would have already accomplished those dates (most case much earlier).

 

[rfcfanatic]

I do understand the intent from devs to minimize extreme waiting periods in pumping units, so to offset a bit to the down the surprise effects like a rush. Imagine one coming after you with a gigantic big stack hastened by speed and the one caught pants down is struggling to set its defensive army just because units cost 3*normal speed. I understand their intent, but it turned out marathon is too advantaged.

There is actually one disadvantage on slower speeds - Barbarians are more dangerous. Let's compare the two extremes - Marathon and Quick. In my experience, on Marathon speed, Huge map and Noble difficulty, Barbarian Spearmen usually appear around 1800 BC and Axemen around 1500 BC. No copper by then - and there may be a big trouble. I'm often forced to make a detour to Archery or Iron Working (yes, some people call it a detour!) because of that.

As a contrast, I have rarely seen Barbarian Axemen in BC era when playing on Quick speed.

 

[blunderwonder]

I tried marathon once, went back to normal like a 5 hour game isnt long enough lol

 

[rfcfanatic]

But in general, all your tech times given seem extremely slow on Marathon and in 90%+ of most normal game settings you would have already accomplished those dates (most case much earlier).

Yes I know that I didn't beeline these techs directly, because I made several detours. For example Democracy and Military Tradition in Renaissance Era and I also prioritized medieval military techs more than Education/Liberalism.

But still, which dates should I aim next time?

 

[iggymnrr]

Indeed. When I played Huge maps on Quick speed, I usually managed to build 3 cities by 1000 BC. Now, on Marathon, I often manage to build 4 cities by 1500 BC, occasionally even by 2000 BC. In addition to that, early rush is a way easier on Marathon.

My inner conqueror is gnashing his teeth. I want to say that the last game I played at the settings mentioned I had conquered more cities by the dates mentioned by a prime factor greater than two. Learn econ control and timidity will disappear.

 

[admtanaka]

I learned civ 4 on epic (I'm not sure why) and it was really to my own detriment. It took some learning to get used to normal speed.

Epic (and, sometimes, even slower) speeds work serviceably for mods, but stock BTS is really only truly balanced on normal. Rhye's, however, really needs to be played on epic.