Epic or Marathon?

FourthThunder

Chieftain
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
22
I'm fairly new to Civ but all the games I've been playing are Marathon, I do this because I don't like to be rushed and sort of want to get to know my empire intimately. I've heard it's broken though, so is epic a better choice?
 
Marathon is not broken, it's just somewhat easier for the player because ot focuses more on battle tactics, which is one of the weaker spots of the AI. If you enjoy Marathon because it allows you to grow more attached to your empire and your units, then there's little reason to change.
 
I like marathon too for the same reasons and for the fact that wars take a more realistic time scale(no 1000yrs wars).
 
Marathon is too much for me, I've never been able to finish a game. Maybe I lack displine (and spell check...) but I can't handle it. Epic, however, is the speed I always play on. It suits me perfectly.
 
I've tried both and I prefer Epic. Marathon devolves quickly into "click the end turn button 5 times," which is maddening. Epic gives you enough time to keep all units useful without dragging on forever.
 
I prefer Marathon... but I think the fact that my CPU is beefy enough to basically fly through each turn until the late industrial/modern age in a breeze (I just go to turn 500 in 2 hours today, I was amazed at how fast I got to it) lets me prefer Marathon. Epic games are just too short for me. Plus, I play mainly Huge maps, so normal/epic brings the phenomenon of "we left with maces and arrived to meet rifles!", well that's an exagerration.

Back when I had my old PC, I thought Marathon was just horrendously long because my PC couldn't process the AI between my turns fast enough, it would take a bit more than 1 hour just to get to mid-classical age.

Rule of thumb (I mainly play huge, but I play a few large and standard maps if I want a quick 4-6 hour game).

Marathon for Huge Maps
Epic for Large Maps
Epic/Normal Speed for Standard Maps
Normal for Small Maps
 
I'm fairly new to Civ but all the games I've been playing are Marathon, I do this because I don't like to be rushed and sort of want to get to know my empire intimately. I've heard it's broken though, so is epic a better choice?

There's nothing broken about Marathon in Vanilla or Warlords.

Beyond the Sword has a bug that makes a spy mission to poison a city's water supply not scale correctly (or something like that). I don't have BtS, so I don't know exactly. Anyway, there's a new patch that is supposed to be released soon that will fix that bug.

And yes, like you, I'm one of those players that always plays Marathon.
 
I only play marathon and it makes my normal-speed playing brother go bananas. I always want to play on-line in marathon games with him, but mister "I'm too busy to spend 12+ hours on a game of civ because I'm not insane" will only play with me at normal speed.
 
Both are pretty cheap, but marathon in wars vs. the AI is just cheating. You should play NORMAL, as the game is intended, but if you must, play epic.
 
Doesn't Marathon only scale unit production costs 2x and everything else 3x? That means that not only do you need to go through a lot more turns but also you need to move around a lot more units.

War timescales are just fine in Epic. Just don't take it literally.
 
it takes me some 12-25 hours to finish a game by space race in normal speed (im a slow player:rolleyes: ), just about the same that civ3

i was wondering how much take you to finish a game on epic or marathon speed? (normal size)
 
I can usually finish a marathon game in about 6 hours, that's not too long. My computer goes pretty quickly until modern age stuff then it slows down. I just try to win before then, or if I am doing space race then I make sure I am in the mood to go slow.
 
Both are pretty cheap, but marathon in wars vs. the AI is just cheating. You should play NORMAL, as the game is intended, but if you must, play epic.

If the game was intended to only be played at normal speed then the other options wouldn't have been made available by Firaxis. We should play whatever speed we prefer.
 
I really enjoy the diversity that Civ BTS offers in terms of game length. If I feel like playing a quick game, boom, I can play a tiny map with a few civs on quick speed. If however, I want to play a full on game with my special modifications and have a real-world experience I can do a huge map, with multiple civs, on marathon speed.

Just to let you know, a buddy of mine has been working on a MOD that allows you to choose how long an era lasts, and modifies the tech costs accordingly. It's a very cool MOD, and I think if you're a marathon player you would enjoy alot of the advancements made for BTS. You can find the MOD in the creation and customization forum under "World Piece."
 
technically the official patched version of BTS marathon is broken in some ways. You need the unofficial patch. I avoid marathon and only occassionally use epic... they are both too gimmicky and were not balanced correctly in game testing. and if you are playing epic or marathon you are technically playing an easier game, just FYI.

these are extra features thrown into the game because they were easy to throw in... try playing the advanced start feature and you will find all kinds of bugs. I think the original speed and settings really offer the best experience, but of course it's all there for our enjoyment so whatever floats your boat.
 
I play Epic. I like to have the time to use my unit before they get obsolete.
 
I play marathon only, for the reasons others have listed. My games span several days and involve extensive note taking. My wife makes fun of me, she asks how a game can be fun if you have to take notes!? Well, I guess fun is whatever one makes of it.
 
MArathon-convert. I thought the research times were too long, but then I got past the early crap and got into some war. Ahh...Wars are so nice in Marathon; I just finishes a colossal one as Victoria against Napoleon. He had 20 units, all of which suicided against my stack.
 
Back
Top Bottom