Game Legnth

[Abraxis]

Looking at the tech tree, I started wondering about game length. Given the research times, It doesn't seem as long as I figured it would be. But those are from an alpha demonstration so who really knows.

It got me to thinking though, if with fewer units and seemingly longer, more tactical battles, we'll have longer games. A conquest victory on a huge map for example. In Civ4 you would get your stack of doom and crush through a continent in not much time(if you planned it right).

In Civ5 I imagine taking that same continent with fewer units and longer, more involved skirmishes, would probably take a lot longer. Probably even requiring a ceasefire or two to reorganize, unless you out-tech them by a lot.

It seems to me unless they make the games a lot longer, only a fraction of what could be accomplished, militarily, in a regular game of Civ4 would be possible in Civ5.

Any ideas how they would go about this? or are?

 

[stealth_nsk]

The game have 250 turns in 1700. So 500 turns like in Civ4 is the most likely, probably more. I suggest it's average speed.

 

[Chimera1804]

Actually stealth, turn 250 is about 1900 AD in the screenshots. (will grab one in a sec)

I'm sure that they set it to quick or normal so they could get to the modern era asap and not eat up precious time that could be spent working.

EDIT: pic

Spoiler :

 

[Auncien]

It needs a marathon mode out of the digital box.

 

[Turquoiside]

Actually stealth, turn 250 is about 1900 AD in the screenshots. (will grab one in a sec)

I'm sure that they set it to quick or normal so they could get to the modern era asap and not eat up precious time that could be spent working.

Stealth_nsk was basing his statement on this picture:

Spoiler :

But I guess no one knows which speed either of these pictures were taken at.

 

[Buccaneer]

I hope the Civ5 folks are not, in any influenced, by Civ Revolution. It would be sad if this last of the great PC games gets dumbed-down to make games play quicker with more giggle factor (i.e., battle animations).

 

[grant2004]

I wouldn't be too concerned, even if it is a little fast I'm sure somebody will make a rebalance mod for it to lengthen tech times. I know I've seen a few such mods for Civ IV, I bet a Civ V version will pop up very quickly.

 

[KMRblue1027]

I'm thinking both of those screenshots are from scenarios. The game just seems too short to be even 1700 for turn 250 (Unless the modern age is long as heck)

Mabie the turn meter is broken as well it is an alpha and could be not implemented yet.

 

[Krill]

It needs a marathon mode out of the digital box.

Marathon is for people who don't understand how to play the game. Each game has the same number of decisions regardless of the number of turns - increasing the amount of time it takes to build a unit or improvement doesn't improve the game play.

 

[eireksten]

As I wrote in the other thread, I don't see any reason to believe Civ5 will have fewer turns than Civ4.

 

[Gre_Magus]

Marathon is for people who don't understand how to play the game. Each game has the same number of decisions regardless of the number of turns - increasing the amount of time it takes to build a unit or improvement doesn't improve the game play.

I agree that marathon and epic can be more "forgiving" than normal and quick, but the different game speeds do play differently. You get more unit moves with respect to build and research time with the slower speeds, so you can explore and conquer more at a given tech level (this is also true in a different way with smaller map sizes). It is also harder for a civ that is behind in tech and or production to catch up in time to fight off an invasion or even keep from being out-expanded.

 

[aziantuntija]

Marathon is for people who don't understand how to play the game. Each game has the same number of decisions regardless of the number of turns - increasing the amount of time it takes to build a unit or improvement doesn't improve the game play.

So your saying that i dont understand how to play a game of civilization?

There should definetly be a marathon speed because i like playing loooong games.

 

[Krill]

I agree that marathon and epic can be more "forgiving" than normal and quick, but the different game speeds do play differently. You get more unit moves with respect to build and research time with the slower speeds, so you can explore and conquer more at a given tech level (this is also true in a different way with smaller map sizes). It is also harder for a civ that is behind in tech and or production to catch up in time to fight off an invasion or even keep from being out-expanded.

Exactly my point - if you need longer to capture the same amount of land, you aren't as good a player as someone who can capture it in two thirds or half the time. The faster the game speed, the more it benefits the defender as the units that they need to slave/draft/build are cheaper.

So your saying that i dont understand how to play a game of civilization?

There should definetly be a marathon speed because i like playing loooong games.

Get a stop clock and wait 5 minutes after hitting end turn. That'll make the game longer.

 

[Akkon888]

Get a stop clock and wait 5 minutes after hitting end turn. That'll make the game longer.

More turns = more time to play = more anticipation/suspense = higher value, considering this is a good game like civ.

 

[aziantuntija]

Get a stop clock and wait 5 minutes after hitting end turn. That'll make the game longer.

Absolutely! Dont you also think its kind of stupid from Firaxis to put quick, normal, epic and marathon speeds in a civilization game

 

[mjs0]

I play the game to enjoy it, not to be competitive.
The more turns, the more I get to enjoy each era.
I find fewer turns mean the game rushes between eras too rapidly.
My highest point score was fast with a tiny map on Deity, it was far from my most enjoyable game.

 

[aziantuntija]

I play the game to enjoy it, not to be competitive.
The more turns, the more I get to enjoy each era.
I find fewer turns mean the game rushes between eras too rapidly.

I completely agree.

I really dont play Civ games just to win, i play them because i wanna enjoy them.

 

[Ahriman]

I think the biggest problem with fast games is that armies can become militarily obsolete before they reach their objectives.

 

[nerd]

I currently play at modified marathon, with 3200 turns and tech costs increased by X2 for early up to X4 for mid to later game.
I guess I just don't play very well, Eh?
I like micromanagement of cities! I like huge mapslimited only by my memory limits. I want more than 20 turns between gunpowder and rifles!

 

[Krill]

More turns = more time to play = more anticipation/suspense = higher value, considering this is a good game like civ.

More choices = More decisions = More to think about = More fun game.

I think the biggest problem with fast games is that armies can become militarily obsolete before they reach their objectives.

That comes down to game balance, tech costs, units needed to make a viable attack, production times...it isn't down to the simple point of "Need more turns". CIV Marathon for instance has units cost significantly less than buildings compared to the other speeds, it was rebalanced because some people didn't understand how to properly attack. Other players can attack and win on Normal speed...so it isn't a game balance issue.

The problem is that if the game is balanced so that attacking is always the right move, CiV really will be a war game. It's a catch 22 as far as builders are concerned, and the only half decent answer is that they need to learn the combat system better.