Newcomer24
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2006
- Messages
- 139
I lolled! It was a joke... wasn't it?
Game Legnth
- Thread starter Abraxis
- Start date
I lolled! It was a joke... wasn't it?
aziantuntija
Prince
So you dont want that there would be any option for longer games because you dont like to play those longer games? Or do you just want to criticize all the players who are playing those longer games?
Ahriman
Tyrant
Right, but this is something that different people can have different preferences over.
Some people like a game where you can rapidly conquer lots of territory in the medieval era, others like a game where conquest is slow relative to technological progress.
The main *strategic* point of changing game speed is in changing unit speed and warfare relative to construction speed.
Going to a slower game speed increases research time, building time, construction time, etc. but does not increase the number of turns needed for units to get places or fight a war.
uhhh.. no. Different people enjoy different pacing. Nothing to do with understanding.
Newcomer24
Warlord
- Joined
- Dec 5, 2006
- Messages
- 139
This.
Krill
Deity
So does changing the map size, and map type. Huge maps need more time to move to the front, and sea based maps have faster movement due to higher usage of boats.
For Epic, yeah, different pacing is the reason - but Marathon is balanced differently to all other game speeds though, which is my point. People who are asking for a Marathon mode are implicitly asking for the game to be balanced to make warfare, or rather attacking, easier. Is a longer game speed in a game a bad thing? Most definitely not, but the game play isn't any different. And Rebalancing the game when changing game speed? When it is to make attacking easier, the only logical reason to make that change is that the people who play that speed need the help.
Ahriman
Tyrant
Yes, changing map size has similar effects - so we let people change the map size too, and play how they want to play.
They're asking for a game where you can conquer more in a given amount of time. I'm not sure that constitutes easier, but whatever. It does mean that units built/techs researched during a war are less important.
But so what, if they want to play this way? What's wrong with that?
How can you simultaneously argue that making the game slower makes warfare easier, but that it doesn't make gameplay any different? Warfare is gameplay.
Or maybe they just prefer the game to be over in the medieval era.
Maybe they're all playing on Deity difficulty?
Don't conclude that people with preferences different from yours are stupid or don't understand the game mechanics.
Krill
Deity
Stop putting words in my mouth. I didn't say there was anything wrong with that. Perhaps you think there is something wrong with marathon-esque games?
All I commented on was the game play changes and how Marathon makes the game easier. A game is a series of interesting choices - Sid Meier, which is what I've been saying. It is the choices that matter in game.
Teaches me while writing a post and watching England self destruct at the same time.
What I was saying is that changing the game speed, like between Quick/Normal/Epic in CIV, isn't rebalanced, all of the build, tech, maintenance costs etc are the same (in proportion, anyway). Marathon goes beyond this and alters these values, thus changing game play regardless of other game settings. The changes between Quick/Normal/Epic are changes that are affected by other settings. In this respect, Marathon is a mod, not the vanilla game.
Problems with this? Need to now balance the game twice, for two different groups of players, which then split into MP v. SP crowd...perhaps you can see why it is so hard to get good beta testers.
Wouldn't "it makes the game easier" count for both the human player and the computer players, thus balancing eachother out?
You say: "The player can sneak attack a weaker civ and because of the long unit build times that civ can't quickly build some defense; so it's easier."
If that's true, won't that also mean "If the player gets sneak attacked by another civ, the player doesn't have time to quickly build some defense; so it's harder."
Truth be told, whichever one is true, why the hell would it matter? It's a matter of personal preference. Personally, I enjoy 50 hour games a lot more than a 5 hour game.
You don't, good for you; but really, who made you the almighty Civ god that gets to decide who "understands" Civ and who doesn't? Just the fact that you'd think that means you're the one who doesn't understand: It's a game, people like to have fun with it, and if some have more fun playing it differently than you do, that doesn't make them any worse or better at understanding the game than you.
kozzer
Liberated Autocrat
- Joined
- Dec 8, 2005
- Messages
- 141
You said, and I quote:
and
Basically saying that people who prefer marathon mode are not good Civ players, at least with regard to waging war. That's just outright ridiculous. It's a subjective preference, and in any case how does it make the game 'easier'? How does it make it so that people who "don't understand how to properly attack" have more success? Aren't all the civs in the game operating under the same conditions of unit vs building cost, etc?
Krill
Deity
Where did I say there was anything wrong with different scaled game speeds? Where?
Oh, that's right, I didn't.
Mods, how would you like me to handle this situation?
The assertion is that Marathon, and any modification that decreases unit costs relative to buildings, makes it easier to wage war because you have more time to invade before the opponent can react to the attack. Marathon speed was implemented in CIV because some players complained about unit obsolescence, whereas other players did not find this to be a problem in waging war. One instance of the latter group are MP players that play on quick, and consistently wage war. Others can be found in the Strategy forum.
The conclusion therefore is that unit costs are balanced at Quick/Normal/Epic, and that unit obsolescence is not down to game balance, but to play style of those that complained about the problem.
That isn't an argument
Subjective would be me saying that I think the game should be more peace based, or that warfare should be more viable. So far I have stated that Marathon skews the game in favour of warfare - this is not subjective. It is objective, because it is based on two facts: why Marathon was implemented in the first case, and that units cost less in Marathon compared to other game speeds. The solution that I posted is a reasonable one: what is wrong from learning how other players play the game, and how to attack and not run into unit obsolescence?
It makes the game easier because the AI as designed is easily beaten at war, it just can not compete with the competent human player, ergo anything that favours warfare in the game favours the human player over the AI. Hence comparing a marathon game to an Epic game, on the same map and settings, Marathon is the game where the human is more likely to do well (if they have the patients, anyway). This view originated with Soren Johnson, when patch 1.09 was being developed. I think it was patch 1.09 that implemented Marathon, anyway.
Marathon itself is what makes it easier to attack, ergo every player that focusses on warfare at some point in the game is more likely to have success than compared to other game speeds. The bolded bit is correct for each individual game, but not for games compared between game speeds. An axe on normal is 35 hammers, marathon it is 70, a two fold increase. A granary OTOH is 60 in Normal, but 180 in Marathon, a3 fold increase
Sometimes I play marathon not because it's easier but because I want the fun of ancient and medieval warfare on a larger map. In a normal speed game you simply don't get as much of *that* experience. Other times I play quick speed because I want the rush.
I really don't believe most players pick their game speed because of their skill level. This is way off base IMO. Everyone just has their preferences. Wanting a slower game in a turn based game doesn't make one less skilled.
Honestly, for me, it's about participating in the game universe for a longer period of time. I invest a lot of thought, calculation and, for lack of a better word, love into every game I play. I play a time victory on marathon mode on the biggest map. I like to watch the world change and grow from start to finish. I like having the time to watch things happen and to make things happen. It really is a totally different game if you play a marathon time victory. You can spend a week playing a few hours a day in the same world and that's a really cool experience.
Civilization is not an RTS. If one plays it that way they're missing out and cheapening the turn-based strategy genre experience because games are made with player expectations in mind.
This is not Civilization Revolution (at least I hope it's not).
Civilization is not an RTS. If one plays it that way they're missing out and cheapening the turn-based strategy genre experience because games are made with player expectations in mind.
This is not Civilization Revolution (at least I hope it's not).
Ahriman
Tyrant
By apologizing for the insulting and patronizing assertion that anyone who likes playing on Marathon doesn't understand how to attack properly and needs to learn to play the game better?
That's how I'd handle it.
Krill
Deity
Nah, I don't think that is wise. Next thing you know posters will demand apologies if they misunderstand someone else.
Auncien said:
That's cool, but that's not all Marathon does. To bring the topic back to CiV, it would be like lengthening the game (which is ok, but as I said before, doesn't improve the game play, but may improve the experience of the game as you have noted), and altering the game balance by cheapening an army. It's the game balance, the methods of warfare, which is primarily an issue, not the length of the game. A lot of people have said that they don't want CiV to be a war game, in which case decreasing unit costs and making warfare easier is orthogonal to that aim.
EmpireOfCats
Death to Giant Robots
This. Have some virtual reputation (vrep++). Maps must be huge, speed must be epic at least.
And these are two worries I have now: The maps look far too small and the games seem to go too fast. I hope this is all demo stuff. Now that Windows doesn't have the stupid 4 gbyte RAM limit any more and Civ V will support, what, eight cores, let's make those maps seriously huge.
What's there to misunderstand in that first quote? You plainly state that people who don't play your style of quick games don't understand the game. You're surprised people take insult to that?
Besides that being an insult for which you should apologise, you also contradict yourself when stating that Marathon is easier because of the AI.
Knowing and being able to abuse that AI flaw pretty much means a good understanding of the game, not a lack thereof.
Besides the "players can abuse the weak AI better", every other argument you state (cheaper/more units, less time for defender to build defense, whatever) counts for both the player and his opponents, thus has no effect on the difficulty.
Krill
Deity
Separate sentences are not connected, and I've explained the assertion enough times in the thread. And I'm not surprised, more like...amused. The bolded bit is an ad hominem argument...
But it is not a good understanding of how to abuse the AI, not when one has to be more rigorous on all other speeds to achieve the same results. Marathon provides for a much more lax approach to achieve the same end consequence. Ergo, Marathon is easier.
Not true. The time it takes to reach a, say, 60% city with a slow mover stack is constant, however the length of time taken to build a unit is significantly longer in Epic/Marathon, compared to quick. The effect is that on slower game speeds, one has to defend with pre-built troops, and can not just rely on quickly built units to hold the line (note, drafting and slaving are still the same). Therefore, slower game speeds require that more units be built and kept in reserve than in Quick games. This makes it easier therefore because the AIs reaction time has been increased, so the human attacker can make more headway in the first turns of the war without encountering newly built units, allowing more cities to get captured. Ergo, easier, especially when you take into account the cheaper units meaning it is more cost effective to attack.
