Game Legnth

To be fair, Marathon speed is for newbies/people not able to play the game well. And I like epic and huge maps, for the record.
 
To be fair, Marathon speed is for newbies/people not able to play the game well. And I like epic and huge maps, for the record.

To be fair, thats patronizing, insulting and false. And I like normal or epic in general, for the record.
 
:lol: The assertion was made, and backed up, and all you can reply with is "this is patronizing!". You could, you know, make an argument instead of resulting to trolls and flames...?
 
and backed up
??? Where?

I see no evidence at all that people who like a long slow game don't understand how the combat engine works. For example, they might prefer a builder style of play, or a roleplaying style of play.

Not everybody is always playing the game just to win the game as soon as possible. That doesn't mean that they don't know how.

And yes, telling people that that don't understand things (when they do in fact understand them) is almost the definition of patronizing.
 
Moderator Action: Keep the discussion civil
 
Ahriman, I've made the posts, and argument, through out this thread. You can go read them, and respond to them, but so far you have repeated the same line over and over again. I'm not sure if you aren't just trolling.


For example, they might prefer a builder style of play, or a roleplaying style of play.

This is a non sequitur, skills are not mutually exclusive.


Not everybody is always playing the game just to win the game as soon as possible. That doesn't mean that they don't know how.

I don't know what this is in reply to.
 
Basically, everyone's got their own opinions. The thing I took exception to is that you stated that people who prefer playing marathon do so because they don't understand warfare. So that's why I responded. You can keep thinking that, I suppose, but it's an opinion with no basis whatsoever.
 
Krill - I agree with your basic point, but I don't know that it's fair that to insinuate that the only reason people play marathon is because it's easier. That may be the case for some, but for others it's just a matter of preference.

It's true, however that a quick came against a high level AI is a very intense, distilled civ experience. Every turn, every unit move, every production choice matters.
 
This is a non sequitur, skills are not mutually exclusive.
But you specifically said that anyone who chooses to play Marathon difficulty does so because they don't have to skill to succeed at other game levels.

Which is absurd, and you provided no justification for this anywhere.

The claim "marathon game speed makes the game easier" does not logically imply the claims "anyone who chooses to play marathon game speed does so because they need an easier game" or "anyone who chooses to play marathon game speed does so because they don't understand how the game works".

Even if the first is true, you don't have any grounds to make the latter claims.

And you say *I'm* the one trolling....
 
Slower Game speed: More movement decisions to make in the game, particularly more movement per era

Larger game map: more movement decisions needed


So for a highly tactical game emphasizing unit movement: small map, marathon speed
for a highly strategic game emphasizing economy: huge map, quick speed

For a 'standard paced' game with a lot of movement: huge map, marathon speed
For a 'standard paced' game with minimal movement: small map, quick speed


oh and people that walk don't understand travel
 
...and it clearly follows that people who choose to drive 26.2 miles slowly through the countryside don't understand driving as well as people who prefer a quick 5 mile drive through town because choosing the leisurely drive demonstrates they don't understand how to drive aggressively in town, it's just too difficult for them.
 
...and it clearly follows that people who choose to drive 26.2 miles slowly through the countryside don't understand driving as well as people who prefer a quick 5 mile drive through town because choosing the leisurely drive demonstrates they don't understand how to drive aggressively in town, it's just too difficult for them.

+ grmr nly 4 u nt txt gd.

Beds are only for those to weak to sleep on the floor

Houses are only for those afraid of the outside.

Computers are only for those who can't think logically for themselves.


and seriously, Quick speed is for newbs who don't understand what civ is
 
My preferred game speed is Epic. I think Marathon takes too long; it's like watching paint dry. And I think Normal is too fast; the experience is over much too soon.

That said, I think everybody should play with the speed, the world size, the difficulty level and so on that they enjoy. After all, we are talking about a game that the player should enjoy, not about the correct way of conducting a religious service.
 
Öjevind Lång;9301545 said:
...That said, I think everybody should play with the speed, the world size, the difficulty level and so on that they enjoy. After all, we are talking about a game that the player should enjoy, not about the correct way of conducting a religious service.

Well put that man!

What on earth ever happened to playing Civ just for "the taking part"?
Civ is not, and has never been about "winning" for a lot of people. If you want to play it purely to win, as quickly and efficiently as possible then that's of course your choice, but for a lot of folks, that's never what the Civ series has been about...

And btw, since this thread is so full of prejudice and nonsense, I personally class anything below Marathon speed as arcade mode :mischief:
 
To be fair, Marathon speed is for newbies/people not able to play the game well. And I like epic and huge maps, for the record.

to be fair your a fool, i play marathon as it allows me to move and fight with my units for longer, without tech or production changing everything too quickly. Its all about preference. I can play on quick if i want too, i just don't enjoy it as much. I like my games to take a whole heap of time.
 
I would argue that a non-marathon game is easier at the higher difficulty levels. Cheaper units brings more units (for everyone). During that crucial first rush, a battle of 2 vs 2 (example) could very well leave the attacker with 2 units. Once healed these units could continue to the second fight with full strength. A battle of 4 vs 4 (example) is much more likely to leave even a seasoned general with a loss of troops.

Is it just me or does 'Quick' seem to be the easiest way to defeat Deity level? Getting to an enemy quickly and getting some good die rolls is what I envisioned in the previous paragraph. On marathon/deity the computer opponents seem to churn out a never ending supply of cheap units that prevents a successful campaign a lot of the time (for me anyway).
 
How is this about conquest when there are several different types of victories?

Marathon is great, I highly recommend it to every Civ player both old horses that have trillion point deity games and the new people that have trouble surviving to 0AD on chieftain. Its so great that I need to extend the game length even more. Not because of some foolish idea of victory but solely because I want to play Civilization, a game where I can build an Empire to stand the test of TIME!
 
Mabie the turn meter is broken as well it is an alpha and could be not implemented yet.

Sorry if this point is long past, but I agree. The fact it's turn 250 in two different screenshots with different years suggests the turn number is broken or they're setting up the saves using world builder or something like that.
 
Back
Top Bottom