Game Length (Marathon or Epic?)

[Learningciv]

Crusher that is confusing game years with difficulty.

Also using WB to delete barbs is tinkering with the settings. Marathon has more barbs then normal speed so you just made marathon easier by removing barbs.

I should state for the record I have no opinion of speed v difficulty in general terms. I do believe that in different situations different game speeds have advantages over the others. I find it amusing (is that trolling?) to see people try to prove something through anecdotal evidence though. I would be more interested in seeing a quantified result though, i.e. the diety players here can win 60% on standard, though 75% on marathon.

 

[Crusher1]

Good Morning! Sorry you don't care for the example I think it's a very fitting one. I was very upfront with the barb thing but once again, it doesn't make a difference imo because 650 years isn't erased by extra barbs. The huge difference in years would still exist. Someone who doesn't play with barbs at all would have even a greater gap then I did.

Crusher that is confusing game years with difficulty.

I disagree BIG BIG BIG time. You do realize the Marathon player in my example would have more cities, production, commerce, etc than the Normal speed player at a comparable date. That means the Marathon player can leverage his superior assets to grab much more land via settling it or conquering it. There's nothing anecdotal about it. The Marathon player in my example would crush the Normal player up and down.

You can take it even further and say what would happen if player A had 20 cities at 1000 BC and player B had 10 cities at 1000 BC. The player with the greater number of cities, population, production, commerce, happiness resources, etc will always be playing an easier game, always. There is no personal observation about it, but rather, it's a cold hard fact.

 

[The Rook]

One of the main reasons Marathon is easier than Normal is due to the slower time scaling during war. This not only gives you more time to utilise a military tech before it goes obsolete, but it also means you don't have to worry so much about non-warring strong AI's surging hopelessly ahead of you technologically whilst you are busy fighting. At Normal speed, you don't just have to win the war, you need to win efficiently.

 

[Learningciv]

I disagree BIG BIG BIG time. You do realize the Marathon player in my example would have more cities, production, commerce, etc than the Normal speed player at a comparable date. That means the Marathon player can leverage his superior assets to grab much more land via settling it or conquering it. There's nothing anecdotal about it. The Marathon player in my example would crush the Normal player up and down.

You can take it even further and say what would happen if player A had 20 cities at 1000 BC and player B had 10 cities at 1000 BC. The player with the greater number of cities, population, production, commerce, happiness resources, etc will always be playing an easier game, always. There is no personal observation about it, but rather, it's a cold hard fact.

The thing is the AI benefits from the same things as the players. Cheaper workers/settlers, reduced movement time for units. The AI will expand quicker by the same factor as the human player. This means that the city spot which won't get taken until 1000BC in normal will be grabbed by the AI at 1600BC on marathon. This is the reason marathon gives the earliest finish dates (even for culture where quick gets better scaling to legendary).

IMO the strongest arguement for marathon being easier comes from larger windows of opportunity and from leaner penalties due to micromanagement mistakes.

For example unless I start in a great position I often spend 5-7 turns scouting out the land before I settle my capital. In that time I can get a great view of the land with my settler + scout/warrior and more often then not find a better spot to settle my capital (you can often also use the capitals BFC to guess where some resources will have a better chance of spawning). It also means I tend to pop an extra hut or two that I normally would be beat to by AI scouts. That is only equivilent to 2 turns on normal.

 

[Yxklyx]

Has anyone here tried Epic with a Small World? How fast is research - unit obsolesence, etc...

 

[Jamuka]

The thing is the AI benefits from the same things as the players.

This is where you have it wrong... The AI does NOT benefit as much as the human. The AI is designed to play normal speed, and does not adapt well to marathon. Whatever advantage you had over the AI in normal is magnified by there being 3X as many turns...

 

[Nissin]

I don't play marathon because it's a joke. The AI is not programmed to play it correctly, it would be like playing Deep Blue in GO.

Same here. As already shown by Crusher1 you dont even need war to gain from the benefits of the speed differential.

The AI will expand quicker by the same factor as the human player.

AIs are slow and will never have 9 ciites on any game by 1650 BC on Immortal and below. The example given had some very nice points.

 

[Rodwell]

Marathon is easier for warmongers. That includes the AI, try starting next to Shaka and Monetzuma...

 

[Learningciv]

Same here. As already shown by Crusher1 you dont even need war to gain from the benefits of the speed differential.



AIs are slow and will never have 9 ciites on any game by 1650 BC on Immortal and below. The example given had some very nice points.

No one is argueing that marathon games finish earlier for all vicotry conditions. Crusher is gaining the direct benefit of cheaper settlers/workers (2/3rd cost). The AI are also gaining 2/3rd cost settlers/workers.

 

[Maben]

I always play marathon now, but I started at normal. Normal indeed is harder, but it's not the ease that I enjoy but rather the actual usefulness of units. It seems like it's hardly ever worth attacking in normal...you can just wait 2 more techs and get better units in a few turns...

 

[Crusher1]

The AI is pitiful on Marathon. Let's not forget chopping on Marathon is overpowering. Find me an AI that likes to chop. When I get home I'll open up the game I showed earlier and see how many cities the other AIs have and how many trees, if any they have chopped. I can guarantee w/out even looking (which I intend to do! ) that the AIs are woefully behind on Marathon.

You seem to have a problem grasping the direct corelation turns and difficulty have with one another.

Here are some Marathon facts.

1. AIs do not adapt nor play well on Marathon and any advantages the human normal has is magnified tremendously.
2. Players are able to expand much quicker than on any other speed.
3. War is significantly easier from movement and chopping, something the AI fails to use properly.

Using the saves which I provided I challenge anyone to expand faster on normal speed. If someone can do that then we would have 1 step in proving the 2 speeds have equal difficulty.

If someone cannot do it then the levels have been proven to possess different difficulties, without even needing to look at War and other aspects. Once again, the turns and difficulty are in fact intertwined. It is not simply a matter of turn vs difficulty.

If you disagree then ask each player who played the same map but on different speed some simple questions.

How many cities were you able to expand to?
How many units did you attack with?

The normal speed could say something like, I expanded to 8 cities by 750 BC and made my 1st war at 500 BC with 15 units.

The marathon speed could say something like, I expanded to 12 cities by 1000 BC and made my 1st war at 750 BC with 30 units.

The normal speed guy says WTH? The AIs I defended had 4 units in their capital and 3 in there other cities, what about you?

Marathon guy says the AI's had 5 units in their capital and 3 in their other cities.

Obviously the AI didnt do as much with the same speed as the human did.

So why was the marathon player able to expand so much quicker? Because the speed is easier. So why was the marathon player able to produce so many more units? Because the speed is easier. So why was the marathon player able to grab even more land and fight better wars? Because marathon is easier.

People can keep coming back and posting stuff like I wanna see proof, I wanna see precise scientific measures in a controlled environment, etc etc. There are plenty of signs already out there. If someone was to take on such a daunting task as some are asking for the results would certainly favor: Marathon is easier.

Yes, we all have opinions which is good. What you need to wonder is when the vast majority of people continually say, based on my experience Marathon is easier then there is probably a lot of truth to it.

Just as I have better success on Deity when I use Marathon, I also have significantly better success on every subsequently easier level on that setting as well. Back in the day I was still having problems on Monarch/Normal. The ironic thing? I had just as much success on Emperor/Marathon at the same point in my gaming.

I always play marathon now, but I started at normal. Normal indeed is harder

Most people agree with you but sometimes there are what I like to call eccentric/idiots or smart/dumb people or whatever you want to call it. You know, the people who have the intellect to save the world but are unable to open a door or tie their shoe

 

[Nissin]

Most people agree with you but sometimes there are what I like to call eccentric/idiots or smart/dumb people or whatever you want to call it. You know, the people who have the intellect to save the world but are unable to open a door or tie their shoe

So which one are you?

 

[Crusher1]

So which one are you?

I am!,

While playing Marathon: a level abuse user enjoying easier game play under the following conditions:

Dumb and Dumber

While playing Normal: a legit player on standard settings playing the game under the following:

Dumb and Dumber

 

[z0wb13]

Crusher1:
So Marathon already offers a grossly overpowering start and we haven't even thrown in WAR and other benefits that Marathon offers. Seriously, I don't see how anyone can possibly think Marathon isn't supremely easier.

v

MadScientist:To be honest I don't give a damned if marathon is easier, harder, less true to it's intesnt, buffed, nerfed, or a mutilation of the Holy Book of Sid. I play Marathon because it's fun and entertaining and each long game is an epic story (yes for my off line games too).

i still vote for epic.

 

[Crusher1]

I'm horrible with history so need help =D.

Left = Churchhill ?
Middle = ? Maybe the Italian Guy Moussalini (sp?!)
Right = Stalin ?

 

[Stewie0416]

I'm horrible with history so need help =D.

Left = Churchhill ?
Middle = ? Maybe the Italian Guy Moussalini (sp?!)
Right = Stalin ?

Left = Churchill
Middle = Roosevelt
Right = Stalin
Maybe in the Yalta or Potsdam conference. Can't tell.

 

[madscientist]

Very entertaining z0wb13!

Left is Churchill
Middle is FDR
Right is Stalin.

I am 99% certain it's the Yalta conference where they decided how to parcel up Europe in 1945.

So which is the standard Player, epic, or marathon

I vote

Churchill = Standard
FDR = Epic
Stalin = MArathon

 

[Stewie0416]

OT:Why do Roosevelt's hands look like they were holding on to something that got photo shopped?

Anyways, I really like Epic. I can't stand Marathon. Not that its too easy but it takes soooo long. I don't have that much time. Real Life is a B*#&T

 

[madscientist]

Well, not to but I had to check this out myself.

I played a pair of standard speed games last night, Big/Little at Monarch speed (what my RPCs are at).

The first was as Hammarabi who was on a penninsula and without horses/copper/rion. I quit as I wanted to see some things

The second game was much more interesting, pulling Charlemagne out of the magic Random leader generator,.

Decent land, starts with hunting/mysticism, and found Louis very close by. We had Jumbos/cows (2 each) so I went hunting/Ah and found horses in the BFC. Teched wheel, built a barracks, teched archery/mining/BW.

Now the interesting part

1) I started Spamming chariots
2) Adopted slavery and whipped chariots
3) chopped forrests.

Before I could even finish a tech or 2 I had10 chariots! In all my years of playing marathon speed, I have NEVER gotten so much military so fast. In fact I was spamming archers and settlers to fill the land.

But I certainly know what to do with so many chariots

I rushed Louis. Now Louis built Stonehenge and in my opinion greatly reduced his military and spent it on Stonehenge and 1 extra city. I rarely see this type of behavior at marathon speed. What I did see was a very nicely built up empire, with a nice shiney wonder.

I took his 2 cities (defended by 3 archers total) and Stonehenge.

But the kicked is this, I got several hundred in gold from capturing those cities, exactly the amoutn I generally get at marathon.

So on standard, after pillaging 2 AI cities I have enough of a treasury to tech like MAD at a high science rate. This was enough to close in fast on Currency, get libraries built for scientists, REX some more. And I did not even consider the UB yet. On marathon

Now I am not trying to open that marathon/standard argument again (well maybe I am ), but getting that much of a tresury boost from city capturing on standard is game changing!

I did not play out the game as I got bored with the speed (I still prefer marathon) but I found this an interesting point. Very early rushes, get a strong treasury, beeline Currency/CoL, and you have an enormous early empire and thus "Land is Power". I am sure it's harder to do at emperor and perhaps I got lucky with teh map, but I am certainly going to try this a few more times.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

Same for me. I used to be a devout Epic player, but as I move farther up the difficulty ladder, the games go longer and longer. On Epic, the years 1750-1950 take HOURS AND HOURS. Normal is much better in the late game IMHO.

That being said, I wish there was a way to change speeds during the game. I prefer a slower pace in the BCs, a medium pace in the early ADs, and a fast pace after 1600.

I couldn't have said it better myself. I've gotten to the point where my Marathon games don't really go past 1600 ever. Normal games go way too fast in the early to early/mid game for me, but play out the best in the latter portions of the game. If my marathon games do go into the 1900s, it can take hours to finish.

Wins come faster in marathon, but I wouldn't say it's necessarily all that much easier. The AI sucks at war on all speeds. Marathon is easier, though, on smaller maps.