Game speeds

[ironic_lettuce]

Hi

Does the speed you set the game at just determine how quickly the game finishes? I know that seems like a self answering question, but I hardly ever see anyone play quick games on here - is that just because you all want the games to last a bit longer, and no other reason?

Or am I missing something?!!!

Ta!

 

[namliaM]

Yes, the speed says something about the number of turns there are in a game....

I forget how many for each, but the tech costs are scaled accordingly.
Thus any tech will be cheaper on Quick and most expensive on Marathon.

Also due to this you advance thru the ages much faster on quick, so every move can really count....

 

[ironic_lettuce]

So would you say it makes the game more difficult on quick? Or does it not really affect difficulty because it's all scaled?

 

[Pellanor]

One of the big things that I've noticed is that in Quick there is much less time for Combat. Since there's fewer turns, yet units still move at the same speed, there's a chance that the army you're sending to war will be obsolete by the time it reaches the enemies borders.

 

[Quagga]

Never tried Quick, because I don't even like Standard. Units are obsolete too quickly. I suppose that makes upgrading more advantageous, but to me it means don't build some units because they'll be obsolete almost as soon as they're built. Muskets are a prime example.

I think I like Epic best, but have been playing Marathon lately.

 

[jimbob27]

So would you say it makes the game more difficult on quick? Or does it not really affect difficulty because it's all scaled?

Generally it makes it easier. The human player is always better at war than the AI, and with more turns to move your units about, then the human is likley to take advantage.

I find it scales well with mapsize though. Larger maps are harder than smallers maps, so a normal-speed standard map is about the same difficulty as a huge marathon-speed map.

 

[DaveMcW]

In single player, game speed doesn't matter. Choose a smaller map if you want to speed up the game.

In multiplayer, game speed is huge.

 

[Wlauzon]

One of the big things that I've noticed is that in Quick there is much less time for Combat. Since there's fewer turns, yet units still move at the same speed, there's a chance that the army you're sending to war will be obsolete by the time it reaches the enemies borders.

... As your tanks wave at your archers you sent out a few turns ago while on their way to the front...

That is the main reason I never play quick.

Another factor in Epic and Marathon is that even though you build things slower, your workers don't seem to slow down, so they get relatively more done per year.

 

[malekithe]

Another factor in Epic and Marathon is that even though you build things slower, your workers don't seem to slow down, so they get relatively more done per year.

Your workers do build improvements slower on Epic and Marathon settings. However, the ratio of time spent improving tiles to time spent moving is larger. As such, workers are slightly more effective on slower settings. (and Indian fast workers are more of an advantage on faster settings)

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Yep, it takes one turn to move into a forest or hill regardless on game speed... one turn to move and two turns to chop down *vs* one turn to move and 6 turns to chop. Fast worker can cut some improvement times in half on quick speeds (move and start first turn of improvement on the same turn regardless of terrain).

Unit movement is the one thing that doesn't scale at all.

 

[blitzkrieg1980]

In single player, game speed doesn't matter. Choose a smaller map if you want to speed up the game.

In multiplayer, game speed is huge.

I couldn't disagree more. I think that it's sort of a rediculous statement really. Small map - marathon game, took me 9 hours to finish(total not in a row!).
Small map - quick game, took me 2 hours 12 minutes to finish.
Huge map - marathon game, took me 28 hours to finish (total not in a row!).
Huge map - quick game, took me 6 hours to finish.

If you think game speed doesn't matter, you're on drugs.

 

[Rast]

In single player, game speed doesn't matter. Choose a smaller map if you want to speed up the game.

Actually I've found the game plays much differently depending on speed.

There are four significant differences between game speeds

1) On longer game speeds units can move further and do more in a shorter period of game time.
2) On Marathon (only I believe...) units are cheaper compared to buildings than on other speeds.
3) Anarchy turns doesn't seem to scale at all, so anarchy is less of an issue on longer game speeds.
4) Barbarians, though they take longer to start showing up on longer game speeds, seem to spawn at the same rate after they do start showing up.

#1 is huge. On Marathon some units that are marginal and many skip entirely are not only useful but almost essential since the 'fast' or 'really soon' tech that makes them obsolete may still take 60, 80, or 100 turns to research. Early gunpowder units especially (cannons, muskets), though some others as well.

Also you can uncover much, if not most, of your continent with your initial scouts before you even get to BW, allowing you to find your neighbors much earlier in the overall scope of the game.

And, most importantly to many people, your combat units can move further and do much, much more on longer game speeds before becoming obsolete. This is why most people find war much easier on Marathon.

#2 is really only relevant in relation to two things that I've found. First, despite the fact that units are proportionally cheaper compared to buildings on Marathon, the AI doesn't build any differently. So they'll have less units than they should.

Second, the cheaper unit cost combined with gold rushing allows you to crank out huge numbers of units very very quickly (when compared to the overall game speed) if you really need too. Also, setting tech research to 0 for a few turns so you can upgrade old units en-masse isn't usually an issue at all.

#3 is self-explanatory so I won't discuss it

#4 is also pretty big despite the fact I spaced it off in my initial post . Once the barbs start coming they come at the same rate independant of game speed (at least from my experiance). So on Marathon it is quite possible (and actually happens a lot to me) for the barbs, even the regular barbs, to be much, much more of a threat than other civs throughout the ancient and classical eras. More barb spawns per unit you build (because you build slower but the barbs spawn the same), combined with the fact that it takes more turns to settle the land (as settlers build slower too), means that I face far more barbs on Marathon than on Normal. Despite this I still like the Marathon speed for the reasons above, and learning how to deal with barbs is a skill you need anyway.

 

[Wlauzon]

Your workers do build improvements slower on Epic and Marathon settings. However, the ratio of time spent improving tiles to time spent moving is larger. As such, workers are slightly more effective on slower settings. (and Indian fast workers are more of an advantage on faster settings)

As I usually Play Asoka, I guess I never noticed much of a slowdown on Epic. Never played Marathon, I might try one.

But to me the big thing is that moving one square is always the same at any game speed, so I can move much faster "per year" with my workers and settlers on Epic.

It seems like on tropical, with all the jungle, and fast workers, that you would have a pretty good advantage over the AI at Marathon. The AI seems to always build the same percentage of workers, so it seems like on Marathon one of the Indian civs could expand and grow a lot faster. Especially if you built a bunch of extra workers for fast jungle clearing.

I think I will try that and see how it actually works...