Game Speeds

[Florian]

So far I's just played Normal speed, as the default option. I notice a number of the posters here like the Marathon setting, though. I'd be interested in hearing reasons for this. Those of you who play the more epic speeds, what do you like about them? I suspect I might like it too.

 

[Indibil]

Longer lifespan for units is usually a good reason to play in Marathon speed.

Hth

 

[DaveMcW]

Marathon is like playing in the Matrix. The AIs sit around while you dodge bullets and do precision strikes.

 

[svv]

To me it's more realistic. It should not take 80 years for an army to march across the country to attack.

Also it's more forgiving of a little mistake now and then, since a turn researching or building the wrong thing doesn't mean as much when you're on marathon.

It's also more conducive to my strategy of building wonders with great engineers. This takes one turn, whether you're on Marathon or Fast, but the opportunity cost of not being able to build something else in that turn is less on Marathon.

 

[Hero]

I've just always played CIV on the longest time settings. Playing on Normal feels like Accelerated Production to me.

 

[LlamaCat]

I like Epic ok enough, although I don't think I have even loaded a game on marathon yet, that just seems too depressing to me. I mean, who wants to see that it takes 25 turns or whatever to just build that first worker? To me that is the part that I hate, getting these long build times and clicking next turn, next turn, next turn....ugh. I mostly play on Normal speed. Quick speed appeals to me sometimes.

I really think all the movement points should be increased in the basic game, this would make it a little more realistic and make your units more valuable on all speeds.

 

[vale]

The obvious one is that war is easier to wage on marathon vs. the faster game speeds. There are some other less-obvious ones.

1. Money results from goody huts become significantly worse as game speed moves towards marathon. By worse I mean in terms of how many techs you can finish at deficit research as a result of the hut or how many units you can upgrade. Similarly map results also become worse because there is more time for scouting the old fashioned way. (Advantage (if you get more than your fair share of goody huts) quick)

2. Hammer decay starts after 10 turns for units and (I think) 50 turns for buildings regardless of game speed. What one can do on quick with queue changing is just totally irrelevant on marathon. (Advantage quick)

3. Diplomatic penalties and bonuses that can fade seem to fade in terms of a chance per turn regardless of speed. So if I reject a request for a tech on quick, I might be hearing about it for the rest of the game, but on marathon, there is a decent chance it will be forgotten by the end of the age. (Advantage marathon, although mitigated by the fact that in a marathon game you will face more of the dumb demands)

4. Barbarians are much more vicious on marathon because if I understand correctly the chance is per obscured tile per turn regardless of game speed. (Advantage unknown: there are some that believe big barbarian activity across the board is better for the player since the ai doesn't handle them as well and others that believe the opposite. I'm in the first camp, but it can vary from a game to game situation, see Sisiutil's ottoman ALC game)

5. Related to the whole war issue but war weariness is not as big a problem on the marathon game setting because it decays at the same rate per turn as any other game setting. This is essentially war weariness decaying quicker since as a percentage of your turns used to remove it (or lower it enough) it becomes much smaller. (Advantage marathon)

 

[sigmakan]

I play Normal speed for one simple reason:

I don't have the patience for anything slower. Sometimes normal feels too slow to me, but I tried quick once and it sucked. You have the basically accept that your troops will be outdated by the time they arrive at their destination.

 

[Florian]

Thanks all for your answers so far.

Dave McW seems to suggest that the game is easier for the human player at slower speeds. Since the comp's edge at higher levels is in speed of production and the human's largest edge at all levels is in military tactics, it does seem reasonable that tripling the time for tactics in relation to production time would be hugely in the human's favor.

Agree, disagree?

 

[DarkFyre99]

There are two more advantages, and one disadvantage, to Marathon:

1) Forest and Jungle growth is based on a chance per turn. More turns means forests are more likely to grow (or grow back)...

2) and unfortunately jungles are more likely to grow (and grow back) as well.

3) Resource popping from mines is also based on a chance per turn. More turns means you pop more resources with your mines.

Edit: Forgot a couple more advantages:

1) Upgrade costs are based on the difference in hammer costs + 100 gold. This means that it's slightly cheaper (as viewed as gold per turn) to upgrade your forces at the slower speeds.

2) Cottage growth is slower on the slower speeds, so a specialist economy becomes more powerful.

3) Unit costs are cheaper (relatively) on Marathon than they are on other speeds.

IMO, slower speeds tends to favor the war monger more, while the faster speeds favor the builder more.

 

[mice]

Copied from the Warlords forum;

Quote:

Unit build times do not scale with everything else. While epic times are twice as slow as normal and most marathon times are three times as slow as normal, marathon units are only built two and a half times as slow.

Consider a city in a normal speed game which can build a certain building in 2 turns and a certain unit in 2 turns also.
Normal speed: 2 turns to build the building, 2 turns to build the unit,
Epic speed: 4 turns to build the building, 4 turns to build the unit,
Marathon speed: 6 turns to build the building, 5 turns to build the unit.

Almost

Normal speed: 2 turns to build the building, 2 turns to build the unit,
Epic speed: 3 turns to build the building, 3 turns to build the unit
Marathon speed: 6 turns to build the building, 4 turns to build the unit

I just checked with 3 game starts on noble (don't know why I didn't just check the XML)...

Normal: Warrior 15Monument 30
Epic: Warrior 22Monument 45
Marathon: Warrior 30Monument 90

I never actually realised the building were so unbalanced on Epic, 2x the turns but only 1.5x the time for a building (Ok marathon has the unbalanced troop building 3x the turns only 2x the cost, but it also has 4x the barbs of normal speed)...

So Marathon gives an advantage in building unts and Epic gives an advantage in building buildings.

 

[SnowlyWhite]

4. Barbarians are much more vicious on marathon because if I understand correctly the chance is per obscured tile per turn regardless of game speed. (Advantage unknown: there are some that believe big barbarian activity across the board is better for the player since the ai doesn't handle them as well and others that believe the opposite. I'm in the first camp, but it can vary from a game to game situation, see Sisiutil's ottoman ALC game)

I've always found to be a serious disadvantage on slower speeds.

iAIBarbarianBonus is always at -40, regardless of the dificulty lvl. you play. That means the ai always has +40% against barbarians. So... don't see how exactly the ai will have serious problems with barbarians given a bonus that allows even an archer to have decent chances vs. an axeman. If there's a time when I load, it's at the start, when I'm defending against barbarians. I've seen in 100+ games 2-3 times when the ai lost a city to barbarians, while I remember countless of times when I lost one(due to warrior vs archer). Albeit on high dificulties, so the ai starts with archers.

it does seem reasonable that tripling the time for tactics in relation to production time would be hugely in the human's favor.

hugely I'd say it's an overstatement, but yes, overall, I'd say marathon is abit easier. On the other hand, playing only marathon except 1st game... might also be my inability to adapt at lower speeds...

I've just always played CIV on the longest time settings. Playing on Normal feels like Accelerated Production to me.

amen; or I have too much time...

 

[Jet]

Another thing is that slower speeds are more proportionate to larger maps.

 

[Ecofarm]

I don't know how people play slow speeds, from a boredom and war_easy standpoint. I generally play quickspeed (partly because almost all multiplayer games are quickspeed and I like to develop MP strats in SP). If you want to make units have longer usable periods, try no_tech_trading (it is by far the best "+shelf-life" setting).

 

[Morgrad]

I've found I like Epic speed the best - units stick around awhile, but it's not so slow that I want to stab myself in the face just so something interesting happens.

 

[svv]

Although I'm a fan of marathon, I will say this - don't try for a cultural victory on marathon.

 

[Mutineer]

I do believe that slower speed give a big advantage to human player.
Not only he has more time to employ military tactic, he has more time to milk and wage war.

Forced peace time or any agreement time is still 10 turns, not matter what gamespeed you play. So, on slower speeds you have mach more time to milk AI diplomatically. War wareness decrease does not scale with speed to, so wars are cheaper on slower speed.

In short, if you want the most balanced game with AI, play on normal speed.

 

[Ecofarm]

I've won a couple culture victories in '1 continant per player' MP games. I think I need some SP time to refine the script and see if defense can be improved. SP (quickspeed) should be nice for developing this strat (as easy as an incompetant AI in warmonger quick). Of course, it helps if you have a friendly Ragnar or official team.

If only I could manage nukes in '1 continant per team' MP. A space race is certainly unheard of, but might also be possible.

FFA ftw

 

[CivCorpse]

Marathon is definately suited for war mongers due to the longer use of military units. However, that same advantage can become the death nell for players that like to build or in my case, like a balanced empire. Beeling starts are a serious gamble unless they are military in nature. On the quicker speedsif you are on a beeline to Liberalism and the AI gets guilds while you're researching Education, you can switch research paths and tech engineering or guilds in about 5-10 turns. Then pump/whip some quick units and then fight off the AI. On Marathon, you are looking at the AI running free with knights for 30+ turns before you can even think about cranking out the pikes. Marathon is awesome if you're the first one to a military tech but if you're not then it is a long painful process of trying to stay alive. On higher difficulties LOL, in my case Monarch not the "really" high levels, Your first war could be your last as your economy recovers from taking the new cities with axemen, the AI has teched to phants and macemen/crossbows. You better hope they like you because it will be a while before you catch up. Romans on Marathon are either the best thing ever (if they are yours) or a recurring nightmare if they are the AI.

 

[futurehermit]

Normal is more challenging for sure. DaveMcW put it best by far

Epic/Marathon it's just about massing units and going on a war machine.

As has already been stated, the human advantage is in warfare and the slower the game speed, the more of an advantage it becomes...

HC, Egypt, Cyrus, or Rome on Marathon is like two-three difficulty levels lower than Normal with other leaders