Game Speeds

[CivCorpse]

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

Spoken like a true warmonger LOL. Try a marathon islands game. Or a builders game. Builders games on normal are the equivilant or warmonger marathon games. Have you ever tried an OCC on marathon? Not everyone relies on war to play the game. Branch out and your skills will improve.

 

[futurehermit]

On higher levels a "builders game" is a good way to lose. Actually I don't see why a builders game should be any more or less easy on different skill levels. Why would you say that?

Islands games do make warmongering harder, but again why does that make a difference for game speed?

There is a valid and clear advantage to warmongering at slower speeds.

 

[CivCorpse]

On higher levels a "builders game" is a good way to lose. Actually I don't see why a builders game should be any more or less easy on different skill levels. Why would you say that?

Islands games do make warmongering harder, but again why does that make a difference for game speed?

There is a valid and clear advantage to warmongering at slower speeds.

Because on slower speeds the increase in production for buildings is greater than the increase in production for units. So while those of us that LIKE to build things in our cities are making pretty structures....feeaking Mongols are making units. Lots of units. Mean nasty building burning units. Secondly, builders research different techs first. So while i am doing the alpha/lit path some mean Mongol or Aztec is researching unhospitable things like fuedalism and guilds. On marathon that will hurt you because when they attack it takes forever to switch paths and research the needed military techs to produce counter units. Do you know how much fun it is to have knights running around your nation pilliaging and killing for 40-50 turns? On slower speeds you can catch up in military techs much faster if you have to.
And if you are wondering WHY we build all those buildings we don't absolutely have to?...It's because we like to. It's fun. It doesn't make us bad players it just makes us different. It means we are not slaves to early UU's. And a lack of iron and copper doesn't throw our games into the toilet. Our research is usually more solid and steady. Relying less on slingshots and rigid tech paths to optimize lightbulbing.
On Marathon SE civs are at a huge disadvantage in the later game because you can't switch your farms to cottages and have them at town level in less than 100 turns. Even with Free speech. And switching from representation to US plunges your research from all those specialists. Nothing beats a town with printing press and Universal sufferage. And nothing hurts more than having one pilliaged.
Builders play differently and face different challenges. Doesn't make us better. Doesn't make us worse...just makes us different. The thing i like best about the builder style is the variety. Almost every game I have read about from a warmonger is basically the same
1. i axe rushed so and so
2. I light bulbed CL on the way to CS
3. I built catapults and rushed someone else
4. I lightbulbed some stuff and won the Lib race
5. Cannons and grenadiers finished off everybody else
6. I started a new game and repeated steps 1-6 with prats instead of war chariots

 

[cabert]

IMHO playing a builder game at slow speed is like shooting oneself into the foot.
If I want a cultural victory, I'll go for normal (I rarely play quick) speed.
I've won a emperor level epic speed cultural, but I had to fight cavalries and canons with muskets and catapults for quite a while. And sinking a frigate with caravels is hard work. It takes something like 5 caravels per frigate.
I can tell, I tried.

Next cultural game was on normal, and although I had to fight a bit in the end it was by far not as hard as the Epic game (I had redcoats vs infantry, which is almost fair ).

 

[mikeocarroll]

I (nearly) always play marathon, huge.

When I play GoTM games which are generally standard/epic and normal size, the main differences I notice are:

i) Far fewer barbs - I find on my usual settings I have to beeline archery first otherwise it's a huge gamble whether I get copper up in time, and if there's none in the vicinity I get overrun by barb axes

ii) Able to play against opponents more - i.e. on marathon/huge you have 10 other civs so you have to be careful of wars of attrition because even if you wear down 2-3 opponents that leaves you with 7-8 civs who have possibly stolen a march on you

iii) Easier to dominate earlier - on huge maps even on marathon domination is difficult as you need a very strong economy to support the massive number of cities required

iv) War is more difficult - on marathon it's possible to fight wars half-heartedly if you have a tech. advantage because the same few units can make progress without the defending civ catching up in tech. - in quicker games it is nec. to build big armies v. quick to exploit tech windows

Personally I find that marathon huge offers a decent challenge esp. as it is v. diff. to win quickly so you needed to balance fighting with economic development even more than on quicker speeds - and also 1 or 2 super-cities are not enough to keep an economy going strong - the effect of Oxford Uni, Wall Street etc. is comparitively diminished by the greater number of cities.

However it takes forever to close out a win if you go for domination