general speed

Alaric_The_Goth

Chieftain
Joined
Jul 28, 2008
Messages
18
wat is the best game speed to play a standard sized hemisphere map? what about a small one? i find marathon just a bit too boring and long but im afraid the other ones are too quick...ive played quick many times and like it for tiny maps but not for larger ones...
 
Marathon, really. I play most of my games at Marathon. Epic is nice, too, though there are some problems with rounding.
 
Marathon, really. I play most of my games at Marathon. Epic is nice, too, though there are some problems with rounding.

did u read my initial post? i think marathon is a bit too slow...
 
did u read my initial post? i think marathon is a bit too slow...

No, I didn't read the initial post. I decided to just jump in this thread and wildly voice my opinions, which are the only opinions in the world that matter. I think you're an insignificant dolt, thereby ignoring anything you have to say on this subject. </facetious>

Look, your question, to be honest, is stupid. Play what feels comfortable.
 
Try them all. Play whichever feels best to you.

Or, if none of them feel right make your own speed.
 
I like epic too. For a standard size map, I would guess normal is the most balanced. It doesn't matter though, just play whatever you feel comfortable with or create a new gamespeed.
 
did u read my initial post? i think marathon is a bit too slow...

Just to point out, your initial post actually started with the line "wat is the best game speed to play a standard sized hemisphere map?"

Jerry happens to think that it's marathon. I'd agree. If you already knew what answer you wanted, you shouldn't have asked in the first place!
 
Scientists have shown, using Science, that Epic is the Best Speed for a standard sized hemisphere map.
 
Scientists have shown, using Science, that Epic is the Best Speed for a standard sized hemisphere map.

What ist this "Science" thou speaketh of?!
 
did u read my initial post? i think marathon is a bit too slow...

Yes. I read your inititial post. And I decided you didn't need my opinion that Marathon is the best speed for all maps. Then I read this post and decided that either you did need my opinion or needed to rephrase your original question. Or else just ignore replies that didn't match your already formed opinions.

Play what works for you. Based on your response, I am not sure we can decide that for you remotely.
 
i play almost exclusively marathon. it's what i like best. play whay you like best. don't know what you like? try them all and then decide.

p.s. i ignored your initial post also!
 
wat is the best game speed to play a standard sized hemisphere map? what about a small one? i find marathon just a bit too boring and long but im afraid the other ones are too quick...ive played quick many times and like it for tiny maps but not for larger ones...

Marathon is the best speed ever.
I always seem to finish my games on Marathon and when I do I own. :goodjob:
 
No, I didn't read the initial post. I decided to just jump in this thread and wildly voice my opinions, which are the only opinions in the world that matter. I think you're an insignificant dolt, thereby ignoring anything you have to say on this subject. </facetious>

Look, your question, to be honest, is stupid. Play what feels comfortable.

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

If was an "Epic Mara-Marathon" speed I would be playing it.
 
The fastest speed you can tolerate. For me, that's epic. I don't like getting into a war where the opponent is 2 techs away from a major unit upgrade, only to have him getting it mid-war via tech magic. Happens sometimes on normal, EVERY time on quick.

They *really**really**really**really**really**really**really**really**really**really**really**really**really**really**really**really**really**really**really**really**really**really**really**really**really**really* should have scaled unit movement speed with game speed. The balances are affected so badly by this failure.

Of course, marathon is intentionally imbalanced, and perfect if you want to set a high score on a huge map due to its emphasis on cheaper units.
 
Marathon is still too fast!

There's a Snail Speed in the Rise of Mankind mod (over 3000 turns). I don't think I could bear it.

They **really** should have scaled unit movement speed with game speed. The balances are affected so badly by this failure.
:confused:
How is the balance badly effected?
I'm trying to think of how you could reasonably do it. Do you suggest the movement for foot/mounted units should be something like
Quick = 3/5
Normal = 2/4
Epic = 2/3
Marthon = 1/2

Even if they could achieve scaling the unit movement with game speed, wouldn't it pretty much remove all difference between the speeds besides the actual length of the game? I guess this is what you'd like, but personally I wouldn't have played Epic, let alone Marathon, if it only meant finishing a game would take way longer.
 
There's a Snail Speed in the Rise of Mankind mod (over 3000 turns). I don't think I could bear it.


:confused:
How is the balance badly effected?
I'm trying to think of how you could reasonably do it. Do you suggest the movement for foot/mounted units should be something like
Quick = 3/5
Normal = 2/4
Epic = 2/3
Marthon = 1/2

Even if they could achieve scaling the unit movement with game speed, wouldn't it pretty much remove all difference between the speeds besides the actual length of the game? I guess this is what you'd like, but personally I wouldn't have played Epic, let alone Marathon, if it only meant finishing a game would take way longer.

Well, I'm not sure how to answer this response. At the beginning you ask how the balance is affected, but then at the end your argument seems to be that it *should* be.

Personally, I'd prefer the game to go quicker. However, it's pretty frustrating to war on normal and just about impossible to do it effectively on higher levels with quick. Giving units extra moves would create balance problems too however - like instant city captures from outside culture borders (which usually takes planning or weak culture). The other problem is scaling which your suggested movespeed changes indicates - epic is 1.5 times slower than normal but civ might have difficulty with that...but rounding is problematic - in your suggestion mounted gets NERFED TO HELL on quick and epic.

I don't know if there's a good solution to this other than just to stay away from normal somewhat and especially quick (a game speed that's so broken that almost nobody on this forum voted that they play it).

Anyway, in case you still aren't aware of how balance is badly affected:

- On a speed like quick, it is literally possible to mass an army as an army that declares marches to a city. For every city it tries to take. Hello WW, good-bye fast wars, even with a lot of prep. It allows one to shirk military more and get away with it.
- On faster speeds, it is possible to be declared on, not have gunpowder, lose 8 of 14 cities across 30ish turns, and still have self-teched rifling and produce some rifles (ending the war because in this case I was using drafted janissaries and rifles screw them). THERE WERE NO TECH TRADES - I made sure of this very carefully... :(.
- Combining a high difficulty with quick means a unit a turn or very close in many AI cities. This is extremely imbalanced in favor of the AI since basically they pay a tiny % of what a human does to upgrade their army.

Production speeds, healing speeds, peace treaty duration...none of these things scale! On marathon unit costs don't even scale! Each difficulty is like a different game. Some people say that Epic/Marathon are easier and it's probably true - but I also kind of like the fact that if you don't have a military and you're declared on, you're toast. That feels a lot more realistic then suddenly conjuring up magical forces of 15 rifles by the time the attack stack reaches the 2nd city without drafting, honestly.

If I could stand marathon's slowness I'd play it.
 
Well, I'm not sure how to answer this response. At the beginning you ask how the balance is affected, but then at the end your argument seems to be that it *should* be.

I didn't mean that it isn't affected at all, or that for it to be unaffected is desirable. Perhaps the definition of "balance" is important, but I was responding to your assertion that
They *really**really**really**really**really**really*... should have scaled unit movement speed with game speed. The balances are affected so badly by this failure.

If you're going to call it a failure, I would hope you would have some idea of how it could have been done better. Do you have any suggestions?

in your suggestion mounted gets NERFED TO HELL on quick and epic.

Precisely. I can't see how scaling the unit movement with game speed is reasonable to implement without seriously and badly affecting the balance. I don't agree that "The balances are affected so badly by this failure." I think the whole nature of the game changes from one speed to the next, and I don't find that objectionable.
I'm sure that by "badly" you mostly meant "severely", but next to "failure" it shows you think the developers didn't do as well as they could have on this issue.

I don't know if there's a good solution to this other than just to stay away from normal somewhat and especially quick (a game speed that's so broken that almost nobody on this forum voted that they play it).
This I can agree with :)
 
I've played games on all speeds and I have to say Epic was the most fulfilling.
However, if I could have a custom speed.. it would have lengthened research times but keep production costs (hammers) of units at epic.
Come to speak of it; is there a mod that lets you do this?
 
Back
Top Bottom