Speed:AI Advantage?

[Riot]

So I've been playing at Immortal for awhile now, and one thing I'm looking for confirmation is that faster speeds tend to benefit the player, while slower speeds tend to benefit the AI.

I finished a game on Normal today, and I finished a game on Epic, both Immortal and while both were won in the Renaissance via Rifles/Cavalry/Cannons (*Rifleman, *Cavalry, *Cannon, judicious use until the stack grows huge and roll the competition).

In the Normal game I managed to pick up a ton of wonders that normally I probably wouldn't have gotten so easily on Epic speed - MoM, ToA, etc., etc.

Example: In the Immortal game WvO bordered Charlemagne/Isabella with Free Religion and picked up about 8-10 Wonders, while in the Normal game he bordered Joao and I with the same religion and only built 3-4.

In addition, AI's on Normal seemed like they researched slower as well. My guess is that the AI production advantage factors in a lot more heavily on slower games where units take longer to build and concurrently quickens research when the AI mass produces Research or Wealth.

Anyone with similar experience playing on both speeds?

Sidenote: I was amazed at how much faster you can crank out units on Normal - I had something like 20 Cavalry in what I felt was a very short amount of time, whereas on Epic I have to start building units way in advance and figure out a way to do quick upgrades to really get a war going quickly and win decisively to beat WW and reinforcements.

Sidenote 2: I hate Isabella. Yes, even more so than Montezuma, Alexander. Maybe I hate Shaka more. He once DoW'd me in the 1500 BCs!!!!

 

[Orzio]

Generally the slower the speed the easier it is for the human. Faster speed=harder. Marathon is like playing one difficulty down comperd to normal.

 

[BigTime]

I agree with Orzio. The AI sucks at warring in general and marathon warring is sooo easy that it is much easier to war. On the other hand, recovering from expansion is harder on slower speeds.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Anti-confirmation. Faster speeds are way harder than slower ones.

 

[DaveMcW]

Speed:Warmonger Advantage

 

[KaytieKat]

Hi

Here is way I understand it. Slower speeds help agressive warring but make it difficult to adjust and respond if your cities get surpzied attack when youre not ready. And faster speeds make it more difficult for agressive warring but easier to respond when attacked. And since USUALLY once a player gets hang of things on whatever diff they are playing on they are less likely to be surprized and more likely to be the agressive attacker trying to catch the ai off guard, slower speeds tend to favor the human.

Kaytie

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Hi

Here is way I understand it. Slower speeds help agressive warring but make it difficult to adjust and respond if your cities get surpzied attack when youre not ready. And faster speeds make it more difficult for agressive warring but easier to respond when attacked. And since USUALLY once a player gets hang of things on whatever diff they are playing on they are less likely to be surprized and more likely to be the agressive attacker trying to catch the ai off guard, slower speeds tend to favor the human.

Kaytie

On levels of play where the AI can win in the 1700's or 1800's, fast speed is a direct addition of challenge.

Once players are past the learning stage they should generally be building enough units to survive unless they want to gamble. Of course if diplo is nice that # can be 0, but not always.

Even then, high-level AI can insta-replenish stacks as fast as you can heal. Not so on slower speeds, so any tactical ability makes them easier still on the human.

 

[kosiosko 1]

On levels of play where the AI can win in the 1700's or 1800's, fast speed is a direct addition of challenge.

Once players are past the learning stage they should generally be building enough units to survive unless they want to gamble. Of course if diplo is nice that # can be 0, but not always.

Even then, high-level AI can insta-replenish stacks as fast as you can heal. Not so on slower speeds, so any tactical ability makes them easier still on the human.

if i've been following you right, Marathon --easier than dificulty, normal---harder.
i tend to play marathon -- gaint map, epic ---middle sized map, normal---standard map, not because of difficulty just enjoyment.

in your experience, do you think it has the same effects, given different map sizes, untill this thread i just took it for granted it was balanced, am i seriously misleading my self with, marathon-- huge map ( by giving my self an advantage)

thanks if you happen to read this and answer

 

[DMOC]

The slower the game speed, the easier the games generally become.

 

[Riot]

I can see what you guys mean. Normal game speed wars have to be fast, because you can quickly fall behind an era (or two) if you let them drag on too long.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I can see what you guys mean. Normal game speed wars have to be fast, because you can quickly fall behind an era (or two) if you let them drag on too long.

Unit movement against production is weaker too.

 

[Kid R]

I tried playing on quick speed for a long time because for me the game's a bit long, and for builder games which is what I usually played then it's not bad. I'd say it was decently balanced with normal speed.

But for any kind of war-based strategy, as others have said it becomes realistically impossible to leverage a military tech advantage when everyone can research a whole generation of tech in 10-20 turns. Your army is obsolete before it even DOWs.

Unless you play on an easier skill level of course (at least one I'd say for quick/normal), but like a lot of players I want to see how my play compares with others playing the standard game and move up skill levels. So I converted to normal as that's what all the cool civfanatics were doing.

I can't say about epic or marathon, the very idea of playing the game slower speed makes me want to tear what's left of my hair out.

Edit: Thinking about that now, it suggests quicker speeds favour a builder game. The AIs will war just as much without taking much territory off each other, and let the human move ahead. Will have to try that theory out.

 

[mrwookie]

I think that on quick you need to dow with old unit and produce your unit...
this is what I experienced though...
or with new military tech build your stack untill new one dow at that moment..

 

[Kid R]

Also the AIs get heavily discounted unit upgrades. Without being able to explain clearly why, it seems this has to help them in a situation where the tech pace is faster relative to the speed of war. Perhaps because most of their units are city garrisons which are usually upgraded through the eras rather than fresh troops.

 

[PartAnon]

The only real difference that I've noticed is that in longer games, the units move faster, but only relative to everything else. Great for when you want to run a military campaign in a particular era. Personally I find the slower speeds to be grueling. Civ games take long enough on normal speed! Playing it in slow motion? Forget about it.

If units had triple movement on normal speed, that would be a little more interesting.

 

[madscientist]

Was a long-time Marathoner, now an Epic speed person. BIggest advantages are easier warring at slower speeds and easier peaceful games at faster speeds. Once you adapt the differences are not that big a deal.

 

[Kid R]

Just looking at the XML - (I assume it's Assets\XML\GameInfo\Civ4GameSpeedInfo.xml)

On Marathon most things take 3x as long as normal, except training units, which appears to only take twice as long. You'd think that would help to leverage attack windows even further.

4x as many barbs though?

 

[UncleJJ]

It is generally true that marathon and epic are easier to make war with than the faster speeds due to movement and healing times versus tech rates. But these factors also make a game based on diplomacy harder on the slower speeds as there are more opportunities for failed tests for DoW, more diplomatic requests for breaking trades, tribute and joining war. That makes for a more polarized game at slower speeds and players with a Builder style of play will find their games harder on marathon.

Marathon and epic are well suited to the Large and Huge map size where there can be a lot of cities and the greater distances takes longer to move. It just takes a lot of moves to get there and to capture the cities.

Marathon in particular is a very different game from Normal and has different economic, diplomatic and military strategies, including those for dealing with barbarians and more opportunities for dealing with events and quests, which some would argue give a richer feel to playing at the slower speeds. I like playing both marathon and normal and have to switch my playstyle and thinking a great deal when moving between them. They are nearly different games and can't really be compared in a very meaningful way. Saying that marathon is a difficulty level easier than normal is a subjective judgement. I play at the same level on both speeds and find them equally challenging. The warring is easier on marathon but other aspects are harder and overall it amounts to the same challenge.


The main evidence for the assertion that marathon is "easier" seems to the better HoF scores for marathon players than other speeds. It is not entirely clear why that should be, as HoF games are not played under the same conditions as the normal games players are discussing here. But HoF is something I don't participate in and I would welcome the comments of players that do. Maybe the HoF results are skewed by players registering their successes and not their failures, which happens as far as I understand. Could it be that marathon gives more scope for higher scores and more spectacular failures than say normal speed games and that is why HoF players are favoured?