1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

What Game Speed Do you Prefer?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by Flippy562, Jul 23, 2014.

?

Which Game Speed Do You Prefer?

  1. Quick

    14 vote(s)
    14.6%
  2. Standard

    56 vote(s)
    58.3%
  3. Epic

    20 vote(s)
    20.8%
  4. Marathon

    11 vote(s)
    11.5%
Multiple votes are allowed.
  1. reddishrecue

    reddishrecue Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    5,381
    Standard is a good speed preference for me and quick is also a good preference for me.
     
  2. cain3456

    cain3456 King

    Joined:
    Nov 1, 2010
    Messages:
    641
    I play Epic 90% of the time, and standard the rest of the time. Epic seems to be the right balance for me.
     
  3. revelation216

    revelation216 NQ Civilopedian

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2011
    Messages:
    225
    Location:
    USS Missouri
    I prefer epic but the problem is when you want to talk strategy on threads nobody wants to help out because they only know standard speed strategy
     
  4. eris

    eris King

    Joined:
    Mar 4, 2004
    Messages:
    623
    Location:
    On this forum
    I play Epic. I used to play Marathon in Civ 4, but the in between torn delay is too much for me to wait for a Marathon game's worth of turns in Civ 5. So, I cranked it down to Epic and work with that.
     
  5. Flippy562

    Flippy562 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2014
    Messages:
    15
    so after all these people saying "standard, standard, standard" My most recent game that I am currently playing is now on STANDARD. lol

    and I do understand what a lot of you were saying about diving deeper into each era, because so far I'm into early Medieval, and it is pretty enjoyable to still have a lot of use with Pikeman, Knights, and Swordsman. As oppose to quick where I'd usually be dumping some outdated troops for new ones, and spending tons of gold to upgrade. :p

    I'll probably go back to quick once and awhile, but I definitely think I'll stick with standard for awhile.
     
  6. Gustavus Rex

    Gustavus Rex Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2013
    Messages:
    428
    I'd like quick best if there was some way of not making the units grow old so fast, like double movement or someting. Don't know.

    As it is I prefer standard and Epic as second. Marathon is to slow and quick make units useless to fast.
     
  7. megabearsfan

    megabearsfan Prince

    Joined:
    Jan 17, 2006
    Messages:
    531
    Location:
    Las Vegas, NV
    I voted for standard. The game seems to be specifically designed and balanced for the standard speed and map size. The other speeds just have annoying pacing and balance issues for me. The most significant is that damage from combat doesn't scale at all with game speed.

    QUICK = Killing units is very hard on quick speed, since they can be built so fast. A replacement unit can be built and damaged units on the front line can be constantly replaced with fresh ones. Early in the game, barbarians can be really annoying if you're a non-militaristic civ. They spawn more quickly but take just as long to kill. On Standard speed, I can usually dedicate one Spearman or one Warrior and one Archer to hunt barb camps. On quick, I need an army of 3 or 4 units dedicated just for hunting barbs because by the time it takes me to kill one unit, 2 more have spawned!

    Once you get past the early game, tech progress is so fast that there just isn't time to build and use your units. This gives a greater advantage to defenders, since the time it takes to march an army across the map gives the opponent enough time to research techs and upgrade units. This can restrict the player into having to focus its conquests on nearby civs. The problem with that is that those civs are often my trading partners and friends / allies, so suddenly turning aggro on them hurts me diplomatically with everyone else.

    EPIC and MARATHON = Have basically the opposite problem. Units take so long to build that you just can't afford to lose any - especially early in the game. If you lose your first warrior or scout to barbarians, the time it takes to build another one means that all the goody huts are gone and all the CSs have been met.


    I'm not saying that the game is broken because of these factors. Rather, they just really screw with the pace of the game for me. It's not so much of a big deal if I know that I'm going for a turtle strategy.

    What's really frustrating though, is that I feel that the first half of the game goes too fast and the second half too slow (on any speed). What I would really like is for the first half of the game to play like Epic and the second half to play like standard. That way I have more time to use early game units.
     
  8. Vitruvius

    Vitruvius King

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    862
    Quick is fine if you shrink the map down to small. The scale of battles are smaller but you need to play more tactically because theres less time for you waste turns manoeuvring and healing. Insta heal is actually a good promo on quick. That is why I find quick/small map more enjoyable because theres less room for error and results in quicker games so you can play a more variety of games over the same number of hours.
     
  9. Don Matt

    Don Matt Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 26, 2014
    Messages:
    19
    Location:
    Seattle
    I prefer Epic... I play on huge maps on Immortal... I find the slower speed lets me enjoy the classical period and middle ages more than on standard - when games always seemed to be in the Rennaisance bas soon as I head swordsmen.
     
  10. reddishrecue

    reddishrecue Deity

    Joined:
    Nov 16, 2009
    Messages:
    5,381
    I don't use epic nor marathon that often, no. Either standard or quick. .. i could change that option though.
     

Share This Page