What speed do you play on?

[Psyringe]

Just to be clear. On the slower speeds (epic and marathon) techs take longer to discover. Unit creation and movement remain basically the same? Or is it just movement? What about workers? Does it take longer for them to build improvements?

The rule of thumb is: Almost everything (tech cost, unit cost, building cost, worker job duration, golden age duration, etc.) scales by the same factor, to keep all game speeds balanced. However, in marathon speed there's one exception: The hammer costs for unit get a 33% rebate after scaling, i.e. they cost just 67% of the amount that they would cost after scalng by the same factor as techs, buildings and all the other stuff.

The actual mechanics are a bit more complicated (there are some things that don't scale, like the 10 turns minimum peace duration), but as a rule of thumb I found the above to work well.

The main advantage of slower game speeds is that unit movement does never scale, so with slower gamespeeds, units can cover more ground because they have more turns to move. This makes it easier to wage war, and easier to recover from wars.

 

[kingsfan]

So.... the more time you have to think. More wars.

 

[Naval Freak]

Marathon. Though, I've set up a (basic) mod to keep unit production normal - makes wars more realistic.

 

[Sneaky Snake]

Normal. I just don't have the patience for Epic or Marathon.

 

[Psyringe]

So.... the more time you have to think. More wars.

Yep. Also, consider this example:

You just unlocked and built a couple of Macemen. Your opponent currently employs archers as city defenders. This definitely calls for a bit of conquest. However, your opponent has just started to research Feudalism, so he'll have longbows "soon".

But how soon exactly? In "Quick" speed, he might be having Feudalism in 6 turns, whereas in Marathon (under the same circumstances) it will take him 27 turns. This means: In Quick, your units have 6 turns to use their tech advantage before it's significantly reduced. In 6 turns, the can usually go 2 cities deep into enemy territory at best. In Marathon, your units have 27 turns to use their advantage. They can go about 4 times as far into enemy territory as in "Quick" speed.

In short: War in Civ is often about small windows of opportunity in which you try to make maximum usage of a temporary advantage you got. In Quick, such a window of opportunity might be enough to capture two cities. in Marathon, the same window of opportunity might be enough to eradicate a civilization. Because in Marathon your units can cover more ground in the same time.

 

[G-Max]

Just to be clear. On the slower speeds (epic and marathon) techs take longer to discover. Unit creation and movement remain basically the same? Or is it just movement? What about workers? Does it take longer for them to build improvements?

I already covered this.

The rule of thumb is: Almost everything (tech cost, unit cost, building cost, worker job duration, golden age duration, etc.) scales by the same factor, to keep all game speeds balanced. However, in marathon speed there's one exception: The hammer costs for unit get a 33% rebate after scaling, i.e. they cost just 67% of the amount that they would cost after scalng by the same factor as techs, buildings and all the other stuff.

The actual mechanics are a bit more complicated (there are some things that don't scale, like the 10 turns minimum peace duration), but as a rule of thumb I found the above to work well.

The main advantage of slower game speeds is that unit movement does never scale, so with slower gamespeeds, units can cover more ground because they have more turns to move. This makes it easier to wage war, and easier to recover from wars.

Didn't I already cover this?

Yep. Also, consider this example:

You just unlocked and built a couple of Macemen. Your opponent currently employs archers as city defenders. This definitely calls for a bit of conquest. However, your opponent has just started to research Feudalism, so he'll have longbows "soon".

But how soon exactly? In "Quick" speed, he might be having Feudalism in 6 turns, whereas in Marathon (under the same circumstances) it will take him 27 turns. This means: In Quick, your units have 6 turns to use their tech advantage before it's significantly reduced. In 6 turns, the can usually go 2 cities deep into enemy territory at best. In Marathon, your units have 27 turns to use their advantage. They can go about 4 times as far into enemy territory as in "Quick" speed.

In short: War in Civ is often about small windows of opportunity in which you try to make maximum usage of a temporary advantage you got. In Quick, such a window of opportunity might be enough to capture two cities. in Marathon, the same window of opportunity might be enough to eradicate a civilization. Because in Marathon your units can cover more ground in the same time.

Oh yes, that's right, I DID already cover all of this. It was post #12 on this thread.

 

[Psyringe]

I already covered this.

Didn't I already cover this?

Oh yes, that's right, I DID already cover all of this. It was post #12 on this thread.

Yes, but since a question for better clarification was asked afterwards, I thought that another explanation wouldn't hurt. You also got some of the numbers wrong - the speed of Quick is 67% of Normal for most things (not 50%), and not all building costs are at 200% (only those for units, those for buildings are at 300%). I decided to not correct that though since I got the impression that you sounded a bit offended when I corrected mistaken info that you wrote in other threads lately. In any case, there are often good reasons to offer an explanation from two perspectives, and I wonder why you wrote the post I quoted above. What exactly are you trying to say?

 

[plasmacannon]

I used to be an Epic player, but, I didn't like how quickly units still became obsolete.
So, now, I am a marathon player.
On Marathon speed, one appreciates the Spiritual Trait more, as well.
It's flexibility become more clearer, than just the 3 turn wait savings for switching to 2 civics.

 

[george547]

^A lot of people think Spiritual is actually less useful on marathon than other modes because a turn of anarchy at marathon isn't as big of a hit as a turn of anarchy at a fast speed, because less time goes by per turn on marathon. I'm not sure what to make of the debate, really, though.

I usually play epic, but I am wanting to try normal again.

 

[Ignorant Teacher]

^A lot of people think Spiritual is actually less useful on marathon than other modes because a turn of anarchy at marathon isn't as big of a hit as a turn of anarchy at a fast speed, because less time goes by per turn on marathon. I'm not sure what to make of the debate, really, though.

Imagine you've just switched to Caste System and Bureaucracy when someone declares war on you. You've just lost 2 turns and someone declares war on you. You have no fast way to build troops. Are you going to waste two more turns to go back to Slavery and Vassalage? Don't you wish you were spiritual?

 

[G-Max]

You also got some of the numbers wrong - the speed of Quick is 67% of Normal for most things (not 50%),

You misread me: "Construction, research, and the Great Person Rate are all 50% faster on quick". Reducing costs to 67% of normal makes them happen 50% faster.

and not all building costs are at 200% (only those for units, those for buildings are at 300%).

Really? (opens Civ4 and checks) Wow. Thanks for pointing that out.

So in other words, Marathon is even more outrageously abusive for warmongers than I'd previously thought. That's... wow.

I decided to not correct that though since I got the impression that you sounded a bit offended when I corrected mistaken info that you wrote in other threads lately.

I have never posted mistaken info in these threads

What exactly are you trying to say?

"Zakharov". It's so hard to correctly pronounce the "kh" part without sounding like you're hawking a loogie.

 

[kingsfan]

Isn't the speed that you play at contingent on the size of map that you play? It just seems to me that it would be relative. I play on small maps right now so playing at normal speeds seems appropriate. Epic and marathon speeds might be better on bigger maps? Doesn't this play into it at all?

 

[Psyringe]

Game speed and map size are set independently and aren't adjusted for each other, but yes, choosing slower speeds makes more sense on larger maps (and vice versa).

 

[G-Max]

Actually, I'd do it the other way around... unless I want a single game to last less than twenty minutes or more than twenty years

 

[DanaLea]

well it is balanced when you're playing against humans. It's only imbalanced when you play against AIs, because their super discounts to research and upgrades will make any invading army obsolete before you can even reach their capital.

hmmm... this thread has really got me thinking... I don't like war. I even turn on always peace sometimes. I like to win peacefully, and I always do. But I also play on a very low level.. I only just recently moved from settler to chieftain...

I play quick. I don't like my games to take too long or I get bored. Often times if I have to quit a game, I simply don't come back, I start a new one.

I like to build the cities, and the buildings, some wonders, techs.. expand.. that's the fun part. Sometimes I'll set up a huge map with as few other civs as the computer will allow, to give me more time to play with my cities before having close borders and dipo problems, and AI's DoW'ing on me...

I'm thinking I'm playing at the wrong speed for how I like to play....

-dana

 

[IAmTheLol]

I've been playing exclusively on normal. I never thought about the differences epic/marathon games would have on the window of opportunity for warfighting. Since I usually do domination victories I'll have to give epic a shot for my next playthrough. I know in my last prince game (the first one I managed to finish with a victory in) I was first to rifles but by the time I had enough of a stack to go to war, Pericles had traded his way up and was packing riflemen himself.

Things got way messier than they had to, of course.

 

[Ataxerxes]

hmmm... this thread has really got me thinking... I don't like war. I even turn on always peace sometimes. I like to win peacefully, and I always do. But I also play on a very low level.. I only just recently moved from settler to chieftain...

I play quick. I don't like my games to take too long or I get bored. Often times if I have to quit a game, I simply don't come back, I start a new one.

I like to build the cities, and the buildings, some wonders, techs.. expand.. that's the fun part. Sometimes I'll set up a huge map with as few other civs as the computer will allow, to give me more time to play with my cities before having close borders and dipo problems, and AI's DoW'ing on me...

I'm thinking I'm playing at the wrong speed for how I like to play....

-dana

You might like an OCC (One city challenge). On a low level, you'll build the wonders you want. A game only takes a few hours, Normal or Epic OCC is done faster than a normal game on Quick. You only have one city, so don't reduce the # of other Civs or you'll have Stumbo the Giant to deal with. Your incentive to war is gone, because you can't capture other cities. It sounds really difficult, but it isn't. If you can win on Cheiftain, try a Settler OCC and move up if you need to.

I groan at the idea of a huge map with few other Civs. That would get tedious. It's also more difficult. The computer doesn't pay as much maintenance as you do, so you'll find some big AI's out there. Hope it isn't Shaka. I often add one or two more for spice.

Diplomacy is part of the fun of it. I once found myself on a continent with the Byzantines and HRE. They were both of the same religion. I converted to it. Very peaceful game, me and two friendly AI's on one continent in a big lovefest. Everybody trading monopoly techs and no chance of a war that counts. AI sucks at intercontinental invasions.

I find diplomacy part of the fun of it. An OCC forces you to use diplomacy and it gets enjoyable. Just get along with your neighbors, build a few good units and only defend yourself if need be. Try it. There are a couple of strategy guides about how to win peaceful OCC space race (the best victory for OCC). Also, that many games, you learn how the various AI's behave. They're quite different.

 

[Darth Fred]

I usually play on Normal, though as of late I have tried the quick speed a few times a thought it was fun.
F

 

[Notenoughtrebs]

I am pure marathon. Always have been. I remember when I first got the game I was a bit confused at first and thought 'Epic' was the longest. Halfway through the game I was thinking 'this really isn't so epic' and realised my mistake.

The idea of units going obsolete during a campaign drives me crazy. And while it may be realistic in the modern era, in ancient and medieval it is absurd. The Roman Empire, for example, made little technological progress in 400 years.

I actually wish campaigns and games would take longer. So you can really concentrate on strategy and tactics rather than constantly stressing...I have 8 turns to take his capital before those archers become longbows etc etc.

There's a mod for a longer game right?

It's a shame the AI is supposed to be weak at marathon. What's the reasoning there? Only that the AI is not good at warfare?

 

[Psyringe]

There's a mod for a longer game right?

Several, I think. I've seen mods for up to 6000-turn long games, though such a slow game would become boring without additional content imho. Check the modding section.

It's a shame the AI is supposed to be weak at marathon. What's the reasoning there? Only that the AI is not good at warfare?

Yes. Slower gamespeeds give all players more opportunities for longer wars. Human players can use these opportunities well, AI players not so much. The Better BtS AI mod helps though.