Why does Marathon = (-2) Difficulty?

Before trying Epic or Marathon, could you please tell me which speed ratio are them set compared to normal speed ? F.i. 2:1 half speed the marathon ? Which ratio is Epic ?
 
speaking of askia, another great indicator of how easy marathon can make things are the ridiculously early settler level victories possible, like a diplomatic victory in 660 bc (turn 284 on marathon). good luck getting a diplomatic victory in the BCs on standard speed

Like Settler level matters for anything. You can't do it on Prince or higher, obviously, so that's a pretty pointless point.
 
Before trying Epic or Marathon, could you please tell me which speed ratio are them set compared to normal speed ? F.i. 2:1 half speed the marathon ? Which ratio is Epic ?

Well, you can go by the default time it takes to research the first tier of techs, for each difficulty level:

Quick = 6 turns (OMG, we're done ALREADY?!?)

Standard = 9 turns

Epic = 12 turns (33% longer than Standard)

Marathon = 27 turns (200% longer than standard)

Quick is like rabbit sex, Epic is just a piddly amount longer than Standard, and Marathon is a good, loooong time :-) Epic seems way too fast for me, I can't even imagine how awfully zippy Standard must be. I suppose if you just *have* to start and finish a game before bedtime on a weeknight, it's the only way to go. Literally. Not being an ADD sufferer, I don't mind stretching games out for several days or even a week, if it comes to that. If they'd made Epic be 100% instead of 33% longer, they'd have had it just right- as it is, it's so close to Standard as to be pointless. Not very 'epic', at all. Also, the ingame comment about "each era in Marathon being as long as a standard game", is BS. There are 6+ eras in the game, but it isn't 6x longer.
 
I need to try Marathon sometime. Sounds like it'd be perfect for a single game to last the quarter.
 
I need to try Marathon sometime. Sounds like it'd be perfect for a single game to last the quarter.

I really should try Standard sometime. Sounds like it'd be perfect for starting and finishing a game during a TV commercial break.
 
Like Settler level matters for anything. You can't do it on Prince or higher, obviously, so that's a pretty pointless point.

anytime you can finish the game relatively earlier (ie less than 3x the number of turns) on marathon vs standard is proof marathon can be easier. the only setting that matters is game speed.
 
anytime you can finish the game relatively earlier (ie less than 3x the number of turns) on marathon vs standard is proof marathon can be easier. the only setting that matters is game speed.

Yes, it's proof that it can be... if you choose to do it on Settler diff. Play the exact same game on King, and it will take a LOT longer on Marathon. Game speed is NOT the only thing that matters.
 
Yes, it's proof that it can be... if you choose to do it on Settler diff. Play the exact same game on King, and it will take a LOT longer on Marathon. Game speed is NOT the only thing that matters.

it won't. songhai + marathon is godly, any difficulty level. you get relatively 3x as much gold from clearing camps, because the main limiter in camp clearing is number of turns; it takes just as long to go to and clear a camp on standard speed as marathon. add in cheaper rush buy costs to set up more units to clear more camps and things compound.

anyway, askia and bismarck are both extreme examples due to their bonuses from camp clearing, but i've already made my point about other civs.
 
here's an example of germany: huge prince level marathon pangea game, turn 238 win. i'm sure that time could be significantly improved too.

good luck beating a huge map on standard speed by turn 80, any difficulty level.
 
here's an example of germany: huge prince level marathon pangea game, turn 238 win. i'm sure that time could be significantly improved too.

good luck beating a huge map on standard speed by turn 80, any difficulty level.

An example of using a specific civ's unique capabilities to prevent the competition from having a chance, so you can rush-win. Mmm, k. I don't take clinical advantage of such cheap tactics to rush my games and see how short I can make them, so I've never run into that sort of thing. All in how you like to play the game, I guess.
 
since you refuse to acknowledge the facts of the situation, let's settle it with a friendly competition: egypt, great plains, standard size, domination.

you play at standard speed, emperor difficulty,
i'll play at marathon speed, deity difficulty.

standard HoF rules, goal is fastest win. my turn counter will be less than 3x yours.
 
since you refuse to acknowledge the facts of the situation, let's settle it with a friendly competition: egypt, great plains, standard size, domination.

you play at standard speed, emperor difficulty,
i'll play at marathon speed, deity difficulty.

standard HoF rules, goal is fastest win. my turn counter will be less than 3x yours.

:popcorn:
 
it won't. songhai + marathon is godly, any difficulty level. you get relatively 3x as much gold from clearing camps, because the main limiter in camp clearing is number of turns; it takes just as long to go to and clear a camp on standard speed as marathon. add in cheaper rush buy costs to set up more units to clear more camps and things compound.

anyway, askia and bismarck are both extreme examples due to their bonuses from camp clearing, but i've already made my point about other civs.

Heh. Yeah, I've only played marathon once, on deity as Bismark. By turn 100, I was skulldragging the AI so hard with a massive barb army that I quit and never went back. Germany is an extreme example, sure, but there is not the slightest doubt in my mind that marathon is considerably easier than standard speed.
 
I don't play marathon, but that just doesn't sound right. Firstly, reduced rushing costs will compensate faster offensive units movement. Secondly, you still should be able to benefit defensively. AI doesn't beeline properly so once you've got sufficient defensive army it'll be sufficient for longer. Which means more time invested into infrastructure and 'peaceful' techs. Probably you cannot disregard defense completely counting on quick archers popping if necessary. But this is rarely good idea anyways. I might be wrong though. Have zero experience with this speed.

Maybe you should try playing marathon, you will notice the difference. The main effect is that technologic advantages are more important because they last longer. Agressive civs will tech to millitary techs. Whereas a human player playing peacefull will take those techs last (I know I do).

When you see 3 or more swordsmen coming at you and you don't have ironworking or don't have iron and didn't prepare you're in trouble. Your archers aren't going to be ready untill the second wave, if then. On quick, your archers would be ready when the first wave reaches your first city. Not to mention you can change your tech direction and upgrade some of your units before the war is decided.

Basicly, Marathon benefits warmongering more than the normal speeds. So if you're not warmongering but others are, you better be prepared for a defensive war at any time.
 
since you refuse to acknowledge the facts of the situation, let's settle it with a friendly competition: egypt, great plains, standard size, domination.

you play at standard speed, emperor difficulty,
i'll play at marathon speed, deity difficulty.

standard HoF rules, goal is fastest win. my turn counter will be less than 3x yours.

Oh, I'm not arguing anymore that you can manage faster wins that way, if that is all that's important to you. I just don't play for fastest wins, so it's a moot point as far as I'm concerned. I prefer to have fun, and my idea of fun isn't trying to shave every turn I can to race to the finish line. I like battling my way through all of history, taking my time in each era and getting the most out of each of the units in the game, and eventually living through the glorious global battles in the latter stages of time. My marathon/huge games almost always last over 1,000 turns, the average is probably 1100 or more. Anything shorter than 900, and you're not getting much out of the experience and effort, IMO. As for difficulty, I play as high up the chain as I can using Marathon length, that keeps the game interestingly difficult without being cussworthy. For me, currently, that equates to King/Marathon/Huge. I don't play Marathon because I'm looking for a cheap quickie.

I know you can kick AI butt much earlier in any difficulty by gaming some of the various civ advantages, technical rush methods and other exploit techniques, but I prefer to let the AI have a fighting chance, instead of stomping them young. To each their own preferences.
 
Vexing's point is that by "exploiting" the difficulties AIs face in warfare, you can win much more easily on marathon than on standard.
If you aren't a warmonger, marathon is just as difficult (maybe even more difficult) than standard. So I can understand that you are offended by his statement if you don't war often, even if it wasn't his intention to be patronizing.
If you do war though, he is right, and as a general rule of thumb you don't have many chances to win an argument against him :)
 
Vexing's point is that by "exploiting" the difficulties AIs face in warfare, you can win much more easily on marathon than on standard.
If you aren't a warmonger, marathon is just as difficult (maybe even more difficult) than standard. So I can understand that you are offended by his statement if you don't war often, even if it wasn't his intention to be patronizing.
If you do war though, he is right, and as a general rule of thumb you don't have many chances to win an argument against him :)

Probably 2/3 of my games, I go small empire/culture or science. And when I go dom, I seldom try to rush it. I build a solid base first, and then steadily get rolling. I'm sure I'm nowhere near as good as someone who plays deity games all the time and knows all the ins and outs of speedballing, but that's not what I'm in it for.
 
Basicly, Marathon benefits warmongering more than the normal speeds. So if you're not warmongering but others are, you better be prepared for a defensive war at any time.
Of course. This is kinda obvious. As for the rest... I think I'll take your word. :)
I was gunning for G-Major VIII earlier today (Science victory on Epic speed). Played for around 200 turns and quit. It was painful. I don't know why, maybe because of the waiting time between turns. Epic in Civ4 felt fine. Not great, but fine... Anyway, I'd rather have a root canal than play marathon in the nearest future. :crazyeye:
 
Another example : RAs.

Standard speed, you want an RA turn 100. The AI is broke and you have to wait 8 turns until the occasion.

Marathon speed, you want an RA turn 200. The AI is broke and you have to wait 16 turns until the occasion.

It's only an example, but you will have higher chances to get the gold before the check point if we compare both speed.

Here, 8 turns is like 24 for marathon, but you will likely are be able to get the gold before the 24 turn mark. Marathon wins again.

I never played marathon and i will never play it because like the Pilgrim said it's just too boring at this point. I do play some epic speed games and i easily noticed that i can get better finish times at this speed than standard or quick speed. But you know what, it's pretty obvious anyway. Easy to figure that it's easier when the turns are longer.

RAs, barbs, cs quests and warmongering make marathon an easier level to play(and to yawn).
 
Back
Top Bottom