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
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 ?
I need to try Marathon sometime. Sounds like it'd be perfect for a single game to last the quarter.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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![]()
Of course. This is kinda obvious. As for the rest... I think I'll take your word.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.