[BTS] Why I like normal speed.

[gavenkoa]

I preferred to play on Marathon/Epic game speed 2 months before because I was able to deploy / use enough military units before they were obsolete. This accompanied with low difficulty level and chaotic planing. I was able increase military power if I lacked it.

After moving to Emperor/Immortal difficulty longer game just gives an opportunity for AIs to build massive armies that I need to deal with. It is just not fun to micro-manage "1000" units ))

And I started to plan actions (because of difficulty and a call for strategy to achieve efficiency). With planing you can deploy and utilize your military units before they obsolete.

I'd like to quote: https://ask.metafilter.com/173833/Turn-me-into-a-Civ-IV-jedi

The most important thing I learned from CivFanatics, though, which helped me go from "ehh" to pretty good: set goals. Start with an overarching goal (I plan to win via conquest, or by spaceship). Then have mid-range goals ("I want to build The Great Library, which requires Literature, so I'm going to race for that in research", or "I want to take that island next door, so Ill need ships and troops in 25 turns" or "I want to make sure I have iron when it becomes visible, so I'll explore now.") Do everything in service of those goals - don't just do things haphazardly.

And another: https://www.reddit.com/r/civ/comments/19dlgs/do_people_actually_use_marathon_speed_or_epic/

When I was in college (Civ III days) I would play longer games almost exclusively. Now that I'm married, have a fulltime job, etc., I get to play a few hours at a time here or there, or for half an hour before work, so marathon/epic would take me literally months to finish.

For other people opinion refer to: https://www.google.com/search?q=civ4+game+speed

 

[Tobiyogi]

I usually play on normal speed, but I have also tried out epic in several games. The benefits on slow speed are for me that everything becomes more valuable. You don't want to lose any warriors (especially in the early game) or workers, it'd take much longer to replace them while they have the same ability to scout the map as on normal speed. Same for the workers, they can move as fast as on normal, so the Indian UU loses certainly of its value. On the other hand, I find epic very anoying, because if someone attacks you (or a barb is bothering you), you cannot react as quickly, the enemy moves with "normal speed" towards your empire, but your build up works on "epic speed". Also I like to save worker turns, building half a road or quarter a cottage on the way to another improvement, and on slower speeds that move becomes almost ridiculous and it doesn't feel very rewarding to do so.

 

[Gumbolt]

Marathan/Epic is easier for the human player even on immortal. You have a larger window to use units. So it means unit's like HA and Cuirs can rule the roose much longer. Whilst the map size is the same.

If the AI are overwhelming you with too many units it's likely you are building too few. There are game options for quick combats. You can also move units in stacks. You can also use go to options or rally points to speed up troop movement.

I prefer normal speed myself.

 

[rah]

Yeah, it's not like CIV V where the go to command is useless.

 

[Anysense]

Never liked normal speed much. The only good thing about it is that the game sort of goes faster. Even this is an illusion. The same quality takes about the same time on any game speed. One thing that really don't like about normal speed is that everything happens much too fast, it's driving me mad. For example, once the direction for attack is chosen, there is no going back - there is simply no time for it. And when choose on a basis like "ok, this guy doesn't even have Monarchy, lets kill him first, easy pick". But of course, five turns later after you have taken just two cities, he had already upgraded all his archers to longbows. Well, should have known that window of opportunity is nearly always ridiculously narrow on normal speed. Quick is...

Edit: Oh yeah, Quick combined with Future start makes Time game for HoF bearable. It is fun to run around the map stopping AIs building spaceships. It insane how little time they need to do it, it's lucky the mission is aborted when you take the capital.

 

[Powerfaker]

For a long time I stayed with normal. Even on normal I frequently didn't have the stamina to finish games with many cities to manage, let alone epic or marathon.
Then I discovered stuff like building wealth , producing failgold and marathon became more favourable. The tough part on marathon however is the tech pace in the beginning. On normal you can easily collect all worker techs and cruise to writing without putting any effort in commerce gathering. Try that with Isabella on marathon and suffer. For this I partially turned back to normal.

 

[Tobiyogi]

The discussion tempts me to bring up an Epic Forum Game with a Chinese Leader. Would be nice to allow my preferred UU - the Cho-Ko-Nou - to have a longer time window where it can strike without siege. So China, epic, Immortal, certainly without Tech Brokering and maybe even some difficult terrain (because Great Persons can grow anywhere :-D

 

[Orion Pax]

I’ve become a fan of Marathon games. Mostly for the pace of history, getting to really feel each era. Rome wasn’t built in a day and all that..

The discussion tempts me to bring up an Epic Forum Game with a Chinese Leader. Would be nice to allow my preferred UU - the Cho-Ko-Nou - to have a longer time window where it can strike without siege.

^Yes. Love Chos. They can become marginal quick, so this does indeed help.

The tough part on marathon however is the tech pace in the beginning. On normal you can easily collect all worker techs and cruise to writing without putting any effort in commerce gathering.

Yeah at first this is a big shocker, but then it’s just something you have to adjust to. Forces you to make calculation, especially at the start, on which path is most beneficial for you, including build order. And man, first border pops take 30 turns!

 

[Tobiyogi]

Seems to me that on epic speed (and on marathon maybe even more) some traits gain more value. I think especially of those who help to bring out earlier workers and settlers (so EXP and IMP). I cannot really prove that in terms of math, but I have played two EXP leaders now and felt that the 1-pop-whip of granaries is more beneficial than on normal speed. And of course the worker bonus: As a chopped forest takes 5 turns, it is much more useful to step into the forest with 2 workers, I would almost say you should send 2 workers to most improvements

 

[gavenkoa]

As a chopped forest takes 5 turns, it is much more useful to step into the forest with 2 workers, I would almost say you should send 2 workers to most improvements

I usually tend to split workers when there is a hill or forest. It saves 1T of worker movement.

It takes 1T to get to the hill and 2T to build mine for 2 workers (given we at Normal speed), 3T total. If you have 2 hills it is 6T total. If you split workers it takes 1T to get to the hills and 4T to complete 2 mines. Hope I haven't made mistakes.

 

[Tobiyogi]

I am not sure if the saved turns are the only criteria. Sometimes, it is crucial to finish an improvement asap and I would even send 3 workers into the same forest to get the chop done (normal speed). Especially in the beginning, you cannot allow to spend too much time on one improvement (f. ex. mining a forested hill), because new technologies and border pops can modify the actual needs. There is really no rule of thumb. Nevertheless, on speeds below normal, it is much more worth to send 2 or 3 workers on a hill / into a forest, because they have the same movement points while the time passes slower. I would even claim that on epic/ marathon, it is easier to keep track of improved tiles and to found new cities in already improved surroundings. Because workers are cheaper (proportionally) and they can get to the places in the same time while there is much more time before the city grows (and therefore needs new improved tiles).

 

[Fippy]

Slower speed is more forgiving overall, worker micro and stuff like that has less impact if improvements take longer.

 

[Anysense]

I usually tend to split workers when there is a hill or forest. It saves 1T of worker movement.

It takes 1T to get to the hill and 2T to build mine for 2 workers (given we at Normal speed), 3T total. If you have 2 hills it is 6T total. If you split workers it takes 1T to get to the hills and 4T to complete 2 mines. Hope I haven't made mistakes.

I find counting workerturns more convenient, especially when planning a lot of improvements ahead and need to figure out how many workers I need to get the job done on time. Two workers building two mines separately cost 2 workerturns for climbing the hills and then each mine requires 4 turns. That's 2*1+2*4=10 workerturns. If the workers stick together they will spend 2 more turns moving, so its 2*2+2*4=12 workerturns. This way you spend 2 more workerturns but first mine is built 2 turns earlier; might be worth it, if it is copper or iron.