Why is proper game speed scaling so difficult to manage in the Civ franchise?

[vale]

I've been complaining about this issue here since 2007 but they still are getting it wrong. I just wish the scaling would be done so that the game speeds have experiences in the same ballpark.

1. Staggered starts go from a ridiculously strong advantage for the player on quick to essentially meaningless on marathon.
2. Gold huts STILL don't scale.
3. Many expeditions don't scale except in the duration of time your explorer has to spend doing them. 80 production reward for 25+ turns of expedition is sort of a joke.

I'm also willing to bet the hammer decay issue is the same as it was in Civ IV and Civ V.

This doesn't seem like it would be difficult to fix. If balance is the concern, then the scaling doesn't have to be perfectly linear. But the numbers should not remain the same on different game speeds.

I know espionage scales (siphon energy seems crazy on marathon to be honest) and I'm not sure about quest rewards. The main point I am trying to make though is that marathon and quick seem like two completely different games, not the same game with different settings. I'm not a fan of that feeling.

 

[terraslayer]

EXACTLY THIS! This is one of the reasons why I hate playing on different game speeds. Some strategies that work on normal speed because stupid on say marathon or broken on quick.

Another example of this is trying to "sell" open borders to neighbors. This was a strategy in Civ 5 for earning easy gold in early game. Try that on marathon and it's stupid. 50 gold for 90 turn open borders is a joke. But on quick its broken (50 gold for 15 turns open border).

 

[kirbdog]

I agree. I would imagine they don't do much play-testing on Marathon in-house.

 

[Biz_]

i always viewed marathon and quick as different games with different balance, not just the same game at different speed

i expect marathon to have a larger window of opportunity to use units before they become obsolete
stuff like that that will never change until map size scales with game pace

 

[Gamewizard]

The game has so many different starting options that it must be a nightmare to balance every possible one. I personally think they should do away with everything other than standard/standard and just focus on getting standard right, but thats just my opinion of course.

 

[ErichRommel]

Marathon seems generally not suited to Beyond Earth. The turn limit of 750 turns is way to less to achieve even the fastest victory types. Tbh im totally disappointed by this cause marathon was my favorite Civ 5 gamespeed. Anything less just doesnt feel "epic"..

 

[Poopin Thelift]

Marathon seems generally not suited to Beyond Earth. The turn limit of 750 turns is way to less to achieve even the fastest victory types. Tbh im totally disappointed by this cause marathon was my favorite Civ 5 gamespeed. Anything less just doesnt feel "epic"..

My last game on marathon I would have won on turn 590, but I hadn't the patience to wait the 56 turns for the Mindflower to bloom. I think all victory types can be achieved in under 600 turns on marathon.

 

[tharg]

There are only so many game parameters whose meaning change depending on game speed. It should not be that difficult to have them written down and sorted after all these years. Maybe adding one or two new ones for each civilization release.

 

[marioflag]

I agree completely with the thread starter. On a positive note, BE compared to civ5 feels more balanced on marathon because the new promotion system really limits xp farming. I have neve understood why the didn't scale combat experience to game speed in civ5 even if it was one of the most obvious and pressing issue affecting game balance