Why Marathon?

[Cromagnus]

Why do people play on Marathon, aside from the obvious benefit of wars being easier to fight when the tech growth rate is slower?

I've noticed a lot of people play on Marathon, or Huge maps, and I've always been curious what motivates that. It seems to me like that just makes the game take forever. What am I missing?

 

[Shakira42]

It may take forever, but some people like the grand, epic feel of a marathon game.
Units, buildings, wonders all seem to have time to actually be memorable.

Some people keep striving for that sub-250 cultural victory, wanting to win as fast as possible. Some people like the slow stroll and take time to enjoy the scenery.

I personally play on standard most time with an occasional foray into epic or quick.

 

[Socratatus]

I like to settle down to a game I can get `immersed` in. Knowing it`s going to take a good while is what gets me ready to rule my Kingdom. It don`t feel like you rule anything if it`s over in half and hour! I`m also from the oldschool where games take time...

Also, I enjoy the ancient-medieval period more than modern, so I want them to last.

Of course when a person asks `Why marathon?`, I don`t think anyone can explain it to them, you just have to want to do it. No one can make you want to or like it- Only you.

 

[Ellye]

I play Standard, Epic and Marathon, and each one has a different "feeling".

For me, Standard has the best gameplay overall. Things move at a nice pace for a game, there aren't many idle periods and units last just enough time. My only issue with Standard is that, if you have passive start, you'll be in the Renascence before you even notice it, barely ever making use of early game units, bonus or such.

While Marathon is the most flavorful. Each unit type and each era lasts long enough for you to savor it. But idle times can start feeling really long, and the AI is noticeably worse at it.

 

[Beaver79]

Why would you want to play a strategy game where you finish it in a coupe of hours? I've played a ton of them from the Romance of the 3 Kingdoms games, Crusader Kings 2, the Total War games and all of them take weeks to finish a game. It just feels far more epic. To be honest marathon Civ 5 games aren't long enough for me.

 

[cpm4001]

I play Marathon for two main reasons: one, because the game goes too fast on Standard (you're in the Ancient Era one minute and then, poof, you're in the Modern) and two, because there's just no flavor to Standard: you can't build all the infrastructure you need (units included) when it "fits" for it to be built (come on, building a Colosseum in 1450? No thanks!), warfare's inane (yeah, it took us 250 years to capture one city...?), and it's impossible to get immersed in the game (you're leading a civilization through 6,000 years of history! Why would you want the game to take 2 hours?!)

 

[iamdanno]

I play repaced epic (mod) because I like the game to take a long time, but, because I'm a builder, I want to actually be able to build things and enjoy them (units, buildings, GP). Each era takes quite a while.

 

[General McUgly]

Yeah, I agree with everything that's been said concerning longer games. I've never played a game that was shorter than epic or marathon myself, because I just like to try out all of my options in a game.

In a longer game you get use out of those early military units, while in a standard game, I don't even bother building a military until I get to Medieval/Renaissance. I mean you upgrade most of those units in the first hundred turns anyway. Of course there is also building...you can spend most of your time building wonders if you get carried away with that kind of thing, and by the time you finish in standard, you'll have a few new wonders available to build after the last is finished.

You just don't get to enjoy things as much.

 

[Galgus]

I like the slower pace of the game: it makes it feel more like a civilization moving through eras.

You can also get a lot more exploration done before an era changes, and armies can travel large distances without significant changes in technology.

(Spain is weaker in Marathon due to the gold bonus from finding a Natural Wonder relative to higher costs, but stronger in that you have time to actually find them before needing to expand.)

Huge maps make it feel like an actual world of civilizations, rather than an isolated region.

Diplomatically it feels like you have to live with your decisions longer, because they make a lasting impact.

 

[Cromagnus]

I play Marathon for two main reasons: one, because the game goes too fast on Standard (you're in the Ancient Era one minute and then, poof, you're in the Modern) and two, because there's just no flavor to Standard: you can't build all the infrastructure you need (units included) when it "fits" for it to be built (come on, building a Colosseum in 1450? No thanks!), warfare's inane (yeah, it took us 250 years to capture one city...?), and it's impossible to get immersed in the game (you're leading a civilization through 6,000 years of history! Why would you want the game to take 2 hours?!)

I do agree that it's always felt weird for it to take 250 years to capture a city. ;-)

But, man, if winning a game of Civ on Standard only takes you 2 hours, you are either playing on Prince or below or you are a god. A game of civ typically takes me more like 8-10 on Deity because of micromanagement.

This is my issue. I don't want a game of civ to take more than 10 hours. Maybe I just play slow.

Although, one thing I just thought of, since military movement is usually what makes a game take a long time, and that part wouldn't be slower on Marathon, it wouldn't DOUBLE the time, I suppose. Hmm.

I'll give a few Marathon games a try, to see how it actually affects my total playtime. (I think I've only ever played one, for the achievement...)

If it's only 15 hours instead of 10, that might be worth it for the more immersive and realistic timeframes. Although I imagine it makes early domination victory waaay easier. Am I right?

 

[Sturmgewher88mm]

I do agree that it's always felt weird for it to take 250 years to capture a city. ;-)

But, man, if winning a game of Civ on Standard only takes you 2 hours, you are either playing on Prince or below or you are a god. A game of civ typically takes me more like 8-10 on Deity because of micromanagement.

This is my issue. I don't want a game of civ to take more than 10 hours. Maybe I just play slow.

Although, one thing I just thought of, since military movement is usually what makes a game take a long time, and that part wouldn't be slower on Marathon, it wouldn't DOUBLE the time, I suppose. Hmm.

I'll give a few Marathon games a try, to see how it actually affects my total playtime. (I think I've only ever played one, for the achievement...)

If it's only 15 hours instead of 10, that might be worth it for the more immersive and realistic timeframes. Although I imagine it makes early domination victory waaay easier. Am I right?

Once it took me 18 hours to get a domination victory on a huge archipelago map with standard time on chieftain, mostly because of the distances.

 

[cpm4001]

I do agree that it's always felt weird for it to take 250 years to capture a city. ;-)

But, man, if winning a game of Civ on Standard only takes you 2 hours, you are either playing on Prince or below or you are a god. A game of civ typically takes me more like 8-10 on Deity because of micromanagement.

This is my issue. I don't want a game of civ to take more than 10 hours. Maybe I just play slow.

Although, one thing I just thought of, since military movement is usually what makes a game take a long time, and that part wouldn't be slower on Marathon, it wouldn't DOUBLE the time, I suppose. Hmm.

I'll give a few Marathon games a try, to see how it actually affects my total playtime. (I think I've only ever played one, for the achievement...)

If it's only 15 hours instead of 10, that might be worth it for the more immersive and realistic timeframes. Although I imagine it makes early domination victory waaay easier. Am I right?

I am playing on Prince (I could play on King or Emperor, but I'm lazy)...but yeah, I probably should've said something like 3-4 hours. That little bit of hyperbole didn't quite work right...
Now, in regards to timing: Marathon speed is about 3X longer than Standard, so your games would probably end up taking at least 30 hours (which is about right; it usually takes me a few weeks playing two/three hours every day to finish a Marathon Speed game.) So you'll want to keep that in mind. Also, early-game warfare is a tad easier, but it takes you much longer to build units (and early-game infrastructure) so you'll probably be starting wars at about the same in-game year.
So I guess I'll just suggest you give Marathon a shot. It's not for everyone, but hopefully you'll like it.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

On large or huge maps, it just takes time to get from one side to another, so marthon ensures that units are not obsolete by the time they get there.

Gives time for units to get XP before they need upgrading as well.
Gives time for barbs to toss a monkey wrench into the AI expansions. (they're still stupid with
settlers/workers)
Gives time for me to kill said barbs for xp/culture/gold easily, before they get a bit tougher.

And I just find it more fun.

 

[Ellye]

I usually spent around 6h to 9h on a Standard game, and up to 14h or so on a Marathon game.
I play on Emperor.

 

[JollyRoger]

I prefer marathon. To me, there is a better chance that I will get that immersive experience with marathon than I will with a slower speed. Civ5 doesn't seem as immersive as III or IV, though it has gotten better on that point with the expansions.

 

[Walter R]

I've been against it since I tried it once a long time back and found it exceedingly boring; but that was at low level and I was a total noob. In recent games (I play at Standard speed) I've felt vaguely disappointed how quickly industrial and modern eras seem to arrive, but the game pace feels about right after that. My games typically last anywhere from 6-10 hours.

Maybe it's time I experimented further with the longer game speeds.

 

[RonMar]

I haven't played any marathon games. I tend to play either standard or sometimes epic. But, I play on huge maps almost exclusively. Playing this way takes me usually a week and a half or two weeks to finish a game.

I play only about 2 or 3 hours a day and my wife thinks I spend too much time with the game. Of course, I also spend time on the forums and watch Lets Play games. In addition, when I resume a save I usually spend about a half hour filling out a report on the current status of the game to refresh my sense of the (and for records). So, the time clock keeps running.

I try to better my score and win earlier, but with BNW my ending game turns tend to be greater. I also play at lower levels of difficulty, only occasionally playing at Prince. My game style tends to be peaceful, but with a good military ranking -- so I seldom start wars. I guess I don't take the chances that would make me a more competent player. Because I take so long to play a game that I am not aggressive enough to take too much risk of losing.

I took more chances before G&K and BNW came along.

I marvel at MadJinn's play at Deity with such a time with a comparatively small military.

 

[jlim201]

Marathon takes forever, I don't have the time, so I play standard or epic. If you have plenty of spare time, well you could play marathon.

 

[brewgod]

Hello Fellow Die Hard Civ V Fans,

I have always played on Marathon for the reasons that I play the game to relax from work on the weekends and want to go through all the years at a casual pace. I agree with others with how long it takes to start capturing cities. My choices on adopting new policies plays a bigger role to me than those perhaps who play on faster speeds. Knowing how long advances take and buildings to build policy decisions are Huge.

I also focus a lot on Wonders. I feel they play a larger role in Marathon but no way of proofing that since I only play on Marathon. I am in the game for the entire weekend. That's just me.

One question for those who do play like me with settings on Marathon and Huge Maps...how many cities do you control and run all said and done at games end...how many cities do you annex and those you leave as puppets or raze. I would like to know.

Thanks

Brew God

 

[GMO]

I play on Marathon because it's more immersive.

I don't agree that militarily it's easier. If I kill an enemy unit the other civ takes longer to replace it but it works the other way too, if another civ kills one of my units then it takes me longer to replace it.