Why Marathon?

[Barghaest]

I can't stand the pace of Standard, blitzing through tech levels and units going obsolete before I've managed to produce more than 3-4 of them and MAYBE getting a few turns of combat with the first one.... if I want a fast-paced strategy game that'll end in under 2 hours, I'll play Age of Empires III. I want my turn-based strategy games to be immersive and epic so I preferred Marathon; however....

Everyone ITT is saying that units last longer in Marathon, and I've found that not to be the case since they take longer to build. Proportionately they're in the field just as long as any other game speed before being upgraded.

Marathon is a nice concept, but production, growth, etc needs to stay at a constant scale IMO.

This pretty much sums it up. Their marathon pace was a good concept/poor execution. In some games it even devolves to clicking "Next turn" several times in a row because of increased production time as well as research leaving little if anything to do... and good luck getting replacement units churned out before a Peace Treaty expires after you were nearly decimated.... so, I've designed my own game speed: Legendary. It's even slower paced growth/research than Marathon but uses the production/build/construction times of Standard, leaving you able to churn out buildings/units quickly but them to take longer to go obsolete...

 

[CaptainPatch]

Everyone ITT is saying that units last longer in Marathon, and I've found that not to be the case since they take longer to build. Proportionately they're in the field just as long as any other game speed before being upgraded.

Proportionally, yes. But in terms of number of turns until obsolescence kicks in, no. For example, the relationship between Standard and Marathon is 30 Standard turns = 90 Marathon turns (I believe). So, in Standard there is a unit that takes 10 turns to build, but in Marathon that same unit takes 30 turns to build. Ten turns later in Standard that unit becomes obsolete. But in Marathon, that same unit doesn't become obsolete until 30 turns later. That's 20 more turns in Marathon than it has full utility.

 

[Chemical Toilet]

Proportionally, yes. But in terms of number of turns until obsolescence kicks in, no. For example, the relationship between Standard and Marathon is 30 Standard turns = 90 Marathon turns (I believe). So, in Standard there is a unit that takes 10 turns to build, but in Marathon that same unit takes 30 turns to build. Ten turns later in Standard that unit becomes obsolete. But in Marathon, that same unit doesn't become obsolete until 30 turns later. That's 20 more turns in Marathon than it has full utility.

Yes but the extra time it takes to build that unit is making up for whatever extra time you have before it needs to be upgraded.

Of course this isn't the case for units already built, but at some point you're going to build another unit.

 

[PreLynMax]

To make up with units obsoleting too quickly, I have made the units build twice as fast. Instead of 10 turns, most (early game) units last around 5-6 turns. You can get a lot of units on the field at the same time, and when that obsoletes, the newer units can quickly get on the field.

That also means a lot of warring because building units (not buildings) are easier to come by than default, but it also means you can defend yourself easier.

BTW Chemical Toilet: Nice name.

 

[CaptainPatch]

Yes but the extra time it takes to build that unit is making up for whatever extra time you have before it needs to be upgraded.

The numbers don't agree.

We have a 3-to-1 relationship between Standard and Marathon. Divide a 90-to-30 block of turns into thirds. In the first third, the unit is built. It then has full utility during the second third. After that in the last third, the unit is obsolete

So, comparatively you have, Standard, 10 turns of build and ten turns of utility. But in Marathon you have 30 turns of build, followed by 30 turns of utility. That's 20 more turns where the unit can move and/or fight Ergo, that's 20 more turns to get the most use out of the unit before it becomes obsolete.

Because the map is the same for both pacing speeds, and utility is a matter of movement and combat uses, it means that you can get three times as much utility out of units in Marathon than you can for the same units in Marathon. (Especially because wounded units heal at the same speed in both Standard and Marathon.)

 

[tat501]

Playing slower paces means you get longer with your unique units - which is more fun at times.

If you are a civ with a renaissance gunpowder UU - like Ottomans - or America. Or a classical UU like Iroquois that can be helpful as well.

Playing on Huge/Large maps just feels more realistic. What kind of world only has 8 civs in it? What kind of civilization only has 4 or 5 cities in it?

 

[Arcaian]

I would love marathon tech with Standard production. Which is what I do. It lets you get a decent amount of troops out before the next tech level is out. Means people like Alexander's UUs are actually useful!

 

[Infantry#14]

I never play any speed other than standard in Civ 5. I imagine that Marathon should be easier because any mistakes made earlier would require a longer time to impact the gameplay and it's easier to recover given there are more turns to rectify the problem. I used to play marathron frequently in Civ4.

Nowadays I aim to finish a game within 2 days. On standard, I can breeze through the first 200 turns in one sitting. The next day I would finish the game.

 

[tat501]

The only reason I really stopped playing on epic/marathon was that after the industrial era it just took AGES to finish a game. It became quite boring late game.

 

[PibbZ]

I'm one of those guys who prefer the Marathon/Huge combination, and i would definitely play even larger maps than huge if that was actually possible.

The main reason is the epic feeling I get when lots of time gets devoted to a long lasting project of building and ruling an empire. I want all the different eras to last longer, that way, every unit and building gets to play a more significant role on world history. If I want to build something and be done with it in 30 minutes, I'll rather play the new Sim City

Main reason for loving huge maps is that I'm the kind of guy that likes a little tad of realism in my games aswell. I want my "crusades" and wars to feel epic, not just moving my troops next door and start a fight. I for one think it's easy enough to conquer the world in Civ 5, when you only need to hit and run the original capitals, instead of wiping them out completely. That's just another minor argument for having the maps bigger, so it spreads the capitals out even further apart. I don't like it when it gets too cramped, and 3 cities does not feel like an empire to me.

Civilization is one of those games that I don't feel like breaking down completely and theorycraft too much about. I don't care about the maths behind the differences in pace and map size, I just play to enjoy the game (a rare feat these days). Yes, playing on Marathon makes the game a little easier in regards to getting more out of your units in the same amount of ingame-years, but that's not the reason I play it that way.

To sum it up, here are some of the reasons why I play Marathon/Huge:

1. Each era last longer - (It makes for example medieval warfare much more enjoyable)
2. Every unit feels more useful -(Aka they get more turns in action before being upgraded)
3. Tech order seems more meaningful - (that might not be true but it feels like it to me)
4. Larger maps means more strategic options on where to build and where to fight your wars
5. Larger maps means more civs in play
6. More civs give a more epic feel to the game
7. If you want to conquer the world, you really got to work for it

I'm also from the old school of gamers where games simply took a while to complete, and I don't expect everyone to feel the same about huge/marathon as me, but this is why I love it!

"De gustibus non est disputandum" is a nice quote in a discussion like this, meaning: - "In matters of taste, there can be no disputes"

 

[Depravo]

Marathon is great, but leaves me wishing the game had some... ANY logistics model.

Also, if Polynesia is in your game, Marathon gives it a vast early advantage that would be game-wrecking if Kamahameha's AI wasn't braindead. They WILL circumnavigate in the first or second milliennium BC on a large map and they WILL be the first to contact all civs and isolated city-states.

 

[Sir Betti]

I'm one of those guys who prefer the Marathon/Huge combination, and i would definitely play even larger maps than huge if that was actually possible. <snip> [/I]

Try this; Random each time you start.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=474643&page=2

 

[holywar]

I have never played on Marathon but frequently on Epic. I like to play Epic when I am one of the older civs (Rome, Greece, Carthage, Egypt, etc.) because it gives me more time to use their UUs before they become obsolete. Also, choosing the citizenship policy that speeds up tile improvement along with building the pyramids gives a huge advantage because improving land 50% faster than everyone else means you stay several turns ahead.

The longer game makes warfare more consequential. In a regular game, if you lose a unit, you can pop out another one in a few turns. In epic/marathon, you lose a unit and you won't be seeing another one for awhile. Meanwhile, the opposing army moves at standard speed, so they can devastate you in the meantime. It therefore makes preserving units much more critical.

It also allows for more micromanaging and requires you to plan each tech and production more carefully. I feel like I play better on epic, but it does make the game quite a bit longer. So I only use it for the older civs.

 

[Krajzen]

For me, Marathon is way to slow. I am short - temper person and I am already annoyed in late era in standard game, when I have to wait at least few dozens seconds waiting for AI turn, only to click "next turn" in order to finally make all these buildings being made in my cities 1 turn sooner

However, I played Epic speed few times and it was... well... epic experience However I do not want to spend hundreds of turns with some crappy - random civ, or with randomly created map which after 300 turns turns to be bad (by bad map I mean for example Continets where on one landmass 64264 civs struggle to find their Lebensraum, while on the second landmass there is Venice and Russia not able to colonise it all for the entire game), or generally with typical - vanilla - game -> I mean, if I am going to play on Epic Speed, I turn on my favourite mods and fixes, take Europe/Earth awesome TSL map, and get into immersion.

On Standard I play un - modded games, on Quick - multiplayer.

 

[CaptainPatch]

I'm one of those guys who prefer the Marathon/Huge combination, and i would definitely play even larger maps than huge if that was actually possible.

Heartily agree! I really wish that the initial turns represented only 10 years per at most. Who takes more than 10 years to march just 2 hexes? If the number of East-West hexes were increased at the same time as the turn scale was reduced, the distance covered in km/miles per tile would be MUCH more logical.

 

[Walter R]

(England, King, Marathon, Small continents, 8/16)

So I'm playing my first (real) marathon game and it's certainly different. There is a lot more next turn clicking than usual, as I'd have expected, but it isn't detracting from the game. Only just got my first UA (Longbow), recently built Unis, still in Medieval and it's been hundreds of turns. I seemed to be in Ancient for ages and it will take me a while to get used to workers taking so long to complete tile improvements. Was in a phoney war with Monty for hundreds of turns (i.e. every 20 turns or so he would send 1/2 units to a choke and I in turn would help reduce his fixed costs), and I haven't met anyone else although I know that no-one is a total runaway yet; and I'm top tech with my three cities. Will keep you posted (ocasionally!)

 

[BrotherInJah]

I play only epic (99,99%). In multi when playing standard speed it feels like pop pop pop pop pop.. warrior, granary, monument etc. in few minutes.. crazy. Modern era in no time..

But.. marathon is sooooooooooo boring. If you are not waring alot then it is just clicking next turn.

 

[rodrigoq]

I'm always at war in my diety/marathon games. usually starting around turn8-15. I also micro manage the snot out of my empire. Rarely do I hit next turn w/o doing something.

 

[Jaybe]

I'm always at war in my diety/marathon games. usually starting around turn8-15. I also micro manage the snot out of my empire. Rarely do I hit next turn w/o doing something.

Yeah, 2-week long games are my norm, occasionally longer.
Then it's a few days (2-7) before I start another.

 

[glider1]

I'm always at war in my diety/marathon games. usually starting around turn8-15. I also micro manage the snot out of my empire. Rarely do I hit next turn w/o doing something.

Could you help me understand how you are ending up at a war so soon in marathon? Do you DOW every civ you come across?