Why Marathon?

[Depravo]

Never played on Marathon.

I'd like to know how exploring the map works. Is it easier to explore on Marathon?

I gather that a Scout still moves 2 tiles on any terrain on all game speeds. If i started a Marathon game and my first production was a scout, would the starting scout uncover 3 times as much of the map before the 2nd scout was born, than a scout in a standard game?

Also as it would take more turns for the AI to build more Cities, wouldn't that starting scout be able to uncover more land around the AI empires?

You gathered right - and it does tend to distort the game when even the biggest home continent is completely revealed before 1AD. If Polynesia is in, for example, it's guaranteed to circumnavigate, contact every CS and coastal civ, and explore every isolated ruin while the other civs are getting their boots on. In human hands that amplifies what is already a ludicrously strong UA into almost guaranteed victory given the correct map type.

One thing that's still missing from Civ is a logistics model of any sort.

 

[Holyhesk]

You gathered right - and it does tend to distort the game when even the biggest home continent is completely revealed before 1AD. If Polynesia is in, for example, it's guaranteed to circumnavigate, contact every CS and coastal civ, and explore every isolated ruin while the other civs are getting their boots on. In human hands that amplifies what is already a ludicrously strong UA into almost guaranteed victory given the correct map type.

One thing that's still missing from Civ is a logistics model of any sort.

Thanks for the answer. This is one reason why Marathon play puts me off a little. I like to have parts of the map hard to reach. This happens all the time in a standard game as there are more cities blocking you off from the fog of war.

 

[Emperor Giulio]

I guess the longer games allow you to appreciate eras and units longer. I almost never get to play with standard archers; I always advance straight to composites before I can get to them.

 

[Johnpecan]

The main reason I would theoretically play Marathon is because the wars last longer in a particular era. It's kind of disappointing getting a really fun UU to play with and then only have ~25 turns of dominance until it becomes obsolete/less useful.

For this reason, marathon games are much easier vs the AI. The more time you have to exploit the AIs weakness in strategic military moves, the bigger advantage the human has.

 

[Camillo]

Recently I found even Marathon to be too fast and first of all not well scaled to the game date. Entering medieval era around 800 BC and industrial era around AD 1500 ?
No thanks.
I altered game speed in the gamespeed xml file and doubled science rate of every game speed.
On Marathon it was 300 by default and now it is 600. So researching technologies is twice slower while every other aspect of the game is still the same.
Now the Marathon is even slower and more enjoyable giving much more time for waging wars in certain eras, creating units and building city improvements.
And now researching technologies seem to be much more accurate to the game date.
Try it yourself.

 

[Socratatus]

Yea, it lets you hang around the ancient times longer and actually have an interesting memorable experience, so by the time you get to the Modern era you can think back wistfully to when you defeated the Mighty Aztecs in a long war in 200 BC and defended against Assyria in 300AD with your Elite archer strategy or something.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

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.

Marathon was always easier than faster speeds and that will remain the case as long as the AI can't manage the same level of effective unit movements as the human.

Due to less relative time spend (IE units move faster/year), progress is faster by a given date on mara than on faster settings, too.

However the #1 reason marathon is easier than other speeds is exactly that it is harder to replace units, which the AI is far more likely to lose. Milking the AI through war without slowing progress as much never gets easier.

 

[Cromagnus]

Is the XP needed for promotion more on Marathon? If not you could easily have range archers before you even upgrade to CBs. also I can imagine some crazy early AD finish times... considering that a skilled Deity player can have artillery by 1000 AD on Standard speed. Because XBows don't become obsolete for twice as many turns, it should be possible to win the game long before 1000 AD... Crazy.

I imagine that on a Marathon Huge map some of the ideology policies of Order start to make more sense as well.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[EK834]

Is the XP needed for promotion more on Marathon? If not you could easily have range archers before you even upgrade to CBs.

That should be easy to verify. On Marathon my level 2 Rifleman is at 15/30 XP. My level 3 Winged Hussard is at 30/60 XP.

 

[Barghaest]

That should be easy to verify. On Marathon my level 2 Rifleman is at 15/30 XP. My level 3 Winged Hussard is at 30/60 XP.

XP requirement is in no way affected by gamespeed, so yes, in slower paced games you can get higher level units earlier allowing for some nasty scouts which extends their lifespan and utility or getting some real nasty Jaguars or other UUs before having to upgrade. This is also an advantage vs AI, since they tend to use Instaheal on units while human players might preserve experienced units - another way my pointy stick rating tends to skyrocket in slower paced games.

 

[CultureManiac]

Being able to get highly promoted units is a very benefitial feature of marathon. It's very worthwhile on marathon to declare war on a city state, usually one you stole a worker from, and then stay in a state of war all game and just farm it for experience. It's very easy to get many units upgraded to march plus logistics this way.

 

[Cromagnus]

Ok, that's just crazy. Marathon really is easy mode for Domination then! Heck, even just the advantages of all the early exploration would make a peaceful VC easier. I do admit I hate that units become outdated so fast on Standard, but the problem I see is that ultimately, the game is only balanced for one game speed, and that speed is Standard. I might play Marathon for the fun of it, but I wouldn't consider a Deity win on Marathon a true Deity win. It's too bad.

I do think the game is broken right now when it comes to tech rates. If I focus on science, I can consistently hit the Industrial Era by 1000 AD. Yes, I'm no beginner, but that shouldn't be possible, period. And Marathon would only make that worse, IMHO. So, rather than play Marathon, what I'd like is for them to fix the tech rates, so that the eras don't advance so quickly on Standard.

 

[Vitruvius]

Some UAs can be exploited. 40 turn persian golden age you can pretty much wipe everything off the map. However, discovering NW still gives 500 to spain and you need more than 2 to pop a new settler.. when i played spain even if you have all the timr to fine all 5 wonders, you still cant rush buy that first settler..

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using Tapatalk

 

[Barghaest]

Ok, that's just crazy. Marathon really is easy mode for Domination then! Heck, even just the advantages of all the early exploration would make a peaceful VC easier. I do admit I hate that units become outdated so fast on Standard, but the problem I see is that ultimately, the game is only balanced for one game speed, and that speed is Standard. I might play Marathon for the fun of it, but I wouldn't consider a Deity win on Marathon a true Deity win. It's too bad.

I do think the game is broken right now when it comes to tech rates. If I focus on science, I can consistently hit the Industrial Era by 1000 AD. Yes, I'm no beginner, but that shouldn't be possible, period. And Marathon would only make that worse, IMHO. So, rather than play Marathon, what I'd like is for them to fix the tech rates, so that the eras don't advance so quickly on Standard.

I'm working on that. My current mod extends research time while not extending build/construction/train time. I get about 300-400 turns per era. Currently just entered Medieval around 450AD on turn 750. Had lots of time for empire management and early wars (fighting off AI swarms of warriors/archers early in the game was pretty fun).

In order to do this I had to pretty much do away with Free Tech - including for the AI on higher difficulties - and tweak a lot of other things but the AI's inability to manage an empire is exacerbated in a slow research game - it's economy remains in the tank until late Medieval/early Renaissance while I run at 30+ GPT because I adjust my expansion/TR as the game progresses. I've finally gotten the AI on Prince/King to remain viable in tech (current King game some are a few ahead of me while a few games ago I was half an era ahead of them by Medieval) but it still needs some work before even ready for beta testing (namely what to do with wonders to avoid wonderhogs from becoming serious runaways since the bonuses they give make more of an impact in a slow research game vs standard Civ5).

 

[Cromagnus]

Interesting. Keep us up-to-date. Although... 300-400 turns per era?? I'd settle for 100!! On Standard, the AI hits Classical on Deity by turn 25.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Ok, that's just crazy. Marathon really is easy mode for Domination then! Heck, even just the advantages of all the early exploration would make a peaceful VC easier. I do admit I hate that units become outdated so fast on Standard, but the problem I see is that ultimately, the game is only balanced for one game speed, and that speed is Standard. I might play Marathon for the fun of it, but I wouldn't consider a Deity win on Marathon a true Deity win. It's too bad.

Don't be silly. The game isn't balanced on any speed. The vast gulf in utility between top-tier and bottom tier civs, spawn location quality, and the general focus on the same kind of opening over and over make "balanced on standard" a shaky position anyway.

Play the speed you find most enjoyable . Enjoyment of the game is the sole purpose of its existence.

 

[Jaybe]

Play the speed you find most enjoyable . Enjoyment of the game is the sole purpose of its existence.

What's this?!
I thought Enjoyment of the Game to be the sole purpose of MY existence.

 

[Cromagnus]

Don't be silly. The game isn't balanced on any speed. The vast gulf in utility between top-tier and bottom tier civs, spawn location quality, and the general focus on the same kind of opening over and over make "balanced on standard" a shaky position anyway.

Play the speed you find most enjoyable . Enjoyment of the game is the sole purpose of its existence.

Ok, fair point that it isn't balanced on any speed, but it's clearly *more* balanced on Standard than it is on Quick or Marathon. Quick punishes warmongers, and Marathon makes warmongering over-powered. This seems self-evident. The fastest finish times are *usually* achieved via Domination on almost every difficulty level, even on Standard, so I would argue that until they fix the AI, Marathon needs a Diety+ Mode that makes war harder. One simple solution would be to give, say, a 25% penalty to the player's attack strength in foreign-controlled lands, and a 50% penalty to the player when attacking cities. This, although not perfect as far as solutions go, would make it harder when attempting to conquer enemy cities, without significantly affecting any other aspect of the game. (Except for when defending yourself requires an incursion...)

At least this way you'd get more enjoyment out of the eras, without conquest being "super-easy mode" like it is now on Marathon. The idea that you could have range AND logistics by the time you tech CBs... that's just laughable. So, no, it's not comparably imbalanced.

Also, enjoyment of the game?? I thought the sole purpose was comparing the size of our E-peen!?

 

[Jaybe]

The fastest finish times are *usually* achieved via Domination on almost every difficulty level, even on Standard, so I would argue that until they fix the AI, Marathon needs a ...

Sorry, I don't get it:
Just WHAT is the appeal of 'fastest finish times', particularly at slower game speeds?

If you're playing the game for the immersion/sandbox (marathon), you are NOT trying to whip out a win as soon as you can unless you're growing particularly weary of your game.

I doubt many are playing marathon for combat advantage over the AI (excepting those who are just after the deity bragging rights).

 

[Cromagnus]

Sorry, I don't get it:
Just WHAT is the appeal of 'fastest finish times', particularly at slower game speeds?

If you're playing the game for the immersion/sandbox (marathon), you are NOT trying to whip out a win as soon as you can unless you're growing particularly weary of your game.

I doubt many are playing marathon for combat advantage over the AI (excepting those who are just after the deity bragging rights).

I'm merely pointing out that the AI is so pitiful at combat that Marathon would make it too much of a joke. It exacerbates the AI's biggest weakness. The "fastest finish times" comment was just supporting evidence of that.

I like the idea of more turns per era, but not if it totally unbalances the game, which it clearly does. Just my opinion.

Yes, admittedly, I'm obsessed with optimizing my performance at the game. That's not really the point here. I could just avoid Domination on Marathon, but half the reason I'm intrigued by marathon is not having your units become out-of-date after 20 turns. So it's a catch-22. The very thing that makes it intriguing also makes it too easy.