Marathon mode is excellent

[Hengist]

I started a new game yesterday, and put the speed on Marathon, after reading good things about it, here at Apolyton.

What a difference it makes. I'm actually able to build troops now and to use them, before they become outdated and obsolete.

I played for 7.5 hours last night, eventually forcing myself away from the screen, as it approached 2.30am... as I had the alarm clock set for 7.00am to get up for work.

I'm sat here at work, not really in the mood for doing any work and I'm constantly thinking about what I'm going to do in my Civ-IV game tonight, when I get back home.

I'm very pleased with this patch. The memory fixes are good, but the singleplayer gameplay changes that the folks at Firaxis have made have really put the icing on the cake for me.

Happy New Year all.

[STING]

I haven't got the time yet to try it out.
What I was readinig in another topic... has the building time also been increased with the same rate a technology gets researched? If so, like someone else said, you would keep the same problem you have on epic and normal (armies getting obsolete)

[Mergle]

Originally posted by STING
I haven't got the time yet to try it out.
What I was readinig in another topic... has the building time also been increased with the same rate a technology gets researched? If so, like someone else said, you would keep the same problem you have on epic and normal (armies getting obsolete)

I keep seeing people saying this. It's not true! It is true that your initial build times to get your army are increased, but then you have loads of time to go a-conquering.

Consider (made up times for extreme example)

Normal speed: 20 turns to research next unit tech, 15 turns to build current unit. You only have 5 turns to use it before it goes obsolete!

Slow both donwn by factor of 4 (I think): 80 turns to next unit tech, 60 turns to build. You now have 20 turns worth of use - a huge increase as movement is the same speed as before.

[Hengist]

I thought it had been adjusted, as I seemed to have loads of time to use my troops so far, but I haven't checked any of the xml files to look at the actual stats. It just seemed that I had ample time to plan and didn't feel rushed.

Last night I got to the 13th century and I'm just on the verge of discovering Gunpowder. So after tonight I should be able to give a better reply, as pre-patch the Gunpowder to Modern era was the era that used to go extremely fast for me.

Perhaps I was too hasty with my praise? I was basing it on what I had observed so far, but as I said in the previous paragraph, I guess tonights gameplay will be the real acid test. I'll post again after tonights episode.

One thing I did notice last night, was up until 1000AD I'd only met 4 other civilizations. Pre-patch by this time period, I'd met all in the game and been involved in an armed conflict or two, usually me defending invasions. This may be because I'm now using large maps? What I do know, is that it was a much more pleasent game experience.

It would be good to hear others experience of Gunpowder to Modern age era on Marathon.

[Proteus_MST]

I mentioned such a thing in another thread:
I made war to the english as soon as I had the tech to build cossacks and had built enough of them to start the war.

The war lasted for 100-150 turns (the english had more cities than myself), without the cossacks getting obsolete. They were still my strongest troops at the end of the war (and for lots of turns thereafter) and the only difference was that at the beginning of the war the english only had knights, long-/crossbowmen and pikemen for defence and at the end of the war they possessed grenadiers.

[Solver]

Actually, tech costs have also been adjusted in the patch. Which means that even on Epic you should now get more time to use your units. Particularly, the Renaissance has been slowed down significantly.

[Tattila the Hun]

Isn't that kinda a-historical? Should think the Dark Ages should have longer research time.

They didn't call them the Dark Ages because there wasn't enough light...

(Who said that? )

Renaissance had people like Leonardo, designing tanks and helicopters.

[Solver]

Longer research times to make them proportionate to the game. I mean, before this patch, the Renaissance techs were out of proportion. I'd get them in 3-5 turns and just blast through that era.

[Destroyer]

I think its stupid. All you really get as a result is an increased movement rate.

I prefer to actual decrease build times, so you get uber armies.

[wardhali]

Originally posted by Destroyer
I think its stupid. All you really get as a result is an increased movement rate.

I prefer to actual decrease build times, so you get uber armies.

what? the movement rate has not changed at all, many other changes have been made, such as increasing the number of turns dramaticaly, slowing reaserch times and ballancing the eras so that you dont blast through eras like the renaisance.

at least know what you are calling stupid.

and if you make a statement, please back it up with a logical argument. even if it is just that it does not fit your playing style

[swat-spas2]

Decreasing build times is unbalancing for single player. AIs don't preserve units or attack nearly as intelligently as the human player does. You having more and more units to make mistakes with does little to challenge you. Granted they might become obselete slower, but all this means is that you will have more to upgrade with later (provided you have money for this). I still have ridiculous kill ratios (10:1 min), especially attacking the weakest cpus (low tech) to gain experience before you tackle a heavy or equal opponent.

The patch changes seem to have slowed down the rate of obselence to a more reasonable and managed pace. The only difficulty is where two units are close together on the tech tree (ironclads and destroyers for example). I was able to build or upgrade a ton of redcoats (rifleman) and use them to conquer two AIs before infantry became available in a current game on epic speed.

[Hengist]

I've just surfaced for air

I got home and for the last 5 hours, I've been continuing my game. I'm pleased to say that I stand by my thread title... Marathon mode is excellent! (I'm that impressed, I've even used an exclamation mark this time, lol). It's the 19th century (1810AD) and all's well.

It's so nice not to feel under pressure and be able to take your time, getting your units into good attacking positions, etc, knowing you've got time to plan. I'm really enjoying these game changes.

As someone who bought this game for Singleplayer and wont be going online with it, I'd like to say, thanks Firaxis and all the people involved with these changes.

[Badtz Maru]

It doesn't feel like build times are increased exactly in proportion with the slowdown of tech - if they were, it would take nearly 3 times as long to build units in Marathon, and I think it's really more like a little under twice as long as in Normal. I don't know this for sure, though, I'm at work and can't check the XML right now.

I'm surprised that other people are reporting that contact with other civs seems to be happening slower in Marathon, because I encountered the same thing and it seems to go against common sense - since movement is the same and exploration seems to go faster, at least at first, you should meet the AIs quicker, relatively. I'm wondering if barbarians are being introduced quicker and that's slowing down the AI explorers. Another thing to check when I get home.

[Enigma_Nova]

They should keep the build times for Buildings, Wonders and Units the same as on Normal, but increase the time taken to research tech, and the number of turns, by 2 to 3.

[star mouse]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
They should keep the build times for Buildings, Wonders and Units the same as on Normal, but increase the time taken to research tech, and the number of turns, by 2 to 3.

This should not be hard to do in a mod.

[Destroyer]

Originally posted by wardhali


what? the movement rate has not changed at all, many other changes have been made, such as increasing the number of turns dramaticaly, slowing reaserch times and ballancing the eras so that you dont blast through eras like the renaisance.

at least know what you are calling stupid.

and if you make a statement, please back it up with a logical argument. even if it is just that it does not fit your playing style

?

Perhaps you completely misunderstood me...

If you increase the number of turns. Increase the time it takes to build, and the time it takes to research, the only difference between this and the normal games is that units can move faster over the same amount of time.

Hope this makes my point clearer for you.

[Destroyer]

Originally posted by swat-spas2
Decreasing build times is unbalancing for single player. AIs don't preserve units or attack nearly as intelligently as the human player does. You having more and more units to make mistakes with does little to challenge you. Granted they might become obselete slower, but all this means is that you will have more to upgrade with later (provided you have money for this). I still have ridiculous kill ratios (10:1 min), especially attacking the weakest cpus (low tech) to gain experience before you tackle a heavy or equal opponent.

My experience has been this is not the case.

The AI has sometimes kept as many as 20 units in some cities, and attacked with some huge stacks.

And your point is less valid, because the ai tend to build a huge military, and this way poor tactics can more forgiving.

[Solver]

Originally posted by Enigma_Nova
They should keep the build times for Buildings, Wonders and Units the same as on Normal, but increase the time taken to research tech, and the number of turns, by 2 to 3.

Yeah, that's one of the easiest things to do in a mod, creating your own custom game speed like that. You'll get gameplay which depends much more on the quantity of units you have, but it will certainly be different enough from both Normal and Epic modes.

[Mujadaddy]

Would be pointless to play on anything smaller than a Standard Map of course...

[Jetmech]

I've (still) been playing my 1st marathon game....must say that so far it is the best yet. Picked random and got Napolean and had stone and marble in easy reach of my 1st cities (pangea) I got most all ancient wonders and spread hindu to all civs (except japan...until I beat up him, took the great lighthouse and made him convert.

I have no doubt that the rest of the game is going to be a walk...I'm maxed in research and once I get gunpowder it 's bloodbath time

[Yaga]

Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
Isn't that kinda a-historical? Should think the Dark Ages should have longer research time.

They didn't call them the Dark Ages because there wasn't enough light...

(Who said that? )

Renaissance had people like Leonardo, designing tanks and helicopters.

Let me hijack this thread for a moment to comment.

The "Dark Ages" were named by those in the Renaissance who saw the Roman and Greek civilizations, as well as their own, as glorious or 'Light', while the intervening centuries, between the 6th and 16th centuries, as ugly and mean, or 'Dark.'

However it is in these centuries that European civilization (and remember that the Renaissance was all about western civ, and nothing else) really came into its own. In addition to the formation of the state, itself no mean feat, the 6th - 16th cenutires saw the creation of laws, courts, legal precedent, representational bodies, international commerce, towns, industries, banks, universities, cathedrals -- all those things (well, most of them) in the tech tree. Not that the Renaissance didn't do wonderful things *with* those institutions, but the Medici didn't invent banking anymore than Bruni and Machiavelli invented government.

Additionally, don't buy into the hype of the Renaissance *too* much; next time you get all giggly about Da Vinci, read a little about the guys he worked for, the Sforzas, the Medicis, and their contemporaries like the Visconti, Charles 8 of France, the Borgias and everyone's favorite pope, Alex 6.

[Ka Plewy]

Originally posted by Yaga
Additionally, don't buy into the hype of the Renaissance *too* much; next time you get all giggly about Da Vinci, read a little about the guys he worked for, the Sforzas, the Medicis, and their contemporaries like the Visconti, Charles 8 of France, the Borgias and everyone's favorite pope, Alex 6.

I don't particularly understand this comment. Da Vinci was a big thinker, with big ideas, and needed some serious capital to realize those ideas. He was also smart, and knew where the money/power was. His benefactors were also smart.
Oh, and Alex 6 was a Borgia.
If I were one to criticize Da Vinci, I would cite his lack of completing any sculpture project (was it the horse that had to be abandoned because of war? Needed the bronze for weapons, and the clay statue for the cast was destroyed by the french? Been too long in my reading of Da Vinci) or that none of his architectural ideas were never implemented by him during his lifetime.

[Hengist]

Originally posted by Yaga


Let me hijack this thread for a moment to comment.

The "Dark Ages" were named by those in the Renaissance who saw the Roman and Greek civilizations, as well as their own, as glorious or 'Light', while the intervening centuries, between the 6th and 16th centuries, as ugly and mean, or 'Dark.'

I'm sorry to say, but that's just plain wrong. The dark ages are labelled the dark ages by historians as there aren't many surviving records of the period, that is why this era is known as 'dark'.

Let's take an example of a dark age civilization, the Anglo-Saxons (the English) who migrated to the Romana-Celtic island of Britain from there homelands along the lower Rhine in Germany around 450AD, led by a certain person named Hengist and his brother Horsa (The old English names for a Stallion and a Horse/Mare).

Their traditions, culture, etc were not written down but enshrined in the form of poetic verse that was handed down from father to son. There are a few written documents that survive from this preiod, like the Anglo-Saxon chronicles, the epic poem Beowulf, but on the whole there is not much that has survived. This is why this period of history is known as the Dark Ages.

I think I'll finish my post with a spot of Old English from the 7th century AD, dark age period...

Old English:
Dynedan scildas, hlude hlummon. Paes se hlanca gefeah wulf in walde, ond se wanna hrefn, waelgifre fugel. Wistan begen paet him oa peodguman pohton tilian fylle on faegum.

Modern English translation:
Shields clanged, resounded loudly. The lean wolf in the wood rejoiced at it, and the dark raven, bloodthirsty bird. They both knew that warriors intended to provide for them their fill of doomed men.

Catchy little snippet, aint it?

[Addled Platypus]

will have to give Marthon a try


thanks....

[johnmcd]

I think Marthaon is a good thing. But the tech rate seems to need further slowing in it. I'm playing a Monarch game just now with education and the like turning up before 1000. The Prince game I played before had similarly anomolously quick research.

[Strategist83]

Originally posted by STING
I haven't got the time yet to try it out.
What I was readinig in another topic... has the building time also been increased with the same rate a technology gets researched? If so, like someone else said, you would keep the same problem you have on epic and normal (armies getting obsolete)

We need an additional game speed that has slow research like marathon, but 'fast' building like epic or even normal. This would allow for enough time to conquer the entire world during the medieval, for example. It would rock.

[Cardozo]

I concur on Marathon being "da' bomb." I've got an awesome game going now as Qin Shi, and I love that I can plan tactics (as opposed to just strategy) for each era. I don't have to worry about squeezing every last bit of value out of each turn trying to produce "turn advantage" because the turns are individually less important.

I like that my troops can take "the long way around" without missing out on the war. I actually have time to bring reinforcements from 'the colonies' (half of France and an unsettled island) to defend the homeland.

My observations:

You can build a lot more units. So does the AI. I got attacked from three directions by multiple, massive stacks by the AI (Huayana Capac, Incans) on my southern border. I managed to fight them off and during my counter-attack I was only able to take three 'major' cities because each one was so well defended (I also raized two smaller cities, but the AI didn't waste more than 3-4 units defending those).

Research seems to go more quickly, though I can't be sure. I am definately ahead of "real history's" technology, but I'm way ahead of most of the AI's. Not all though. Ghandi is right on my heals. I had Riflemen in the 1400's.

Kremlin is ridiculously useful. With all the build times sped up, they increased the cost of buying a structure or wonder too - but the opportunity cost of tying up a decent City for that long is killer. I'd much rather turn off all research for 5-7 turns, buy the Wonder or building, and then enjoy it's benefits for a good 40 turns more than I would otherwise.

Because Units are relatively easier to build you can have several large stacks of "just barely obsolete" units, research a new tech, turn research down to 0% for 4-5 turns, upgrade en masse, and enjoy a good 30 turn advantage on the offensive.

On the down-side, the AI can do the same to you. If your defenses aren't prepped before the invasion, there is just no way you can build them up fast enough to stop the AI. Build times on Units, Walls, Bunkers, etc. are just too long.

And for something completely different, not having Iron or Copper in your first four cities sucks, and sucks hard. Especially when Axemen barbarians come knocking.

[Enigma_Nova]

Go Go Power CatapultLongbowman.

[Shaka II]

Originally posted by Solver
Longer research times to make them proportionate to the game. I mean, before this patch, the Renaissance techs were out of proportion. I'd get them in 3-5 turns and just blast through that era.

I think this is what we requested, right?

Marathon sounds awfully tempting, but I might save it for the large or huge maps, when it takes an awfully long time to march your troops across a continent.

Epic seems to work pretty well on standard pangea. I think I'll give epic another try, since I haven't played a full V1.52 game yet.

[Yaga]

Originally posted by Hengist

I'm sorry to say, but that's just plain wrong. The dark ages are labelled the dark ages by historians as there aren't many surviving records of the period, that is why this era is known as 'dark'.

Forgive me for sounding like the typical Internet dork, but...

To a certain extent you are correct; the term "dark ages" first appeared in print in the early 18th century. It was used however to refer to their perception of medieval people and states as being uneduated and uncivilized, not towards a lack of materials. There are an abundance of medieval sources, many of which were available at the time. Notable among these: Justinian's Corpus Juris Civils, a 7th century codex of Western Roman Law; Domesday and Little Domesday surveys; the pipe rolls of the Angevin kings of England, begining the the mid-12th century; the 13th c. glossiter's works on the CJC; and by now we're in the 14th century where there is a tremendous amount of material from the Model Parliament forward; the biography of William Marshall, the Cantebury Tales, etc. etc. Not to mention all the church documents (I believe there's a copy of the minutes from Lateran IV, if not Hildebrand's comments from the Investiture crisis, both c. 11-12th century), the Statues of Common Law (which starts early 13th), etc., etc...

So yes -- I must take issue with the notion that we don't have many surviving records of this period. While much of the best work on the Medieval period was done by Strayer, Postan, and Southern in the 50's - 70's, modern historians such as Brian Tierney, David Wootan, and Barry Holtz have each put out very nice collections in the past few years. (For an excellent read, pick up Richard Vaughan's series on the Valois Dukes of Burgundy)

Of note: The term Renaissance was popularized in the 19th century; the Italian word for rebirth was used prior to this, though I've no idea what that might be. "Medieval" was used in the early 16th century to denote the age between the fall of Rome (by which they meant the Eastern Roman empire, and dated to the 5th century and the sacking of Rome by the visigoths; the Western Roman Empire lasted until 1453, when the Turks tooks Constantipole, an event which, ironically, triggered the 'birth' of the Renaissance in Italy) and the comigled emergence of Humanism, Reformation, and Reformation. It was this I should have referred to above, but as the original post mentioned the "dark ages," and their popular use is very similar, I just ran with it.

Hopefully I'm done with hijacking this thread. Also, I just finished my first Marathon game -- a 17th c. Domination win (Large, Terra, Noble, 16 civs) -- that was quite fun. I've begun a second game (bumped it up to Prince) and saw a Civ first for me -- Raging Barbians destroyed a civ (India) within the first 500 years.

Regardless -- very fun, the Marathon.