 |
| |
|
|
Chieftain
Manchester, England
|
Nov 2005
time: 04:40
| |
|
|
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 I'm actually able to build troops now and to use them, before they become outdated and obsolete.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.
|
|
| |
|
|
Chieftain
Amsterdam, The Netherlands
|
Mar 1999
time: 05:40
| |
|
|
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)
|
|
| |
|
|
Warlord
UK
|
Jan 1970
time: 04:40
| |
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
Chieftain
Manchester, England
|
Nov 2005
time: 04:40
| |
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
King
Yuggoth
|
Dec 2001
time: 05:40
| |
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
Co-Administrator
Latvia, Riga
|
Sep 2000
time: 06:40
| |
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
Co-Administrator
Latvia, Riga
|
Sep 2000
time: 06:40
| |
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
Hobbits Armpit
|
May 2002
time: 04:40
| |
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
Chieftain
|
Jun 2001
time: 04:40
| |
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
|
Nov 2001
time: 22:40
| |
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
Hobbits Armpit
|
May 2002
time: 04:40
| |
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
Warlord
|
Nov 2005
time: 22:40
| |
|
|
Would be pointless to play on anything smaller than a Standard Map of course...
|
|
| |
|
|
Warlord
USA
|
Nov 2001
time: 20:40
| |
|
|
quote:
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
|
|
 |
|
Warlord
WV
|
Nov 2001
time: 04:40
| |
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
Chieftain
Manchester, England
|
Nov 2005
time: 04:40
| |
|
|
quote:
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?
|
|
| |
|
|
Emperor
comming at ya, with banana breath
|
Sep 2002
time: 20:40
| |
|
|
will have to give Marthon a try
thanks....
|
|
| |
|
|
Warlord
|
Dec 2005
time: 04:40
| |
|
|
quote:
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
Settler
New York
|
Oct 2005
time: 04:40
| |
|
|
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.
|
|
| |
|
|
Warlord
USA
|
Nov 2001
time: 20:40
| | | |
|
|
