 |
|
Emperor
Who said I eat CARROTS?
|
Jun 2002
time: 13:35
| |
|
|
Normal.
The slower speeds seem to put too much emphasis on units for my taste, and tend to be easier for me as a result. (my leaning warmongery and all)
Never tried quick.
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
The Bear Flag Republic
|
Jan 2006
time: 12:35
| |
|
|
Marathon. I like being able to build, use, and develop all my units before they become obsolete.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Normal feels to me like I don't have enough time to do things. Like the ages flash by, and I'm spending more of my effort trying to keep my units up to date than I am building my infrastructure. Epic feels just right to me.
This has nothing to do with moving units around, it's about building new ones and paying upgrade costs because I have to.
Wodan
|
|
| |
|
|
Emperor
Maryland Heights, MO
|
Sep 2002
time: 14:35
| |
|
|
Normal for me, it often takes me about a month (real time; not game time) to finish at this speed. Anything slower would take too long.
|
|
| |
|
|
Chieftain
|
Jan 2008
time: 20:35
| |
|
|
Epic for me. I used to like the idea of marathon but it just takes too long, I wish I had more time to play the game but I don't... Techs fly by too fast in normal and below, it doesn't seem as relaxing for me.
|
|
| |
|
|
Emperor
Huntsville, Alabama
|
Dec 1999
time: 14:35
| |
|
|
Epic. I like the extra time do do things, but Marathon would take too long. I also don't like how long it would take to shift focus from economic development to a war footing on Marathon.
|
|
| |
|
|
Settler
|
Apr 2004
time: 20:35
| |
|
|
Normal for me, out of obligation. It is indeed sometimes hard for my slow brain to keep up with the race through the ages, but then again I like speed outside the game to.
In an ideal world with lots of time, I could be persuaded to do Epic as well. Tried it only on a couple of occasions, and in fact it "tasted" quite nice.
I only did quick ones on tiny (on chieftain, just to try it out) I won the game BC!! But no real fun in it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
normal, marathon for mp games.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Where as I prefer to play on Marathon at all times.
All other speeds seem way too fast......
|
|
| |
|
|
Warlord
|
Apr 2006
time: 15:35
| |
|
|
I play Normal and have only ever played that speed. I'd like to try the one slower than that (epic), but Normal games already take ages so I haven't ventured into other territory yet.
But at the same time I dislike Normal speed because, as others have said, the ages rush by much too quickly and you can't use units properly. My main problem is that in making war, for example, by the time I assemble my army (even using slavery and chopping), send it off to battle, reach an enemy city and seige it, the enemy will have researched enough to build (via slavery, etc. ) a few key counter units that stall my offensive anyway. The window to use many units is so small that I find I have to have a really significant tech lead so I can get there first, but I'm too poor a player to ever get such leads, lol!
|
|
| |
|
|
Co-Owner/ Administrator (Reasonable One)
Lord of the Ferrets
|
Nov 1999
time: 14:35
| |
|
|
Normal for me. IF your troops are obsolete by the time they reach you target, either
1. You're attacking a foe to far away.
2. Or you built a bigger stack then you probably needed.
3. You probably shouldn't have been attacking in the first place.
2 is the most common one for me. I don't know how many times I held my attack off saying, just a couple more units and I'll start only to discover that I could have been victorious with half the stack and now the defender is much better prepared for me. This is more important if you play agressive AI, since they're much better at whipping a defensive force. If you dilly dally on your way to their cap, it won't be size 18 anymore, it will be size 3. And I want to be the one whipping that pop down.
|
|
| |
|
|
Deity
of Spam
|
Dec 2003
time: 20:35
| |
|
|
Quick speed is mainly played by MP players; this board doesn't have many MP players and the poll reflects that.
|
|
| |
|
|
Deity
Dance Dance for the Revolution!
|
Jan 1970
time: 15:35
| |
|
|
Epic. I tried marathon once; everything took way too long and I quit by turn 50. I think I may have also played quick once or twice, not very long.
I don't think I have ever played at 'normal'.
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
San Diego CA
|
Nov 2005
time: 12:35
| |
|
|
There is no speed other than marathon, unless it's MP then quick-normal only because Someone will go LD whithin an hour anyways.
I love Civ because it is such an in depth game, however to optimize on faster speeds, I'd have to check trades, cities, army status etc. every turn, where as on marathon, I can whiz through 5 - 10 turns, then check up on everything. If I forget to de-select an artist on a fat cross pop for a couple turns, no harm no foul. On fast speeds, that HURTS alot. City could have gained a pop point in that time... 
And of course, marathon is war centric, wich keeps things intresting.
100+ unit SoD doesnt happen often on fast speeds.
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
|
Jan 2003
time: 13:35
| |
|
|
Marathon. Knew it would be my choice the moment they announced it. Drives me crazy when the kids challenge me to MP at faster speeds, but then again, that's part of their handicap advantage. Marathon because I like it. I don't care if it imbalanced or time consuming or war-centric. It's the right speed for me.
|
|
| |
|
|
Deity
of Spam
|
Dec 2003
time: 20:35
| |
|
|
quote:
100+ unit SoD doesnt happen often on fast speeds. |
I played in a medi lakes 4v4 yesterday, my team started in a box, with each person in a corner. The person below me ended up killing 56 impis and another 150 units over the course of 95 turns, including a 100+ unit attack (he lost a city, and I lost a city when I reinforced him and lost my front city) but we still won it on points.
|
|
| |
|
