Marathon mode is excellent

[Generaldoktor]

I always play on Marathon, but rarely above Noble and never successfully, (above Noble.) This game is less than a year old. A bunch of guys who had "mastered" Civ3 seem to regard it as their right that they win all the time at the highest difficulty levels. I don't think Firaxis intended that to be common. There's a thread right now called "Civ is dead" where people are saying this is the "ultimate" Civ and there will never be a Civ5. Maybe, but if people on the design team are looking at it that way, they probably expect you to take years to really learn how to win on Emperor/Raging Barbs/Marathon (I always play with Raging Barbs, too; and there has been a lot of whining about that,) and years more to win at the highest level with the other complicating conditions. That's what makes games last. (Despite stinky AI, there are still people playing Alpha Centauri, including me. That only had one expansion pack and no subsequent variants.)

Yaga's idea shows a way to win at Marathon by developing religion. Datajack's complaint I think derives mostly from the difficulty level. (Maybe you just aren't ready for it, dude--sorry, bad joke. ) I'm doing fine at Noble, but both there and the one game I'm running currently on Prince, you have to adopt the old kung fu mentality and fight without fighting (for long.)

It is clear AI attack more frequently on the higher difficulty levels. Right now, on Noble, by spurring trade and spreading religion and avoiding aggressive moves myself in favor of inner development, I can avoid war for centuries. (You can usually and I stress usually acquire enough cities in the early game territory grab to develop culture/religion/wonders, etc., without war, if that's all you want and you are not artificially attuned to war by your own temperament, Civ3 experience, multi-player experience, this last a whole different ball game, etc.)

In my Prince game, I was attacked. But like the kung fu master, I waged defensive war, which I am d-mn sight better at than AI and frustrated them to where they made peace after a reasonably short time. I was invited by a third party to join them to resume the war. I did, got poor results, but kept all my cities and eventually again got a treaty out of the b-stard, (Montezuma, of course.) Now I am developing my religion and culture again, while devoting some cities, (I have about six,) to building more and better defensive units. I'm about halfway up the power grid, far enough that nobody's seeing me as an easy mark. I might have to fight to get higher, but some of those above might take each other out and I have culture and religion now working my way, (I got my religion early; made it a priority in the early game, in fact, but I am Asoka. OTOH, if I didn't see religion as a priority, I probably would have picked a different leaderhead as all my games are custom.)

I haven't tried this on Emperor, but I can't help thinking, with practice, it can be done.

[Yaga]

Something not often mentioned (it seems) is that Marathon is better the more Civs you have. 16-18 Civs on a Large map is just about right for me -- you only get 2-3 cities at the start, but so does everyone else.

Also, for what it's worth -- here is a a screen shot of my best-yet Civ4 score -- 71,000 Monarch / Marathon game w/ iirc 16 civs, a large Terra map, raging barbs, aggressive AI, and random personalities -- everything else Vanilla.

[Generaldoktor]

I'm generally playing with 10-14 civs and I think it is correct that more is better for the live player. AI will fight each other for space, as well as you. They get distracted and to some extent intimidated. For example, if they attack you, which of the other 12 might come up on their rear? Even with the basic level of artificial "intelligence" currently, they have some concept of odds of success vs. multiple avenues of counterattack. I've intimidated them by myself, using principles of the defensive war I describe above. If I have enough moderate to high XP points behind pinchpoints and walled cities, I make myself look unattractive and suspect that is true even on these higher levels and even if I have a different religion.

One point I didn't make earlier is, not all of them are ready to war over religion, given a certain demonstration of strength by yourself. Isabella, we know is; probably Montezuma, maybe Saladin. From the rest, you may not get the trades you want and they may try to land grab around you, but I'm not sure you are guaranteed AI aggression just because of differing religion, if you are accomodating and non-aggressive other ways. For me, I like to have my own religion.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I agree about founding an early religion - it's quite difficult if you aren't starting with mysticism. I can't say I've had too many problems with lost time due to bad decisions - maybe because I catch my bad decisions fairly quickly, so they do less damage on Marathon than on normal speed.

I may have gotten lucky in my current game, but I think I'm atop the score chart for 2 reasons:

1. Luck. I started next to two really unpopular Civs (Caesar and Isabella). They were the odd ones out in our little Bud club, so nobody objected to me crushing Caesar (who was actually ahead of me on the scoreboard) and later Isabella. Those two wars doubled my city count. And because there are 13 AIs on a Terra map, the others have no space to grow in.

2. Cossacks. This may be luck, too, but I've had Cossacks up and running for 100 years and can still outgun any AI as a result. I don't think units get obsolete too fast in general; the maceman age was pretty short.

[Son of David]

Forgive me, but I've had a brainwave.

I think most of us see that the classical age is over quite quickly, and the years BCE are over almost in a flash.

On the other hand the medieval era seems to last forever.

So - to simulate the intense intellectual and physical achievements of ancient civilization, and the subsequent stagnation of the Middle Ages, the classical age should be re-scaled to last a little longer by 1) shortening the number of years a turn takes in the early game, 2) reducing the cost of the earlier techs, and 3) making solid medieval technologies like bureaucracy and philosophy a little more expensive.

Although it seems strange to me that philosophy is so late on in the tech tree considering that many parts of the world had sophisticated philosophy by the 600s BCE. In Civ4 philosophy is usually invented several hundreds of years CE.

[Generaldoktor]

Actually Paper is pretty late on the tech tree too, given ancient Egyptian papyrus; and so is gunpowder; evidence exists now that the Chinese used it against barbarian invaders and in their civil wars from the 10th century A.D. and maybe before; "bombards" and explosives, if not handguns.

I suppose you could simulate this by beelining, to some extent, but all those are pretty far back on the tech tree.

Playing Ragnar recently, I got a pretty good run on the "macemen" (Berserker) period, but yeah, it probably is a little short. So is early gunpowder, (musketmen.)

The idea of extending would be worth considering by Firaxis, but game balance considerations are always in play when contemplating change of something that major. Everybody is seemingly agreeing, more so, I think, since "Warlords," that the game works pretty well now. I've sort of been going along with the crowd. But I'm one of those people who"s never pleased.

[pdc_heavy]

I tried a Marathon game last night (small/fractal/noble) but had to quit. After two hours of real time play, I had five cities with only a warrior and archer each and was getting creamed by Monte, my immediate neighbor. By the time I could make a unit, it only replaced the one that had been beaten after the onslaught by Monte's archers and jags. I felt like a punching bag with only one finger that kept hitting "enter."

So, with only two hours to go in my gaming "session," I dropped the challenge to Warlord, added raging barbs and aggressive AI, and began an Epic game. I am finding the Epic a little bit more well-paced than Marathon or Normal. Of course, it's no longer the pace that is the problem but the challenge level is now too low.

One of these days, I'll find the right combination.

[Generaldoktor]

IMHO Marathon is better suited to big maps. Granted, Monte, aided by his early UU, has a reputation for early rush, but if you had had a little more space for everybody to grow in on that map, the slower progress of unit/improvement development would not register so harshly.

Marathon mode is not for everybody. Even on maps where you have a buffer, mistakes in production are grossly modified. My current game isn't totally scr-wed yet, but I have a marvelous army I've built up of Cho-ko-nu and now I find Catherine, my major rival, has beelined to gunpowder.

[pdc_heavy]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
IMHO Marathon is better suited to big maps. Granted, Monte, aided by his early UU, has a reputation for early rush, but if you had had a little more space for everybody to grow in on that map, the slower progress of unit/improvement development would not register so harshly.

You're right about that. My problem is that my laptop is below the recommended specs and larger maps aren't an option (for sanity's sake). But I love the idea of a longer-paced game. I wasn't able to really play the game until the last patch was released. But I've been a fan since Colonization was released back in the day.

Marathon mode is not for everybody. Even on maps where you have a buffer, mistakes in production are grossly modified. My current game isn't totally scr-wed yet, but I have a marvelous army I've built up of Cho-ko-nu and now I find Catherine, my major rival, has beelined to gunpowder.

Crazy. In my game, I'm stuck between a barb city and Peter during the ancient era. I am hoping that their respective warmongering will take each other out, while I, as India, max out the spiritual aspects while building decent defensive units.

Every game is different in the Civ series. I really couldn't ask for more.

[Dis]

Originally posted by pdc_heavy
I tried a Marathon game last night (small/fractal/noble) but had to quit. After two hours of real time play, I had five cities with only a warrior and archer each and was getting creamed by Monte, my immediate neighbor. By the time I could make a unit, it only replaced the one that had been beaten after the onslaught by Monte's archers and jags. I felt like a punching bag with only one finger that kept hitting "enter."

So, with only two hours to go in my gaming "session," I dropped the challenge to Warlord, added raging barbs and aggressive AI, and began an Epic game. I am finding the Epic a little bit more well-paced than Marathon or Normal. Of course, it's no longer the pace that is the problem but the challenge level is now too low.

One of these days, I'll find the right combination.

I hear you, I have trouble finding the right difficulty combination.

My last game I was playing a lower diff. level. But I started off with no access to horses, iron, or copper. It made things interesting. I had to hold people off with archers until I got to the new continent (terra map). I was playing with aggressive ai. (but for the first time I was playing with no barbs).

[Prussia]

Marathon is almost a must with some maps, such as terra maps.

[Dis]

my latest game is on marathon. I'm finding it to be acceptable. It's also great when going for domination wins as I am. Gives me more time to use my units. Right now I'm playing a large terra map as the americans. I love terra maps.

It even gave me time to use the Navy Seals. Although it's still a silly uu. I feel stupid building navy seals en masse. But I never built them before. I actually found them useful as my cavalry couldn't crack riflemen very easily, but my navy seals could. It helped bridge the gap between cavs and tanks. The slower movement wasn't too much of a problem. As I wasted just as many turns waiting for my cavs to heal up in a city.

I'm about to finish my game right now. I have about 40% of the world area, and need 60% for the win.

I'm finding making mistakes not to be too costly. I had no access to copper, iron, or horses. So I had to pop rush some archers. I got lucky though. 2 archers were able to defend against a swordsman and axeman attack. I was very close to losing a city.

I sacrificed 4 population to try to get a university up to culturually take over some iron. The funny thing is I never did get that iron until after I got a city up and running on another continent with access to iron. It finally took a wonder (rushed with a GE) to get the iron on the main continent.

[Prussia]

I modded the SEALS and made them 27 strength...
Just cus it pissed me off.

[pdc_heavy]

Originally posted by Prussia
I modded the SEALS and made them 27 strength...
Just cus it pissed me off.

[alexander2k]

Well, I guess this thread is pretty old. Yaga and Hengist are having and interesting converstion, though.

The main point of the Dark Ages for me is that reason more or less went out of fashion during that time.

I am not saying it didn't exist. I am saying that it was a time when being too clever was considered by many to be a distraction from the real business of having a relationship with God that would enable one to get into heaven.

By contrast, Muslim society was developing all kinds of tremendous advancements, until they too were fell into the habit of valuing the afterlife more that the current one.

"Dark Ages" to me means there was no popular, sustained inquiry into how the world, works.

So the origins of the name or how many documents survied, is a bit beside the point.