'Marathon' is too fast - game speed discussion

[Strategist83]

Yes, I'm serious.

What I dream of is being able to conquer the whole world in the classical age. You know, much like Alexander who conquered most of the known world in just a few short decades. There's just something inherently dissatisfying about time going by so quickly one goes all the way through the medieval and renaissance all the time battling the same opponent, even on a very small map.

I of course understand there would be certain problems with such a gamespeed, mainly that all the peaceful victories would be nearly unattainable. Also, such a game might last several hundred hours. Still, I do feel the speed of the current game where one barely has time to raise an army before it's obsolete (musketman unit, anyone?) is possibly the greatest downfall of the game.

As a side note, I'd like to hear how much you think playing on a non-default game speed unbalances the game by tipping the scale in the warmongerers' favour. I doubt anybody would pick Gandhi for competetive play on 'marathon' speed, for example. Is competetive Civ4 play always conducted on 'normal' speed? Just how much of a balance issue do you think there is with the game speeds?

[Dauphin]

Can you edit the tech costs in the XML? Just crank up the costs for a few key techs and watch technological progress ground to a halt.

[LordShiva]

News about the expansion has caused progress on all other Civ 4 ideas to grind to a halt.

[Willem]

Who knows, maybe the expansion will introduce a real time mode so people can spend the next 6,050 years playing their civ game.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Unfortunately someone would complain that was too fast as well.

[alva]

Maybe god is just doing that.

[Shaka II]

Re: 'Marathon' is too fast - game speed discussion

Originally posted by Strategist83

Yes, I'm serious.

What I dream of is being able to conquer the whole world in the classical age. You know, much like Alexander who conquered most of the known world in just a few short decades. There's just something inherently dissatisfying about time going by so quickly one goes all the way through the medieval and renaissance all the time battling the same opponent, even on a very small map.

You probably want to play the equivalent of an ancient mod. Try checking out the mod section. Marathon on a standard pangea works perfectly for me, as I end the game by around 1300AD in the early to mid industrial era. If you want to finish even earlier, you could play a small map on marathon speed.

But if complete ancient era warfare is your quest, then you'd probably have to mod the XML files like the poster above suggests.

Civ is a building and advancement game, so the timeline is an integral part of it, like it is in history.

Originally posted by Strategist83

As a side note, I'd like to hear how much you think playing on a non-default game speed unbalances the game by tipping the scale in the warmongerers' favour. I doubt anybody would pick Gandhi for competetive play on 'marathon' speed, for example. Is competetive Civ4 play always conducted on 'normal' speed? Just how much of a balance issue do you think there is with the game speeds?

I think if you're playing as a builder, marathon speed doesn't really help you much, since you have to go into the modern era to win. Domination, on the other hand, finishes when you control 64% of the land area, so the more turns and lower relative unit build times work in favor of that. I don't think it would be possible to win domination on a huge map, especially not huge highlands, on other than marathon speed. To me marathon speed is exactly what playing civ is supposed to feel like. You get the feel of an era, you can fight an entire war without units becoming obsolete, yet you also get to adance through the ages of civilization. One without the other is not civ.

[Guynemer]

I've managed the conquer the better part of my continent in the classic age before, thanks to the almighty Praetorians. You just have to pick the right civ for the job.

[Dis]

I just don't like the way the modern age goes in marathon. perhaps production should be upped in the modern age. I still get upset I can build the statue of liberty in the 1600's, yet still not finish the space ship on time.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Unfortunately someone would complain that was too fast as well.

There's a Java program in the Files&Creations section that allows a player to set an arbitrary speed for the game.

[Urban Ranger]

Re: 'Marathon' is too fast - game speed discussion

Originally posted by Strategist83
What I dream of is being able to conquer the whole world in the classical age. You know, much like Alexander who conquered most of the known world in just a few short decades.

That's not even close. The "known world" would be a few tiles on the Civ 4 map.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Guynemer
I've managed the conquer the better part of my continent in the classic age before, thanks to the almighty Praetorians. You just have to pick the right civ for the job.

And a map of the right size

[fed1943]

Originally posted by Willem
Who knows, maybe the expansion will introduce a real time mode so people can spend the next 6,050 years playing their civ game.

I will buy it,as I'm old but not yet tired of life.
Best regards,

[Shaka II]

Yes, Marathon does start to approach the time scale of real life. As long as we take enough breaks from civ to experience real life.

And as Spring is in the air now, my civ days for the year, like awakening from hibernation, are coming to a close. Sad in some ways, but when next fall/winter comes, the gaming season starts again, and with a new expansion pack.

[Aro]

Originally posted by alva
Maybe god is just doing that.