'Marathon' is too fast - game speed discussion

[Older than Dirt]

After extensive creative simulation in my biocomputer it has been revealed that the speed at which armies move in Civ 4 is 14% slower than the speed at which fire ants migrated in the USA after landing in Mobile, Alabama assuming that they first appeared there in 1938. This is using yearly based turns on a terra sized map looking north with no wind at sea level.

[Qwertqwert]

Marathon's a little messed up. If you spend most of your money towards reashearch and expand well, and don't go to war you can get to modern age in 1320 (Atleast on Noble you can). I would have every thing reashearched by 1600 I bet.

[johnmcd]

Marathon is not as long as it looks I agree, I've built Oxford univeristy on Monarch by the year 1000 (not a standard benchmark for progress I'll grant you but one that I remember).

For me, it's not really that Marathon is too fast but that the bits I like most (up to gunpowder basically) aren't the whole game. I'd love that early stuff to be the whole game. Partly because it's most fun and partly because the abstractions of time and speed seem less incongrous to me.

[jonta]

I think the time spend i the beginning is OK
but it tends to go to fast after you get a certain no off
cities, no matter what speed.
So i guess its more the question: should it be more
heavy on the "cost" for making citys above 8-10 or something. The fact is that by the time you get 6-8 ciy.
Your cottages also tend to grow into towns.
Making it cheaper for you to expand even further.

I think if the cont of extra cities (above 8) grew
the "maraton" effect would appear.
( and city spamming would at the same time be if not stopped then at least not as interesting )