Epic speed (a thread for people who only play normal speed)

[Solver]

Originally posted by Adagio
But I do agree, Marathon would have been better if unit production was 300% instead of 200%

Civ4 needs a pack with two new speeds: 1. Epic with research at 200%. 2. Marathon with units at 300%

[Adagio]

Originally posted by Solver


Civ4 needs a pack with two new speeds: 1. Epic with research at 200%. 2. Marathon with units at 300%

They could do it like BHG did with RoN: They had lots of different options like "Slow tech, normal build", "Slow tech, slow build", "Even slower tech, normal build", etc

Or something like that... been a long time since I played it... but that way, everybody could get the perfect speed, without the need to manually edit the files

[Nacht]

Originally posted by Solver


No, the problem isn't that Marathon buildings are slow, the problem is that the units are fast. Buildings = 300% of Normal, as well as research. Units = 200% of Normal. This creates a huge disrepancy, where producing an army compared to producing an infrastructure is MUCH cheaper than on Normal/Epic, where the balace is the same. Thus, Marathon very clearly favors warmongers.

On Epic building speed is 150%, Units 125%, so it's not the same balance as Normal speed, although moreso than on marathon

[Nacht]

(a thread for people who only play normal speed)

Somehow I doubt anyone who plays quick/normal has yet responded.

[Forwarn45]

Somehow I doubt anyone who plays quick/normal has yet responded.

OK - I am a player who plays on normal speed so I'll post a comment. This thread hasn't totally convinced me epic is better. It sounds as if it might accentuate several of the advantages the player has over the AI as well as favor a more military strategy. But perhaps I'll give it a try anyway at some point and try to get a conquest or domination win. (I have usually won the other ways).

[Solver]

Originally posted by Nacht


On Epic building speed is 150%, Units 125%, so it's not the same balance as Normal speed, although moreso than on marathon

Not correct, everything is 150% on Epic.

[Nacht]

My CIV4GameSpeedInfo.xml lists an iTrainPercent value of 125 under epic.

I think this changed with the last patch. Because as you said it "allieviate the complaint of "units obsolete too quickly"."

[Solver]

Yep, Marathon does what I said, Epic most definitely remained 150% under all default installations.s

[clinton]

Originally posted by Nacht
My CIV4GameSpeedInfo.xml lists an iTrainPercent value of 125 under epic.

Originally posted by Solver
Yep, Marathon does what I said, Epic most definitely remained 150% under all default installations.s

I think the patch has applied differently for you than me solver, because iTrainPercent on epic is 125 for me too.

[rjmatsleepers]

I'm another "normal" player who doesn't yet understand why he should move to epic. I'm assuming that the game date doesn't have any impact on the standard game - is this so? I'm assuming that there are more turns in an epic game - 50% more?

If these assumptions are correct, the (only?) difference between normal and epic is that units move faster relative to builds, research, etc. So the balance between a "builder" and a "war-monger" moves in favour of conquest?

That's great for those who enjoy the war game aspect, but I'm not sure why someone who enjoys launching the spaceship should switch.

RJM at Sleeper's

[MikeH]

Well I'm not a good enough warmonger to win through conquest, or a good enough builder to win through a handful of super optimised cities.

I find in a normal game I occasionally need to fight defensive wars or more often offensive ones to grab resources or space more space or cities. On normal sized maps there's rarely enough room.

Also don't forget that units also include workers, scouts and settlers. I think it makes the most difference in the early game.

As I said in the opening post, it also makes life easier because it minimises any errors. Building the wrong thing for a turn for instance is only two thirds as bad as on normal.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by rjmatsleepers
If these assumptions are correct, the (only?) difference between normal and epic is that units move faster relative to builds, research, etc. So the balance between a "builder" and a "war-monger" moves in favour of conquest?

You can still play the game without being a war-monger, but you're right, it's more difficult than on the faster speeds

Also note that babarian activity is the same speed as the faster speeds, making it harder to defend against them, as your unit production is slower compared to how often they attack

[MikeH]

I didn't think that the barbs were noticably worse.

[Adagio]

As I've said, I've never played Normal or Quick speed, so I don't know if you can notice the difference, but going from Epic to Marathon clearly showed a difference, as they popup with new units before you can build new units

[MattPilot]

for marathon!


Best setting ever.

Although i did modify it a bit to make unit building faster, but i also increased unit maintence cost by +1 for most units to keep unit count low.

THeres not much more warmongering than at any original setting.

**edit: just for reference, i set unit cost to 150 and construction to 200. All else original. Original setting was 200 and 300 respectively


The whole point of marathon setting (or generally more streched out games) IMO is for me to be able to play more with my units. More micromanagement.

If a unit takes XX turns to build, it will be just like any other speed setting - by the time ibuild my first unit, the technology will be obsolete.