Civ 5: Quick, Standard, Epic or Marathon?

[JosephCaf]

One thing to keep in mind is that movement remains the same in each of the time frames. So if you are going to play a quick game, make sure you have a small map, or it will take you like 1,000 years just to cross a continent. Exploration would be painfully slow!

[buchengshi]

Originally Posted by JosephCaf

One thing to keep in mind is that movement remains the same in each of the time frames. So if you are going to play a quick game, make sure you have a small map, or it will take you like 1,000 years just to cross a continent. Exploration would be painfully slow!

Imagine a quick game on a huge Earth map. In the time it would take to move your riflemen from Europe to the far East, you could win a science victory.

[ghostsalsa]

Originally Posted by IcyDeadPeople

Quick Pace was simply too fast, with the A.I. civs already completing the Manhattan project while I was still in the Dark Ages, even playing on Settler was too challenging for me with a huge map and 12 AI opponents with "Quick" pace.

Since the AI is not very good at fighting, especially at city takeover, then it benefits from fewer moves-per-era.

Either way (on Hard mode) the successful AI civs are going to be building three units for every one of mine (more like six) -- but since I can be smarter with how I move a unit, more moves per era is good for me. I can use a tiny army to carefully take three or so cities from my strong neighbor before Industrial, and then I have momentum in gold and blue that will carry me to the end of the game.

All the same, I only go as slow as Standard.

I get too nervous playing anything slower: I feel like I can't tell if I am keeping-up or not. The idea of investing 300 turns to realize my civ hasn't established momentum in green and blue and isn't going to keep up, is too much. I need quicker feedback.

Even on Standard pace I have had a 150-turn war: if both you and your AI opponent are strong in tech than racing for new tech is part of the wartime fun.

[IcyDeadPeople]

Originally Posted by ghostsalsa

Since the AI is not very good at fighting, especially at city takeover, then it benefits from fewer moves-per-era.

Either way (on Hard mode) the successful AI civs are going to be building three units for every one of mine (more like six) -- but since I can be smarter with how I move a unit, more moves per era is good for me. I can use a tiny army to carefully take three or so cities from my strong neighbor before Industrial, and then I have momentum in gold and blue that will carry me to the end of the game.

All the same, I only go as slow as Standard.

I get too nervous playing anything slower: I feel like I can't tell if I am keeping-up or not. The idea of investing 300 turns to realize my civ hasn't established momentum in green and blue and isn't going to keep up, is too much. I need quicker feedback.

Even on Standard pace I have had a 150-turn war: if both you and your AI opponent are strong in tech than racing for new tech is part of the wartime fun.

Interesting approach!

In my case I've found it to be a bit easier with slower pace and huge map for single player games. This allows me to spam settlers in the Ancient era and set up new cities in strategic locations to block off a large swath of land from the A.I. very early in the game.

[flex12]

Originally Posted by IcyDeadPeople

Interesting approach!

In my case I've found it to be a bit easier with slower pace and huge map for single player games. This allows me to spam settlers in the Ancient era and set up new cities in strategic locations to block off a large swath of land from the A.I. very early in the game.

Which is not possible on harder difficulties, because you just havent got enough happiness. Might get lucky if you get a couple of lux. ressources, but expansion is very limited.

Anyway i find slower games much easier than faster ones, since there are just not as many units in the game. Once you destroy a large portion of units from an enemy, then it's pretty easy to take cities since it just takes way longer for them to produce new ones.

[Aztec217]

Quick. Research times are already hell, I don't need to age before I get future tech.

[Eli's_Revenge]

Standard. It feels just right.

I feel that longer settings allows the civs with early unique units to dominate (which isn't very fair).

[BurnedToast]

I usually played marathon in civ 4.

In civ5 I play standard... it already feels slow enough as it is, no need to spend 300 turns making a monument or whatever. My end turn clicking finger would get all worn out

[lillythemoogle]

I personally play on quick, as I am not too patient when it comes to building wonders, monuments, troops, etc. I can tolerate long wait times to a degree, but it's a bit much on even normal for me.