 |
| |
|
|
Prince
|
Nov 2005
time: 02:31
| |
|
|
Instead of telling You about my non-existant experience with the quick-mode, i rather tell you why i never tried it:
Even at normal game speed, i hardly find the time to build units. And when i do, they tend to get obsolete before they reach the enemy. Cause what grows relatively on faster speeds are the distances. Almost everything maybe be scaled, but a tile remains a tile and the movement points of the units remain the same, no matter what game-speed. Thus you might only need only half the amount of turns to build a unit, but still the same amount of turns to get it to the enemy. And You research twice as fast also. Chances are, by the time your swordsman-army is completed and arrives at the border, you will be able to build macemen (and so will the enemy!). Things get worse when enemy is further away.
Even on normal, i find myself too often with obsolete units or upgrading all the time. Thus i play on epic.
But seeing you are not exactly new to civ, you probably already knew all this. So why dont you just give it a shot, since it´s quick anyways, and tell us...
|
|
| |
|
|
Co-Owner/ Administrator (Reasonable One)
Lord of the Ferrets
|
Nov 1999
time: 20:31
| |
|
|
We've used quick speed a few time for MP games. It gets you to the fighting stage quicker. Yeah ,units go obsolete but not quite as bad as a lot of people seem to say. No matter what size world you play on, (unless you're plaing islands) there's going to be an AI next to you so when people say it takes a long time to get to your opponent I always counter with "pick on your neighbor, they're close" Supporting captured cities far away early in the game is economic suicide anyway. Later in the game, railroads, ships, and airlifts speed the movement of troops so I don't think it's as big a problem as people claim. Or at least it has never been for me. But everyone has different tastes and they must be respected.
If you don't have a lot of time, I'd recommend it. It's nice that there are all the differenct setting so people can choose how to enjoy the game.
|
|
| |
|
|
Technical Assistant
Of the Peanuts Gallery
|
Apr 2004
time: 20:31
| |
|
|
Quick is definitely a MP speed, primarily (in terms of who plays it). You have less time with any particular unit, so you have to quickly and frequently upgrade your units to keep promotions relevant, or else deal without promotions (barracks becomes more important, really, because often units don't get much more than 5 experience).
I think it largely makes fast moving units more valuable (as you have more risk of someone developing a better unit/more units while you are underway!) and fast tactics (blitzkreig-style action). You can more quickly defend yourself also, so you can easily send more of your units out. And I find that specialists are more useful in quick, personally (2-scientist strat, or major-GA strategy).
|
|
| |
|
|
Emperor
Maryland Heights, MO
|
Sep 2002
time: 20:31
| |
|
|
I played a full game at Quick only once: That was vanilla on the Map of Planet.
I found that Quick mode is only decent if your staying at peace; units become hopelessly outdated too fast in the field.
I don't have 12 to 24 consecutive hours either which is why I save the game and exit and come back later when I do have time.
(That was several games on normal speed / normal map)
I'm now playing with my new computer a large Highland map on normal speed in prepartion for Huge world maps on Epic speed.
Marathon makes the game to focused on warfare for my taste.
quote:
Originally posted by Tamerlin
The more I read the forum the more I see that most of the people are playing with the game speed set to Normal or Epic speed.
Though some are playing with the Marathon mode I can see very few reports posted by gamers using the Quick speed mode.
I don't have 15 hours or so to spend on a computer game. As Civ like games are, along with wargames, the PC games I prefer I was about to try the Quick speed mode.
In order to learn more about this setting, I decided to browse the Apolyton website and found... almost nothing useful.
Is the AI able to cope with the increased speed ? Is the game unbalanced at this speed ? Is Beyond the Sword managing the Quick speed mode better than Vanilla Civ4 or Warlords ?
To sum up, I would like to know what the people having played at this speed think about it. |
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
|
Nov 2005
time: 02:31
| |
|
|
Concerning not to able to use enemy roads in Civ4: There is a promotion that allows that. I ´think´ it´s called ´Commando´. Check the civpedia for details on it...
EDIT: But maybe you are right: the not-to-be-able-to-use-enemy-roads-thing should maybe only apply to the first unit entering the tile... or rather: Not be applied if one of your units is already occupying the tile. BTW: Can one specifically destroy one´s own roads ? If not, one should be - then at least...
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
State Of Denial
|
Apr 2007
time: 20:31
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Blaupanzer
One can destroy one's own improvements, including roads. |
Not so. You cannot pillage roads inside your cultural borders. Everything else you can pillage though.
|
|
| |
|
|
King
Portland, OR
|
Aug 2001
time: 18:31
| |
|
|
Normal is about all I can take. I tried Marathon, and I practically fell asleep at my keyboard at times. Even Epic pushes it.
|
|
| |
|
|
Chieftain
|
Dec 2007
time: 02:31
| |
|
|
I prefer epic speed, but maybe that is because I only play an hour or two, then save the game and return to it sometime later. The drawback is that you can forget what you had going in the game before you saved, so I find it useful to write down a strategy - for example what to beeline in the tech.-tree - after a few turns in the beginning.
ybrevo
|
|
| |
|
|
Emperor
Maryland Heights, MO
|
Sep 2002
time: 20:31
| |
|
|
I've abanoded that test game and am now playing the Epic Huge Map one for real. Custom Contients (3). Default numberl of oppoents for this size, rest of the map settings random.
Yes, Epic speed is needed on Huge to have the same feel that Normal speed does on Normal.
I actually did secure 2 religions. (Mediation + Philo, the second from lightbulbing a GS)
So I'd sugest if you try Quick speed do it on a smaller map so it doesn't take forever to explore / send your armies out / etc.
|
|
| |
|
|
Tamerlin
|
|
  |
|
King
Toulouse (South-western France)
|
Apr 2002
time: 03:31
| |
|
|
Thanks for all the answers, things are becoming clearer now.
quote:
Originally posted by trev
If time is a factor, then change map size, going to a tiny map with yourself and 2 AI's will keep the game under 2 hours guaranteed from my experience, small maps with around 4 AI's maybe 3 hours. This is on marathon speed which I play, and probably the easiest speed to win at higher levels, because it allows more time for war and that is where human tactical ability can far exceed the computers. It is certainly the only speed where I have won a game on deity and generally competitive on Immortal.
But generally I would suggest choose the speed and size that you enjoy most and save often and return to game when you have time. Quick speeds suit builder style more, marathon speed suits warfare more, and at higher levels warfare is only way to win. Builder style is very difficult above Monarch level. |
Needless to say that, being of the builder kind, I rarely play beyond the mid level difficulties. I am not interested in reaching the highest level difficulties, I just change the setting when playing the game tends to become too easy... and so on until I find the most enjoyable difficulty level.
|
|
| |
|
|
Deity
London
|
Apr 2002
time: 02:31
| |
|
|
I just played a game on Quick speed. Small fractal map - 5 civs total on Prince (Warlords).
The AI did quite well at teching, had a very large number of units, and upgraded them all very quickly (suspiciously so). I did manage to take over one neighbour, who was rather small and backward, but this slowed my tech down and made it hard to get a tech lead over the others that would allow superior quality of units against their superior numbers. I was quite commerce-heavy in my empire, and spent much of the game running at 50% science and constantly upgrading. Eventually my beeline to Computers paid off, and although we all built Apollo at a similar time I accelerated away through the last era and launched comfortably.
Quick definitely is a builder type setting, imo.
|
|
| |
|
|
Deity
London
|
Apr 2002
time: 02:31
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by trev
If time is a factor, then change map size, going to a tiny map with yourself and 2 AI's will keep the game under 2 hours guaranteed from my experience, small maps with around 4 AI's maybe 3 hours. |
I'm amazed how some people can complete a game this quickly. I spend forever agonising over strategic, tactical and planning decisions, especially when at war.
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
|
Nov 2005
time: 02:31
| |
|
|
Well, my quickest win remembered took me less than 4 hours on epic - a cultural win in 1685 (prince, mid-size hemispheres).
|
|
| |
|
|
HalfLotus
|
|
  |
|
Prince
|
Sep 2001
time: 21:31
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
