What game pace do you prefer in Civ 5?

#1 Posted by Binman88 (3707 posts) -
#2 Posted by Amethyst (95 posts) -

Marathon. I like taking my time... clearly. <_<

#3 Posted by Binman88 (3707 posts) -

I'm curious to know how people are playing this. 
Personally I've been choosing quick. Even at quick, one game can still take hours to complete.

#4 Posted by mason (280 posts) -

Quick game if I'm playing a comp stomp for shits & giggles. Leaves no downtime. Every turn is exciting. The only downside is that you never really get time to appreciate your new units, resources and buildings. By the time I get a musketman on the table, within a few turns he's already obsolete.
I'll play Standard if I'm on Prince or higher difficulty. Gives more time to plan ahead and allows for mistakes. There's also enough time between techs that all of your unit types and buildings will be useful at some point.
I once tried a Marathon (or was it Epic?) game in Civ 4 on the largest map possible crammed with other civs. It's really cool to see things unfold and appreciate the mechanics on a grander scale. Feels suitably epic. You get to see small skirmishes, epic 100 year wars, and tense battles of attrition play out in cool ways. The long game is Civ at its best...but it can get boring after a while. I ended up losing interest halfway. It's a major time commitment, and eventually I start to crave a new Civ to control with a new map to explore.

#5 Posted by TheHBK (5658 posts) -

Hard and fast, the Max Power way.

#6 Posted by eroticfishcake (7856 posts) -

Standard pace. I generally go on Marathon speed but I don't think Civ V works that well on my age old PC.

#7 Posted by NoXious (1365 posts) -

I'm a standard kinda guy.

#8 Posted by Malakhii (1444 posts) -

I've been playing at standard so far, but after playing a few games already, I think I'm ready for some quick speed comp stomps. 

#9 Posted by MauveForest (605 posts) -

Standard, I started a Marathon game once..... didn't feel like waiting that long. I feel like standard is the way to go, a lot of excitement and still gives you plenty of time to play a game.

#10 Posted by TorgoGrooves89 (336 posts) -

Just standard length and on the standard map size so far. And some of those have gone on for ten plus hours, especially if going for points victories, so i can't even imagine how long games would take on marathon or with more AI players.

#11 Posted by subyman (701 posts) -

Standard took me 8 hours to play through which I guess is a "fast" game.  However, I think I prefer the quick setting right now because I want to try a lot of different settings without taking days to finish them.

#12 Posted by JammyJesus (771 posts) -

Normal, although my friend preferes Quick, I hate him.
#13 Posted by Branthog (5717 posts) -

Standard, of course. They're the only ones that are even remotely fair. Long games favor MILITARY victories and quick gams favor CULTURAL type of victories. Using the standard length seems the only way to go that is fair to everyone.

#14 Posted by firewrkninja (239 posts) -

marathon because then you can actually use the units in each era before they are obsolete. and on huge or large maps

#15 Posted by thwak (116 posts) -

quick or standard, since marathon and epic don't really enhance the game in my opinion.

#16 Posted by PepeSilvia (92 posts) -

Did my first run on standard, then tried quick and figured standard is more fun.

#17 Posted by haggis (1674 posts) -

Standard, for the most part, since the longer the game runs the more likely you are to wind up in a massive war (which is generally not how I like to play the game). Standard games are still pretty long. I don't have much desire to spend 20+ hours on a single playthrough.

#18 Posted by Kyreo (4683 posts) -
@MauveForest said:
"  I feel like standard is the way to go, a lot of excitement and still gives you plenty of time to play a game. "
Pretty much This.
#19 Posted by kemp (59 posts) -

It really depends on the mood im in when creating a world. But often times its somewhere between standard and marathon. It allows me to plan a little more then the faster ones. The faster gameplay is also fun as its more action-y.

#20 Posted by Stexred (9 posts) -

i always play the standard game type

#21 Posted by crusader8463 (14744 posts) -

I just go with the default of standard, but I did a quick game a few days ago and I honestly couldn't tell the difference.

#22 Posted by NoCookiesForYou (811 posts) -

I always play quick, faster but still takes hours and hours to finish a game if you play with the biggest map type.

#23 Posted by Bureksasutlijom (215 posts) -

Quick. Because I usually don't have the time to play it for too long.

#24 Posted by Tebbit (4566 posts) -

I always go default for almost any game I play. Normal difficulty, standard controls. The way it was meant to be played

#25 Posted by ryanwho (12012 posts) -

Marathon, huge map, diety difficulty, max number of city states, and about 20 rival civs.

#26 Posted by Tebbit (4566 posts) -
@ryanwho said:
" Marathon, huge map, diety difficulty, max number of city states, and about 20 rival civs. "
...and a 45 second delay between turns to calculate that shit.
#27 Posted by Atlas (2558 posts) -

I play Standard. Marathon scares the shit out of me, because a game of Civ already takes 5-8 hours on Standard for me.

This edit will also create new pages on Giant Bomb for:

Beware, you are proposing to add brand new pages to the wiki along with your edits. Make sure this is what you intended. This will likely increase the time it takes for your changes to go live.

Comment and Save

Until you earn 1000 points all your submissions need to be vetted by other Giant Bomb users. This process takes no more than a few hours and we'll send you an email once approved.