 |
|
Emperor
Monterrey, Mexico
|
Jun 2001
time: 22:00
| |
|
|
I'd guess a fair few people are still playing, but very few are posting, perhaps they just didn't feel like joining up with another forum after the switch from the original forum.
|
|
| |
|
|
hexagonian
|
|
 |
|
Emperor
Smemperor
|
Jun 1999
time: 22:00
| |
|
|
I do not care about the fanatic, hard-core loyalists - they haven't been visible anywhere for quite some time.
My guess is that they probably will remain under their nice, safe rock too.
My suggestion to play Rhye's is for those players who have an open mind for different gaming experiences, and are looking for the civ4 equivalant of some of the general ideas presented in AoM (a game that strived to mirror history as is actually unfolded through the use of heavily scripted events). Those open-minded players are free to play any game they enjoy, without fear from a fanbase that would publicly sneer at their choice of game. That sneering, condescending attitude was a hallmark of some of the AoM loyalists...(not all of them thankfully - and at least none of that particular crowd has shown their faces here in a long time).
AoM takes a purely alternative approach to history. And there is nothing wrong with that either. After all, that is the hallmark of civ4/ctp...
In short, AoM presented history that had little basis in actual history, other than in a very generalized and generic format - and it does not mirror the rise of actual and viable civs at different points in time...again as it has occurred throughout history.
Rhye's Mod also presents an alternative approach (and it uses generalized and a somewhat generic setup because all games have to do that), but it is more grounded in the events of history too. Which is what I want to draw attention to... (given that there was a lot of heated discussion comparing the historical accuracy of both AoM and civ4.)
Rhye's setup plays out on an actual worldmap, and places historical civs in their historical locales. What further sets it apart is that civs will rise up at specific points of the game, based on when they did so historically. In gameterms, Rome will enter the game at about turn 80 in the Italian penninsula. Rome will have to deal with Vandal and Hun incursions, and if it grow too big (and in my first attempt, I was lulled into doing that), they will face huge problems due to the rise of later and actual historical civs on their borders.
The player can choose to play different civs during the course of the game too. You can start with the Egyptians, and when Rome enters the stage, you can choose to play them instead - play them for awhile and then when Britain enters, you can switch to them.
From a gameplay standpoint, it's a very cool concept that greatly enhances replayability.
It is very much like a TBS-version of EU2 - a game that I always had a high regard for.
Last edited by hexagonian on 13-08-2007 at 17:05
|
|
| |
|
|
hexagonian
|
|
|
|
Emperor
Smemperor
|
Jun 1999
time: 22:00
| |
|
|
When AoM came out, I posted in civ3 forums to promote AoM concepts because I felt that AoM offered an interesting alternative to gamers. It's only fair that I do the same for Rhye's setup, because it has a similar feel to AoM.
Last edited by hexagonian on 13-08-2007 at 17:07
|
|
| |
|
|
Co-Administrator
Latvia, Riga
|
Sep 2000
time: 06:00
| |
|
|
I don't think Rhye's is "being hand-held through history". It's more like fulfilling Civ's slogan about rewriting history - Rhye's really is the mod that allows you to do just that. It's definitely not a mod for people who don't like historical gameplay, but hey, you design historical mods/scenarios!
|
|
| |
|
|
Co-Administrator
Latvia, Riga
|
Sep 2000
time: 06:00
| |
|
|
No, Rhye's offers those goals as only one of the victory conditions. You can still win in other ways. Though historical victories are my favorite aspect of his mod - it gives me a chance to try to, well, repeat the accomplishments of some real civs.
|
|
| |
|
|
hexagonian
|
|
|
|
Emperor
Smemperor
|
Jun 1999
time: 22:00
| |
|
|
It appears that Stan pulled support of the game last winter, when he shut down his site. Nobody has seen or heard from him since - and his loyalist fans never bothered to come over here to continue the strategy discussions - even though most of them had registered here at Apolyton before the official AoM site closed. The loyalists may have hated me for being critical (and I maintain that THEY set the initial tone of any discussions comparing AoM and civ4, so I ended up discussing the games on THEIR level), but I also continually challenged them about the fact that AoM would die out without any sort of public discussion in a higher-profiled site like Apolyton. None of them followed through with continuing discussion here as a means to try to build up additional support...and unfortunately, there hasn't appeared to be any interest since - if post count, and reaction to your call for discussion - is any indication of fan interest.
And the support had to come from people who were actively playing the game, not from people like me who had moved on from AoM to civ4 for their TBS gamefix.
It is a sad truth of gaming that the shelf life of most game is not that long anymore, ESPECIALLY if the community is small to begin with - and that was the case with AoM. It was a good game, but it came 3 years too late, and ran into the buzzsaw of civ4 - and as much as the loyalists may hate it, civ4 is a very good game with solid gameplay - and civ4 benefits because it has a large fanbase AND it continued to evolve with the Xpacks and Mods.
And as you have observed, gaming is not only about playing, but it is also about strategy discussion. It is a communal experience. Your desire to discuss the finer points of the game is a clear indication of that fact. Without that community though, niche games and indie projects are doomed to fail in the long-term.
I posted about Rhye's work because it is the civ4 Mod that is most like AoM. Since Rhye's Mod is still able to ride the wave of popularity of civ4, it also benefits from a vibrant community. (...at civfanatics though)
The only suggestion I can make is that there is a AoM succession game that is about to start in the CTP2 forums. Play that...or email stan, angrybowen, smithldoo, AlbertTheWhite, etc. and ask them if they are interested in playing in a succession game themselves.
Get involved with the game on that level, and you will have people to discuss the game with.
Last edited by hexagonian on 14-08-2007 at 20:41
|
|
| |
|
|
Co-Administrator
Latvia, Riga
|
Sep 2000
time: 06:00
| |
|
|
Games can continue to live even with a small community. The problem with AoM, IMO, is the very fact that it's based on CtP2. Let's face it, CtP2 was never too popular. By the time AoM first came out, Apolyton was the only real CtP2 community online, and not a huge one at that. And these days, it seems, there are very few CtP2 players.
While I never fully enjoyed the gameplay of AoM, I maintain that it's a great mod. It could really have a bright future if it had a Civ4 version now.
|
|
| |
|
|
Emperor
Monterrey, Mexico
|
Jun 2001
time: 22:00
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian
The only suggestion I can make is that there is a AoM succession game that is about to start in the CTP2 forums. Play that...or email stan, angrybowen, smithldoo, AlbertTheWhite, etc. and ask them if they are interested in playing in a succession game themselves.
Get involved with the game on that level, and you will have people to discuss the game with. |
Yes, you're welcome to join us demon.
It's a great way to learn the mod, and learn new things no matter what level you're at.
http://apolyton.net/forums/showthre...threadid=168966
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
hexagonian
|
|
|
|
Emperor
Smemperor
|
Jun 1999
time: 22:00
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Boney
Civ4 I enjoy but it is a little shallow, but I think was intentional. The game play is good and my son and I can play together with the hotseat. Vel's strategy is an excellent read. |
I'd define it as streamlined rather than shallow.
Civ4 took the best features of civ and CtP (with the exception of pure stacked combat) and integrated it into a single game. I feel that civ4 also created a variety of means to win that are not specifically tied into how big you can get. It is this game design that tipped the scales for me to play civ4 over CtP.
Oftentimes, there is a difference between complex strategy decisions and simply creating busywork.
Take the worker system in civ4. I used to favor the CtP/AoM PW sytem because it was more streamlined, but because civ4 game mechanics are not primarily driven by Bigger Is Better TM (and the elimination of civ3 pollution), a player is not locked into endless worker management throughout the game unless he chooses to play that way. Many times, I have my cities all improved by the mid-game, and any new cities I take will already be improved. I can also give my workers a 'go to' command to easily link up my cities with roads and rails.
End result - I can play either system without wishing that it was the other system.
Or take goods that promote health/happiness benefits. Both games have this feature, both work under the same principles to directly gain control of those goods (build an improvement on them), but civ4 also allows a player to also easily trade for that good to get the benefits. It is this latter addition in civ4 that streamlines the process, AND gives a strategic choice to the player to either further develop and foster goodwill with rivals for a set amount of turns, or create hostility and resentment. Trade goods with rival civs in CtP, and the only benefit you get is gold, and the endless hassle of the AI breaking your trade routes with no rhyme or reason.
In CtP/AoM, you had to continually deal with trespassers - asking them to leave and then have them show up again. Repeat process again and again...
In civ4...open/closed borders stop that endless annoyance.
And the list goes on and on...
quote:
Originally posted by Boney
Hex I did read your comments about AoM and I can see where you are coming from. In truth I have found that the most enjoyable CTP2 game was cradle. |
Thanks...my thought was that the additions to AoM, although creative, ended up creating too much (IMO) busywork micromanagement - especially when the game moves into the Dark Ages and beyond. And just as important, the primary focus of AoM was to get bigger and bigger in order to win, making continual conquest the preferred path to victory - thus limiting diverse strategic decisions - which also continued the cycle of creating even more late-game micromanagement.
That may be what some players want - and there is nothing wrong with anyone who enjoys playing a game that focuses on those micromanagement issues, but I no longer have the time or desire for that type of gaming. And if I was ever to go back to CtP2, I'd probably make some personal file adjustments in Cradle rather than play AoM. To be fair, Cradle is also tied into Bigger Is Better TM, but it doesn't have the additional features of AoM that end up adding more micro.
quote:
Originally posted by Boney
And as you pointed out it is not quite right that only the human player seems to be affected with the big game upheavals. |
Last night, continuing to play Rome in a Rhye's civ4 game, I got nailed by the Dark Ages plague, and was satisfied to see all of Europe outside of my borders affected. 
quote:
Originally posted by Boney So am I a weirdo for liking both? right now Civ4 is being played mostly. |
No...and I do find it interesting that you are favoring civ4 now. 
Last edited by hexagonian on 15-08-2007 at 16:41
|
|
| |
|
|
Tellius
|
|
 |
|
Warlord
|
Apr 2005
time: 04:00
| |
|
|
Hi,
I would have tried CivIV a long time ago if not for the PC specs. I simply have no need for a new pc, and buying one for a game is just a bit too much for me.
I've been told my 2Ghz with 512Mb Ram won't run the game, maybe several patches have lowered the minimal requirements a bit? I'd love to try out the game ánd the mod you guys mention.
By the way, I don't really like the graphical engine of CivIV - I've seen many many screenshots. I think for civ games, a nicely detailed bitmap engine is still the best way to go (think for instance of the detailed maps of the last generation of bitmap games such as Blitzkrieg). Just a matter of taste. I hope bigger sized tiles will eventually be possible in CtP AE
So Dale and Hex, your post saying that people who play CtP2 or AOM are mostly closed-minded pittifull people is not really correct in my case, I enjoy AOM on a daily base, I did try Civ3 (but didn't really like it) and would like to try Civ4, I just don't want to buy a new pc for it.
I used to read the threads on the original AOM forum, where people were bashing back and forth, with growing disbelief, I couldn't figure out why anyone would get upset over a game! I like playing AOM, and posted some questions and sometimes an answer on the original forum. I never felt the urge to defend my liking of the game, I mean, it's a game. If that's all it takes to be labeled a closed-minded loyalist fan, well, I guess it's time to look for another hobby, or at least stear away from threads like these.
Greetz
T.
Last edited by Tellius on 15-08-2007 at 17:27
|
|
| |
|
|
Co-Administrator
Latvia, Riga
|
Sep 2000
time: 06:00
| |
|
|
quote:
I've been told my 2Ghz with 512Mb Ram won't run the game, maybe several patches have lowered the minimal requirements a bit? I'd love to try out the game ánd the mod you guys mention. |
That's simply false, I first played Civ4 on a slightly weaker machine. Yes, it will get slow if you play the largest maps, but it will run.
|
|
| |
|
|
Boney
|
|
  |
|
Warlord
Thailand
|
Jan 2001
time: 04:00
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian
I'd define it as streamlined rather than shallow.
Oftentimes, there is a difference between complex strategy decisions and simply creating busywork.
Take the worker system in civ4. I used to favor the CtP/AoM PW sytem because it was more streamlined, but because civ4 game mechanics are not primarily driven by Bigger Is Better TM (and the elimination of civ3 pollution), a player is not locked into endless worker management throughout the game unless he chooses to play that way. Many times, I have my cities all improved by the mid-game, and any new cities I take will already be improved. I can also give my workers a 'go to' command to easily link up my cities with roads and rails.
End result - I can play either system without wishing that it was the other system.
In civ4...open/closed borders stop that endless annoyance. |
Streamlined is more the word I was looking for. Others may call it dumbing down, but it enables me and my son to play together, whereas other versions were too complicated and time consuming.
Civ3 pollution, culture flipping, distance from capital penalties really put me off the game, but all these have been adjusted for Civ4
quote:
Originally posted by hexagonian
No...and I do find it interesting that you are favoring civ4 now. |
As I said I do like both games, but Civ4 is just so mu | |
|
|
)