AOM3 Is Out

[Ekmek]

Klynvarius has had some success merging AoM with the AE see it here:

http://www.apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=143176

[smithldoo]

I am going to keep this short.

Hexegonian you have generated more text at the AOM forum than anyone else except Stan and you have not finished a game of AOM of any kind. I say SHAME on you. My comments are based on having played and completed games of both civ 4 and AOM (all varieties).

You said you enjoyed play testing AOM to turn 350. Stan has extended that feel to turn 600 + now. I only spent 20-30 minutes on a turn here and there in my first game because I arrogantly sailed into the Dark Ages and beyond well over my city cap. Since then, I have found that if I make sure I am at my cap or just above, management is down to a very reasonable level. I actually had to replay the turns in that first game as my empire split. In civ 4 it is one way traffic, that is totally borning IMHO.

Your comments that big games are boring because capturing city 67 is no different to city 45 applies to civ 4 much, much, much more than AOM. In AOM every city is different in terms of resources, location etc. You need to decide if you are going to keep it or exploit it etc. In civ 4 because their are no city caps, you just keep it and move on again, and again, and again.

Your comments re pillaging had me confused but now I know you never finished a game, that explains it. Yin did a bit of the same, lost sight of the victory conditions, got lost then blamed the game. I rarely pillage for the same reasons outlined by others, why destroy something if you might capture it???? Its a dumb "barbarian" tactic IMHO.

Army management, give me the stacked combat in AOM any day thanks, rather than cycling through that army display in Civ 4 to find one unit to attack with each time. I could never get the grouping to work properly, may have had something to do with performance in Civ 4. But at the end of the day, once I had captured the first 3-4 enemy cities it was SOD all the way again. Exactly the same as Civ 3 but on a smaller scale. The only difference was the suiciding artillery units.

In all forms of AOM, but especially III now, you have to construct and manouvere your way to a victory right down to the last turn, unless you want to wait till turn 700 plus and get 100+ cities. As angry said, there are something like 10 ways to get points and you need to use every one of them to win. I enjoy pushing AOM III to the limits and seeing how early I can win by. Every game is different for reasons already discussed, unlike civ 4 IMHO. The map generator in Civ 4 is pathetic IMHO and really destroyed it for me more than anything else.

[Generaldoktor]

OOOH, don't get me started on about that Civ4 map generator. Next patch, start over!

[stankarp]

but I'm talking about the Dark Ages Attila and Genghis spawns. Are they also tied into map size?

In so far as in the small map version of AOM II, all barbarians including Attila and Genghis were cut by half. The shorter game version and later starting times also had adjusted barbarians.

[stankarp]

Bear in mind also re smaller maps, if you do not select bloodlust in the starting options, AOM III defaults to the ctp2 victory conditions which are perfectly achievable on smaller maps.

[smithldoo]

One thing I will quickly add, AOM for me is to play, not to mod. Don't know much about modding, but AOM III is stable, incredibly varied and interesting and so full of history my mind boggles at times.

Forget Civ 4. Look at this. AOM never ceases to surprise and challenge.



500 AD, thought I was cruising. My army of the north has begun a small war to take 3 barbarian cities there and a couple of Celt cities because they decided to sink one of my fishing fleets. Things were going nicely, then a Celt army with Praetorians appears at the north end of the lake and starts to outflank me.

I moved to counter. Then suddenly, an army of mine of 9 units (catapults/legions and Praetorians) was marching through the forest where the cursor is. Careless me did not even think the celts would be so bold. A stack of 12 debouched from the forest onto the road and killed my stack.

I have now counter attacked and killed off the stack but suddenly have lost 30% of my northern army and am reduced to garrisoning one city with migrants and Cardigan has only 2 defenders. SOE (state of emergency) has been declared and every available unit is now rushing to shore up the northern flank.

What was Emperor Claudius heard to mutter late at night after Tuetonburger Wald, "Varus, give me back my Legions"?.

[stankarp]

AOM and it's successors was always intended to be a historical simulation built on the civ concept.

I still play regularly and have never come close to exploring all the possibilities nor had 2 games that were ever more than remotely similar in the way they evolve for the reasons already outlined. After all, there are 4,000,000 different map settings and that does not include the placement of different individual tiles, resources and opponents.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by smithldoo Hexegonian you have generated more text at the AOM forum than anyone else except Stan and you have not finished a game of AOM of any kind. I say SHAME on you. My comments are based on having played and completed games of both civ 4 and AOM (all varieties).

Smithldoo...

psss..wake up...

Most of my posts at the official forum were related to specific issues in AOM I. I had already done enough work on playtesting and analysis at that point in time in private discissions with Stan.

I had very little to say once AOM II came out, other than on GENERAL gameplay issues like mechanics. And I don't bother to post at the official forum anymore (other than when people feel the need to be personally insulting about player choices in the games they play...)

The thread that I spent a lot of time in (800 lb. gorilla...) was a GENERAL discussion thread comparing AOM and what we knew about civ4 before it came out.

And I maintain that somebody does not have to play an entire game to have an opinion about it. Partially playing it will give a clear picture of what the game entails.

After all, I am MERELY pulling a page from your own playbook, - that is what you and angrybowen did incessantly in the gorilla thread regarding civ4 - though angrybowen was the greater abuser of that tactic. (...and at least I had the background of helping develop and playtest AOM while both of you were very skeptical of civ4 without playing turn 1 at that point in time)

Do I REALLY need to play 600 turns to finally realize that the game drags for me - when I can CLEARLY see that fact on t350?

And a little secret...I feel absolutely NO shame about it...I guess it's a matter of priorities, and a clear understanding what I want in a game so I do not waste a lot of time on it.

Time at home is valuable. I happen to have free time at work, and I surf the net because I cannot play PC games on a Mac. So I post...and you are free to read or not to read it.

I posted here mainly to get the ball rolling. The discussion related to me as an Apolytoneer (why so little interest at this site regarding AOM), and it has snowballed. I posted my thoughts about the game based mainly I what I consider important to ME in gameplay.

So be it.

Obviously, you decided to stop plaing AOM long enough to come here to raise the game's profile. My hat is off to you.

...and please read through my posts again to get the points I raised. Once again youi simply gut-react to much of it rather than carefully reading through it...

...note that I tempered my comments regarding the map size issue once I found out about the setup.

...note too that I gave AOM a glowing report at the end of my last post. I simply said it was not what I was looking for in a game.

Originally posted by smithldoo
Your comments re pillaging had me confused but now I know you never finished a game, that explains it. Yin did a bit of the same, lost sight of the victory conditions, got lost then blamed the game. I rarely pillage for the same reasons outlined by others, why destroy something if you might capture it???? Its a dumb "barbarian" tactic IMHO.

Read my last post again, as I addressed this topic. I was honest enough to state that my experiences were based on AOM I.

Originally posted by smithldoo
Your comments that big games are boring because capturing city 67 is no different to city 45 applies to civ 4 much, much, much more than AOM.

First off, I do not have to have 67 cities in civ4 to win it, even on the largest map. Not the case on AOM...

Your gameplay style focuses on size above anything else. You carry that playstyle over to play civ4 with the primary goal to outexpand everyone else. And it almost always involves a massive military smackdown.

When you played civ4 for the first time, you said how easy it was to do military smackdowns. (and face it...it is the easiest way to win - BUT I am still waiting for your report on how easy civ4 is on the highest difficulty level, as well as the largest map)

Then you decided to go peaceful and then railed and griped at how much you thought the AI 'cheated' because you were barely ahead of the other civs in that game.

(It's also boring to you - again, there's preference. I can respect that...)

Your focus when playing these types of games is different than mine. Obviously your main focus when playing any TBS games is to get bigger than anyone else.

Good for you - play a game that stresses 'bigger is better'. AOM is your game, because that is the PRIMARY focus.

It is a given that you have to follow a 'bigger is better' formula in AOM. People who have requested help for the game have consistently been told that you have to get as close to the city caps as fast as possible. The caps for Dark Age governments are 50+.

My focus when playing is not to get larger than everyone else, because I do not care for the tedium of micromanagement. And that focus carries over into how I play civ4. Civ4 does not REQUIRE me to continually get more cities to win it. I can play lean.

If you are sleeping by now, smithldoo, wake up again because I am going to make my main point now...

I have no need to play an epic-style game through 600-700 turns when I can plainly see the vast amount of time required FOR ME to play it. And I have compared the two games on that factor, and civ4 wins that battle...again FOR ME.

Key words being 'for me'...

AGAIN, I have consistently made the point that my comments are MERELY my opinions about the game.

Simply put, I am basing my comments on what I EXPERIENCED in time spent, not what you or anyone else spent. If players get a little insight based on what I say, that's good. They are certainly free to disagree.

I think they are smart enough to take my points and see if it matches up with what they are looking for in a game.

[Maquiladora]

Originally posted by smithldoo
In AOM every city is different in terms of resources, location etc. You need to decide if you are going to keep it or exploit it etc. In civ 4 because their are no city caps, you just keep it and move on again, and again, and again.

Every city site is different in civ4, moreso than AoM (or CtP2) in fact, because you can pick tiles to use, and specialize more.

IMO its always been a problem the way a CtP2 city collects resources in whole rings. It enforces the "bigger is better" strategy even more, because a comparatively small city is useless in CtP2, whereas they can be useful even as specialized production bases in civ4.

You need to decide if you are going to keep it or exploit it etc. In civ 4 because their are no city caps, you just keep it and move on again, and again, and again.

In civ4 you cant keep every city either, because of increasing city maintenance.

Your comments re pillaging had me confused but now I know you never finished a game, that explains it. Yin did a bit of the same, lost sight of the victory conditions, got lost then blamed the game. I rarely pillage for the same reasons outlined by others, why destroy something if you might capture it???? Its a dumb "barbarian" tactic IMHO.

I havent played AoMIII yet but pillaging was a great way of grabbing PW and slowing down the AI attacks. Pillaging multiple times a turn with old mobile units while building up has always worked well for me. If theres anything the AI doesnt like, its handling more than one thing at once.

[angrybowen]

In civ4 you cant keep every city either, because of increasing city maintenance.

Well, I never had that problem, simply because the gold I got from capturing cities kept me well in the black the whole time. In fact the faster I attacked and captured cities, the better. That does not happen In AOM because of the city caps. I automatically kept every city in Civ 4, in AOM I do not. In AOM don't forget you can use specialists to change city output as well, that makes them flexible as well. The quickest and easiest way to win in civ 4 was just IAS as Stan described, infinite attack sleeze. War, war, war and its over after i was bored ****less just manouvering SOD's for over half the game. Civ 4 gave me one easy victory otpion. You cannot use one option in AOM unless it is the science of diplomacy option, and those are very hard to achieve in my experience.

In Civ there is a limit to the use of resources. e.g. once you have one cow, other cows are no good to you except to trade and later, mostly they can't be traded because everyone has one or no money. In AOM every resource is useable, with an outpost and possibly to trade with caravan. In addition if you get a cartel there is a double bonus for having a plentiful resource AND, get more of a resource in AOM III (such as 10 food) and you get another bonus. Some one in a civ 4 thread said they wanted to trade food between their cities. IN AOM III you in effect can do this because build up a huge extra food supply through outposts and it eventually makes cities grow much quicker, to the point that over crowding becomes a big issue.

Re pillaging in AOM III, remember that it now increases frenzy if you do it a lot. If you get frenzy too high the AI becomes diplomatically impossible, so there is no diplomacy victory. I still never pillaged much because I intended to capture those tiles at some stage and when on the attack, I wanted the ai roads intact and the AI under pressure does not rebuild it's roads that quickly.

psss..wake up...

I agree with Smithldoo, I say shame on you Hex. You have as recently as this thread made sweeping general statements about AOM being a big game, without finishing it, and generalised about the mid to end game without knowing. At times you have dammed AOM with "faint praise". That is my impression from reading your overall threads. It may not be what you intended but that is the way it has come across.

Anyway, like you Hex I have limited time and these posts are eating into my AOM playing time. How about you stop all these long posts and play ONE game of AOM III to the end before you make sweeping geralisations about pillaging, the feel from capturing city 67 to 45 etc.

Final note. My civ 4 experiences came from 4 completed or nearly games on a borrowed lap top which I no longer have. I had the inside running because of advice from Smithldoo and found the same thing. Be peaceful and you were lucky to get level with the ai and generally stay there. Go on the war path asap and at a comparable time, I was up to 2.5 times higher on the points than the next ai. The harder and faster I used my SOD's, the quicker and higher my pionts went. It was easy as there was not city cap as such. History is full of quick conquests, (e.g the Mongols and the Nazis) but there are not many examples of large empires that persisted over very long periods. Civ 4 did not reflect that at all IMHO. The quickest way to victory is to be Genghis and just attack, attack, attack. That was my experience based on completed games.

I still play regularly

by stancarp.

Well you have something up on hex as well.

[Generaldoktor]

I have to agree that Hexagonian has generated a tremendous amount of verbiage on this thread, about a game he clearly doesn't like. It's too bad you don't like it, (any longer anyway , ) because for that amount of text, you could have written your own strategy guide!

I haven't posted lately, because I have been playing. I do like the more refined trade, as AngryBowen mentions, but am looking for a strategy where I can develop it more while still building enough spears to protect myself. In general, though, I'll wait to finish a game of AOM III, before I comment.

[smithldoo]

because for that amount of text, you could have written your own strategy guide!

I agree. I do not resile from my SHAME statement. Hex, you may not have intended it or realise it but in total, you have "dammed AOM with faint praise". How about you play one AOM III to the ened before you write the strategy guide though.

I echo what Angry said about civ 4, I put him onto the tactic after stan passed it onto me. To us AOM warriors, civ 4 war was a breeze because there was no city cap. I don't know why the ai did not attack me when I was super aggressive. In the end I just steam rolled the map in anti clockwise or clockwise fashion. No wrap round for the map made it an absolute breeze. I had no gold problems as i was getting 100+ every 2-3 turns from captured cities which kept me in the black till i built villages and towns.

I will say and debate with anyone that the normal big end game problems that apply to other games apply in the same way to AOM. Sure all big games have some tedium, but AOM is unique in that you basically cannot just grind your way to a conquest victory (ala civ 3,civ4, RTW, Ctp2 prior to AOM). The history in AOM is unique and to me, enthralling. After a year it still springs a little surprise on me every now and then.

I paid for a Big Mac and got a years dining at a top class restaurant with theatre/dance entertainment as well when I got my AOM disc. I paid for one good night at a restaurant when i bought civ 4, got a heap of technical and performance issues, and when I managed to finish each game, it was like eating a Big Mac. Just as sloppy and artificial as the last one.

[hexagonian]

psss..wake up again...

Originally posted by hexagonian
...I happen to have a lot of free time at work, and I surf the net because I cannot play PC games on a Mac.

So I post...and you are free to read or not to read it.

And you FINALLY respond with some fruitful discussion... Good!!! Even better, you are now discussing the game where a great number of the fans of TBS games are at!!!

Once again, read my posts that started this whole thing...

How can players know about the game if nothing is ever said about said game where the fans regularly frequent?

This whole discussion stated because Generaldoktor was critical of Apolytoneers. I simply put a face on the comments he made regarding the site.

And if there is no discussion comparing the games, players cannot see why they should play AOM.

I never said that I did not like AOM - I point out why I do not play it (and please note - there is a difference between the two...) Despite the criticism about the fact that I have not completed an AOM game, I have created enough tabletop hex board games and done enough Modwork to grasp the concepts in a game and know what I enjoy in a game and what I do not.

...smithldoo, did you really need to play civ4 to completion several times to finally figure out that civ4 was not for you and you did not enjoy it??? I'm guessing that you probably had the game pegged as a bust (for you) halfway through the first try.

(...still waiting for that civ4 saved gamefile played at the highest difficulty level and largest map...)

Rule #19 about human nature: They are drawn to controversy like flies...

As a gamer and one who has MADE games in the past (both game Mods and war-based tabletop hexgrid games), I PREFER to hear critics of any game, because they give a viewpoint of the game based on why they don't like it - this saves me the time and trouble of playing (and buying) the game myself. It's called 'doing product research'.

I may disagree with the critic and get the game anyhow, but I have no-one to blame but myself if I do get the game and hate it when I am aware of what the critics said.

A question... stan, smithldoo, and angrybowen...why did you get civ4? You all are net-savvy, and the reports were available regarding the problems with system performance were all over the place. You already had a great deal of skepicism about the game from the start. Yet you got it...

I have little sympathy for people who are warned about potential problems, or have easy access to that info (...one of your biggest gripes are about civ4 being a resource hog), and yet get those games anyhow. I fully realize that companies are mainly there to make a buck, so I listen more to actual players and their reports about problems over reports from the company line. (One of the reasons I started the 'gorilla' thread was with the hope to discuss civ4 concepts and to see if any light could be shed on how the concepts would work - as a means to get people informed about the games.)

When it came out, I decided to hold off on the purchase based on the reports, but a very good friend sent it to me out of the blue as a gift right after release. I played it for a month (...on and off - did not like the lags myself) and then tabled it until this week when I downloaded the latest patch.

Civ4 holds my interest mainly because it is not a game that is scale-intensive to me. I've repeated that over and over too...it is a personal preference issue. I've been very clear on that.

You may not like to hear critics - that is fine too. However, simple fanboy gushers do not interest me at all. Crap, every game company trumpets their game as the end-all.

I played the 'gushing fanboy' a year ago...Heavily promoted AOM here. I sent the game to 3 players (yin, ninot and someone else who I cannot recall at the moment) at my cost with the simple hope of getting unfiltered and unbiased feedback for it, because I had moved on. Yin was the only one kind enough to follow through with it too, and he made a lot of input for AOM II that never would have happened if he did not play it in the first place.

Now I am the 'nitpicker critic' - since I have time at work to play this part...and I have managed to get the hardcore and loyal players to FINALLY come here to hopefully provide what AOM never has had. People who play the game and can discuss it in a forum that has heavy gaming traffic. Something that I could never do by myself, given that I no longer had interest in playing the game.

Again, think of the big picture...

Discussion is good!!! Even argument is good because it provides point/counterpoint to define what may or may not be to your liking.

Originally posted by angrybowen Anyway, like you Hex I have limited time and these posts are eating into my AOM playing time

Too bad you can't be bothered to promote what you enjoy...

Originally posted by smithldoo
I will say and debate with anyone that the normal big end game problems that apply to other games apply in the same way to AOM. Sure all big games have some tedium, but AOM is unique in that you basically cannot just grind your way to a conquest victory (ala civ 3,civ4, RTW, Ctp2 prior to AOM). The history in AOM is unique and to me, enthralling. After a year it still springs a little surprise on me every now and then.

Good for you - looks like I succeeded in generating discussion about the game. Now it is up to players to decide if this is the game for them.

My job is done - happy gaming all

[stankarp]

A question... stan, smithldoo, and angrybowen...why did you get civ4?

75% of the reason was the urgings of you Hex and Dale at my forum.

25% because I am a bit of a collector and at some stage would have got it and tried it. But I would most likely have waited till it was reduced in price as I already knew it retained my 2 pet hates from Civ 3, 1v1 combat and workers.

[smithldoo]

A question... stan, smithldoo, and angrybowen...why did you get civ4?

75% of the reason was the urgings of you Hex and Dale at my forum.

Ditto except in my case 90%+. I had been sceptical of Civ 4 over it's retention of 1v1 combat so I felt before I went any further, I should play some games (to the END BTW) before making further comment.

What you intended re your posts re AOM and what people read into them are different for many people as generaldoktor notes;

I have to agree that Hexagonian has generated a tremendous amount of verbiage on this thread, about a game he clearly doesn't like.

I think your a bit arrogant by demanding people read and analyse in detail your voluminous verbage and its their own fault if they don't get your message (perception again).

Yes I have promoted AOM and I agree with Louis about one thing, it is a sophisticated game, more than I really realised in the past.

I still say SHAME on you Hex. If AOM is a mod then Civ 3 PTW and conquests were patches and Civ 4 an over priced expansion pack.

I am sharpening my tactics and weapons at the moment, readying myself for the competition to find the world champion at AOM.