Anybody home?

[hexagonian]

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.

[hexagonian]

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.

[Dale]

Hex,

I wouldn't bother mate. These guys don't like Civ4, will never like Civ4, and seen to be totally brainwashed against Civ4.

[hexagonian]

I do have to plug this - after playing it for the first time today...

The progressive heir to AoM is 'Rhyes and Fall of Civilization' for civ4. The best way to describe it is that it really does great job of simulating the ebb and flow of history (i.e., the rise and fall of civgroups) It really reminds me of a TBS version of EU2.

It's too bad that Stan did not pursue an AoM version of civ4 when civ4 first came out. Chances are, he could have seen AoM as a corporate sponsored add-on for BtS, which is what happened with Rhye's Mod.

If you like AoM give Rhye's Mod a shot...

[Maquiladora]

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.

[demon59]

Is anybody still playing AoM (and still posting about it, somewhere)?