AOM3 Is Out

[stankarp]

I hereby promote Generaldoktor to official assistant. Thanks mate.

I am going to do a full upload of the complete AOM III before I go overseas, in fact, probably early next week.

I have been sick ( and in bed some days) for nearly 2 weeks. On the mend now though.

[Generaldoktor]

On the mend!

[Ekmek]

Why didn't apolyton announce this...I sent the news thing to Locutus...

[Protra3211]

Thats great Stan!

Im glad I picked up the CD AOM and supported the project. I recall before Civ4 came out the CtP2 forums were filled with what could be done with the game and the releasing of the code .But you went past what was even thought of.
I hope some of the old timers give their thoughts on AOM3.

[Generaldoktor]

Well, "old-timers," there is some talk over on the old AOM II thread, including some contributed by me, that Apolyton's interest may be waning for AOM. They still haven't transferred to forums to this site, after promising to do so late last year, from what I understand.

"Say it ain't so," and I hope not. As a short-termer here, overall I've come to rather like the organization, in general; and even made a small donation. But, despite coverage of other games, Poly revolves mostly around Civ and besides taking a lot of their time, they are heavily beholden to Firaxis to maintain their input into and coverage of, Civ. The fact of life is, AOM competes with Civ, in concept and the attention of people who might otherwise be playing and buying new versions of Civ. Maybe this has some bearing on why "the news" is getting out so slow this time, especially since AOM III is from all appearances a pretty refined product of the genre and indications continue to be that the professionally-produced Civ4 in many ways is not.

By the way also, "old-timers," I find some of the "birthday-punching" and pecking order based on seniority of membership here at Poly a little obnoxious. I bought CTP when it came out in '98 (and thus didn't need to buy a disc from Stan, but I respect his work and may be able to donate later this year when my finances look up.) I was too busy playing it and CTP2 in the intervening 7-8 years to bother with Internet forums. (And also Civ3, which I bought due to good advertising and still think is better than the now-frequent criticisms. Civ2 I bought and never loaded into a computer, it now rots in my garage. Thought at the time it was just a cruder variant on CTP.)

Point being, I think my opinion, after I've had a chance to play it some, of AOM III is as good and valid as any Poly "old-timer."

[hexagonian]

I think it is a combo of some other things...

People are drawn to a communal experience when gaming. Because civ4 has a large community, people tend to play that game because they can participate in discussion about the game with a lot of other people.

You can blast the Apolytoneers all you want, but I see little discussion in the Apolyton CTP2 forum by the AOM loyalists to create a positive buzz themselves, despite Apolyton admin. dragging their feet.

After all, AOM is an CTP2 Mod...Start there.

Perhaps they could come in and start a lot of AOM threads in the CTP2 forums and rationally discuss AOM strategy, so a positive buzz can spread. Perhaps the admin. here will see a vibrant community and then take action.

Even if they do not, AOM increases exposure.

Ironically, I've challenged them on MANY occasions to do so, but sadly, they are either b*tching and moaning about people who dare enjoy civ4 in their own AOM forum, or occasionally coming into the civ4 forums here to continually blast civ4.

If you think small, that is all you will get. So I blame the AOM loyalists as much as the Apolyton admin.

Secondly, and more importantly, there is a law of diminishing return in games that have the same type of focus...

Many of the hard core civvers cut their teeth on civ1 and civ2. Each new version of the game (counting both in civ and the CTP series) has a progressively greater 'been-there, done that' feel to it (even with the new features) as you move through the gaming cycle. If you notice, there are very few hard-core civ1-civ3 players in the civ4 forums.

They've moved on...

And just as importantly, there is a much wider range of different gaming choices to play now (TBS, RTS, Roleplay, citybuilder, shooters) - as well as different focuses in the subgenres (like sci-fi, fantasy, historical, present day, futuristic) offering even more variations to play.

I cut my teeth on CTP1 for TBS games - played it to death, got CTP2, modded, played other TBS variations like SMAC, EU2, CK, CoW, MTW, RTW, AOW2, civ3, and civ4...

I valued each game for what it brought to the table too. SMAC had a great storyline, and very strong game characters, EU2 was an nice history lesson that starts each game with a good reflection of what the entire world was like in 1419, 1492..., and then let the player run with it and make his own history (same with CK), CoW, MTW and RTW gave me the feeling of actually deplying troops on a battlefield that was unique from other TBS games, AOW2 created a fantasy world format, and civ3 and civ4 merely continued on the path created with civ1 and civ2.

Add in the various city builders I played (Pharaoh, Zeus, Emperor, Children of the Nile, 1503)...

...and I promptly burned out on most games - especially any game that becomes a huge timesink because it requires a lot of time to complete it.

Hence I do not play AOM.

I greatly admire it for what it does, but the game is structured to require a lot of micromanagement. (In fact, smithldoo already pointed out on the AOM forums that his current game took 20-30 minutes per turn, post t300)

Sorry...but I'd rather use my time in other ways.

I like to play a variety of games - and most importantly, games that can be finished in a few nights time. Most times I am only on the computer 2-3 evening a week and only for an hour or two. Some weeks I skip altogether.

I'm guessing that is the way with many gamers too. When they first started gaming, they would pull all-nighters. Then 'game variation' B comes out, and players find they do not play it as much as 'variation A'. Repeat the cycle and the shelf life of any game becomes less and less compared to the 'first love'.

And it is human nature to focus on the new. AOM is based on a six-year old engine - and no matter how good the game, people usually do not want to go back, other than for nostalgia sake.

I can get a quick civ fix in civ4. I cannot in AOM.

The current civ4 patch has finally speeded up game performance on my system to an acceptable level, and I eagerly wait for the stacked combat mod currently in development.

Meantime, I can enjoy life. Read a book, go to my daughter's softball games. Wacth a movie with my wife.

[Generaldoktor]

Well, I guess I like micromanagement, but am still playing Civ4 and contributing periodically to its forums. The recent patch improved my early game, but it still drags in the late game a lot, this on a P4, 512 mb RDRAM. I never liked the map generator or the terrain, find the 3D redundant and possibly contributing to the technical issues, dislike the arrogance that the addition of viable multi-player has brought to that gaming community, well that about covers it, other than general criticisms that apply to the whole series. (Again I'll repeat from above, I loved Civ3 and haven't "moved on." )

Reading books and doing other things is great, but when I commit to play games, I do expect and want an investment of time. Guess that's just me. I think we do have a lot of AOM threads now in the CTP box, but I was just generalizing from specifics when someone asked why the new version hadn't made a bigger splash. Seemed to me to be a tie-in with the AOM vs. Civ4 issue or the delayed transfer of the forum issue.

General comments:

Interesting, Hexagonian, I thought I heard you did some mod work on AOM, or at least CTP2. A shame you're so jaded on it now.

Thank you for expressing an opinion without playing the "old timers" card on me. That does get a little tiring although you have indeed played some titles I haven't tried over the years since sophisticated gaming became viable on computers; and other equipment.

I can get a "quick fix" in Civ4 only if you discount the time I spend shutting down background programs on my computer (unnecessary otherwise) and waiting for the d-mn thing to load, post-v.161 and before. Funny, I have no such problems with the more modest "requirements" of that creaking, old CTP game engine used for AOM.

Having a wife to watch a movie with is great if you've got one. Like many archtypical gamers, I missed out on that, though an overlong career in backwater journalism had something to do with it. Presently, I mostly prefer gaming to the Social Darwinistic pain of dating after 40; I may change my mind.

"Moving on" in the gaming world. Well, maybe its my Napoleon complex, but I will always prefer grandiose intercontinental strategy games to "man-in-the-street" shooters, aside from the fact that since childhood, I've never had much eye-hand coordination, needed for RTS'. (I play lousy pinball and billiards too, but have learned, with great pain, to type 60 wpm.)

Anyway, we all appreciate differing opinions, especially me, since I usually have one.

[HuangShang]

well what would happened to ctp2 if we made a ctp3 or aom4 for civ4?

[Protra3211]

It seems many have posted in other game forums the same thing. Civ4 is a system hog and would mean a very costly ugrade to computors even under a year old which mine is. I just dont think that 200 to 300 dollars is worth the investment to play a game.Maybe in a year from now . P4 512 ram 128video card -AOM3 turns zip along for most of the game even on large maps with 12 civs. Its a good selling ponit .
What is needed is a rerelease of the game CtP2 which Activision owns and Stan has posted that the cost to buy the rights is way too high for him to pay.
So for the hard core fans AOM3 is next best thng. I feel its a lost that many of civers will nerver know about this game.

[Generaldoktor]

Agreed. By the way, Protra, you and I have similar systems, with the same bad experience trying to run C4.

Huang, you can't copy a game for profit without buying rights to it, that violates copyright everywhere. For illustration, back in the Eighties, a friend of mine designed a highly enjoyable variant of Parkers Brothers "Risk" and was foolish enough to tell Parker Bros. about it. They threatened him bigtime with lawyers, guns & money (apologies to the late Warren Zevon) and the kitchen sink. Oh, and they had absolutely no interest in his clever variation on their tried and true (and profitable) concept.

Stan has done a very unselfish and very rare thing, putting all this time and some of his own money into revising CTP2 as AOM I, II & III, agreeing up front with Activision that he would do so for free, charging nothing to nobody, (except cost recovery on some old stock of CTP2 discs, which I didn't need myself because, crazy man I am, I kept mine even after updating to Windows XP, which it amazingly runs on fine anyway, see also below.) Stan has said for financial and domestic tranquility, he can't do it again; there will be no AOM IV, thus it is reasonable to assume there will be no CTP3. (Activision has repeatedly said they want no more to do with it, but won't sell the rights cheap, either.) This was an incredible one-shot act of individual philanthropy, kids, enjoy what you got.

AOM on the Civ4 engine to me would be laughable, but I am a frequent critic of Civ4. Continuing technical problems with Civ4 aside, the AOM game as it stands uses a lot precepts from CTP, like combat and trade, that just don't transfer to the competing Civ system. It would be a substantial rewrite; Stan's not going to do it; and it wouldn't be fair to him, if somebody tried, even for no gain, as they would be circulating an inferior version of his design, due, if for no other reason, to the differing game engines and concepts of the two game systems.

Getting back to "CTP3." there is something to be said for Hexagonian's comments above about the aging of the game engine and system, especially in lieu of further support from Activision. It was great, especially for the Nineties and as a competitive alternative to the early versions of Civ, but its a little long in the tooth now and maybe its time to put it to bed. It is an amazingly sturdy game engine, even on XP, where it was never adapted to, except maybe a bit by the 1.11 patch. But like Burt Lancaster's last few movies or Frankie Sinatra's last few concerts, this is the swan song, the icing on the cake.

I am still playing and evaluating AOM III. When it's time to put it to bed, I'll be ready to move on, but grateful to Stan for giving me a little more enjoyment and life out of a disc I bought almost eight years ago. In the computer world, that's an eternity.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor Well, I guess I like micromanagement, but am still playing Civ4 and contributing periodically to its forums. The recent patch improved my early game, but it still drags in the late game a lot, this on a P4, 512 mb RDRAM.

I have a 2.7 Ghz Celeron with 1 GB RAM. (not a high-end gaming system by any stretch of the imagination) RAM is cheap though

I had lousy performance until the latest patch. I couldn't play anything more than standard maps. In fact I had tabled the game until just this past week.

Originally posted by Protra 3211 It seems many have posted in other game forums the same thing. Civ4 is a system hog and would mean a very costly ugrade to computors even under a year old which mine is. I just dont think that 200 to 300 dollars is worth the investment to play a game.Maybe in a year from now...

I would never upgrade a system for a game. I have enough of them as it is, and I haven't played most of them to the extent that I could.

At the same time, I do not begrudge players who are able to get the game to work on their systems either. Unfortunately, some of the hardcore AOMers (and they know who they are, and it is not you Protra) seemed to think that because of their own experiences with civ4, they have an inherent right to call people who enjoy civ4 morons...

Originally posted by Generaldoktor I never liked the map generator or the terrain, find the 3D redundant and possibly contributing to the technical issues...

3-d was not needed, which is why I know I will not be able to get EU3 when it comes out.

Originally posted by Generaldoktor ...but I was just generalizing from specifics when someone asked why the new version hadn't made a bigger splash. Seemed to me to be a tie-in with the AOM vs. Civ4 issue or the delayed transfer of the forum issue...

I work in advertising/marketing. You go where the potential client base is instead of making them look for you.

I REALLY blame the loyalists on this issue - especially the loudmouthed, vocal ones who spew off about the intelligence of civ4 players, but can't be bothered to positively promote AOM based on its own merits.

Their excuse???? Apolyton has not transferred the forums directly here. But there is an AOM forum here.

If you look in this forum directory, you will see a specific AOM forum. In fact I just tested it to make sure it works. (it has a total of two threads - the one I just posted and a general thread stated by Stan.)

Tell me why should the Apolyton admin. take the time and effort to transfer the forums, when since that forum was activated here, no-one, and I mean no-one, has posted there? No strategy threads, no helps, no status reports. Even in the general CTP2 forums, there has been little discussion...

Fans can provide links onsite to important discussions there - cut'n paste good points. Start new threads...

I guess their rabid loyalty can't be bothered with such details though.

Sad...

Originally posted by Protra 3211 Interesting, Hexagonian, I thought I heard you did some mod work on AOM, or at least CTP2. A shame you're so jaded on it now...

I have a lot of good memories of CTP. AOM used my Cradle Mod as its basis. In fact playing and enjoying Cradle was what motivated Stan to do AOM. Stan and I played some Cradle succession games together in the past.

However, I had walked away from Cradle a while back too. At that time, Stan approached me about helping him. I did so because of his enthusiasm of Cradle, and I knew the files inside and out, so I knew I could speed the process for him. I saw the plan for AOM and had confidence that he could pull off his vision in the scope of a Mod, but I knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that there was no hope to get a deal with Activision. But if the plan had gone through as he had hoped, and we could have reaped a financial benefit from it through Activision, I would have maintained more interest in the project.

However, I will also be honest and say that my gaming tastes and interests had also broadened during the time I worked on AOM - plus I was also slowing burning out on epic-style gaming altogether.

So my personal goal became more along the lines of getting AOM I out the door, and then hoping that the fanbase would rise up to do additional work for Stan - and I would retire from any future involvement.

I have the upmost respect for Stan - at the same time, I do not have fanatic loyalty to ANY game that would cause me to badmouth one game merely to build up another one - even one where I had a personal stake - nor badmouth a person because he prefers one game over another. (...and that mindset has only come about over the past few years too - I spent a lot of time in the CTP/civ debates)

So for me to say that civ4 stinks would be a lie. I like it.

Originally posted by Protra 3211 Funny, I have no such problems with the more modest "requirements" of that creaking, old CTP game engine used for AOM...

"Moving on" in the gaming world. Well, maybe its my Napoleon complex, but I will always prefer grandiose intercontinental strategy games...

AOM is taylor made for epic gaming - it also suffers from what I call 'bigger is better' bloat (most TBS games have it to some degree)

And the AOM scoring system is weighted toward larger empires, and the most efficient way to get large empires in AOM ultimately is to conquer. You prolong the game immensely if you choose any other way.

So you spend the early part of the game establishing yourself in one of two ways (peacefully or conquest) - then the game becomes an endless cycle of city conquest with an occasional peaceful city build thrown in. Taking city #67 is little different than taking city #43. Only the units have changed.

Following are my opinions, based on my own experiences. You may enjoy these things - if so, more power to you.

Pillaging has become the new worker tedium. I spend more time selecting units to move 'n pillage in AOM than I would spend moving workers in civ4.

Same with army management. An endless cycle of grouping and ungrouping AOM stacks simply to move them around the map becasue the cap does not allow armies to pass through one another. By the time you get to 40-50 cities and the armies those cities allow me to build, the tedium (for me at least) outweighs the enjoyment.

It's a TBS vesion on Age of Empires. All you end up doing is fight another battle until you finally win as the biggest bully on the block.

Contrast that with civ4, or EU2, which I feel offers more diverse means to play them. In those games, you are not always locked into a single overriding MAIN strategy (conquest) supported by diverse sub-strats.

Your MAIN strat in those games can be more diverse. This greatly increases replayability for me, because each game become more distinct from the previous one.

You can play EU2 with a focus on straight colonialism, or you can play it as a warmongor, or a combo of the two, and many times you have an equal chance of success no matter which way you go. Nor is overall empire size the determining factor.

Same with civ4. I can play the game with different ways to win (spaceship, UN, cultural, domination, straight conquest...)

And as far as I can see, there still is no setup for a small map in AOM3. To do so would require adjustments to the city caps, advance/units/building/wonder costs, as well as adjustment to barbarian spawns, and the entire scoring system.

Contrast with civ4. The game works on small maps, and has been scaled down even on the largest maps. I do not need 60+ cities in civ4 to succeed. I do in AOM, and that entails all the extra micromanagement.

Originally posted by Generaldoktor Having a wife to watch a movie with is great if you've got one. Like many archtypical gamers, I missed out on that, though an overlong career in backwater journalism had something to do with it. Presently, I mostly prefer gaming to the Social Darwinistic pain of dating after 40; I may change my mind.

I still enjoy playing, but it is not the overriding factor in my life - at least not anymore.

[Generaldoktor]

Oh, the quote about the smooth performance of the "creaking, old CTP game engine," was mine, not Protra's, so was the query about your prior mod work with CTP, Hexagonian.

When I said I "contributed" to C4 forums, I was talking about in a positive way regarding strategy threads. I knocked one out on the "Marathon Mode" thread yesterday, actually. I don't personally recall disparaging Civ4 players, since I am one.

Lately; and I've only had AOM II for a couple months, being sold on it by some "fanatics" as well as Stan's small attempts at promotion, I alternate the games.

But here's how I have to do it. AOM; plug in CTP disc, wait for game selector screen, play.

Civ4: close a dozen background programs, run disc clean-up, insert disc, hold down shift for 5-minute booting of disc to make sure uncached, select game, usually "custom" and yes, I like real big maps, as I have in all other "epic" games I've played. (If you're going to go epic, go "epic.") Wait for specific game to load or for previous save to load, another 5 minutes. Wait to adjust on grid, square values and specials, because I like to read them as I play. Wait for system to acknowledge I've joined the game. Hit "new turn," if it is a save and wait for that to load. Five minutes more.

No, I'm not one to say you have to be a moron for playing it, just a bit of a masochist.

I was disappointed to see no new AOM forum entries after about January too, when I made Stan go to the trouble to enroll me. But I think some were waiting for the transfer because they were told to; and some were waiting for AOM III, because for the majority, (not me) AOM II was kind of "old hat" by spring. (Expansions or not, I bet C4 is kind of old hat by next spring.) Anyway, my bringing it up was just a conjecture, based again on the fact that there also wasn't a flashy announcement with Poly support on the new release.

The Vassal State concept and Royal Wedding introduced in the new version appears to try to get around the "conquer" endless cities syndrome, without pirating a "culture" concept from Civ. Religion has been beefed up and may have some bearing in nonviolent acquisition also, I need to check.

Moving armies around each other doesn't bother me; entangled lines of communication were a bane of independently moving corps in both the Napoleonic Wars and the American Civil War; maybe it should be allowed, but it would be foolish. Probably as far back as Darius' loss at Arbela, such confusion spelled disaster for armies. (Oh, and there's those great scenes in "Patton," which have historical basis, of the George C. Scott character straightening out traffic jams as late as WWII.) Maybe overstacking should have been allowed, for a unit loss penalty, but I guess Stan or the CTP designers couldn't think of everything. Stan denies, by the way that this is "blob versus blob, where bigger blob wins." I need to play more, but I buy his reasoning.

I personally have had AOM III for about a week, but have read the strategy guide and also played enough AOM II to feel it is a rich and varied game system. I will try to initiate personally some more strategy threads in the forums Hexagonian suggests and see where it goes from there, once I have a little more time in with the game. Hopefully, those unnamed "fanatics" that have been so criticized will come forward and do the same.

In the meantime, when I have time for Old Sparky to load up Civ4, I will continue to play that and comment on game aspects. I've already given up on the technical beefs, but at one point this year, opinions were actually being solicited on problems and drawbacks with the expectaton something might be done about them (with Civ4.)

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor Oh, the quote about the smooth performance of the "creaking, old CTP game engine," was mine, not Protra's, so was the query about your prior mod work with CTP, Hexagonian.

Sorry 'bout that...cutting and pasting mistakes on a long post...too lazy to retype the quote coding

Originally posted by Generaldoktor But here's how I have to do it. AOM; plug in CTP disc, wait for game selector screen, play...No, I'm not one to say you have to be a moron for playing it, just a bit of a masochist.

However, there is the AOM goody hut bug that usually takes 2-3 minutes every time you or an AI gets an advance or free unit...

That said, I do not dispute players who have a problem with long wait times. It is why I am only now playing civ4 after getting the game in Novemeber. And I do have to say that civ4's game performance on my system with this patch is now as good as AOM.

Originally posted by Generaldoktor But I think some were waiting for the transfer because they were told to; and some were waiting for AOM III, because for the majority, (not me) AOM II was kind of "old hat" by spring. (Expansions or not, I bet C4 is kind of old hat by next spring.) Anyway, my bringing it up was just a conjecture, based again on the fact that there also wasn't a flashy announcement with Poly support on the new release.

When you are dealt lemons, make lemonade.

There still was ample opportunity for AOM loyalists to set the tone, and try to create a vibrant community here. AOM I and AOM II were very playable and stable - and as an indie project, players would cut Stan some slack.

They still could too.

I guess that wasn't too important to some of the so-called 'loyalists'...I am glad to see your efforts on this though.

Originally posted by Generaldoktor The Vassal State concept and Royal Wedding introduced in the new version appears to try to get around the "conquer" endless cities syndrome, without pirating a "culture" concept from Civ. Religion has been beefed up and may have some bearing in nonviolent acquisition also, I need to check..

I would be interested in objective reports on how this affects strategy. I am not convinced that these features will swing the pendulum out of the warmongor camp though...but I want to hear unbiased reports, rather than the company line.

Remember, I am interested in OVERALL MAIN strategy focus, not sub-strats. You can use a sub-strat to lie low for 50 turns via diplomacy, but if the nature of the game still HEAVILY emphasizes city conquest, post t250, as the means to win, then it is a game that is not as varied and flexible as it could be.

After all, Age of Empires may be fun to some players, but the overall focus on that game is primarily to conquer everyone else. Not diplomacy...not peaceful economics expansionism...not trade... but kill your opponent. The rest are merely tools to get you to that point.

Originally posted by Generaldoktor Stan denies, by the way that this is "blob versus blob, where bigger blob wins." I need to play more, but I buy his reasoning...

My definition of blob vs blob is that you tailor your forces so that you always have clear numerical superiority. If the blob is spread out over two or three tiles, it is still a blob. In fact, because of the unit cap on tile occupation, you are foolish not to use multiple stacks in a blob-like fashion.

Loyalists would argue that with the 'no ZOC' rule in civ4, there is no frontline tactics, so you always stick everything in a blob on a SINGLE tile. Civ4 does take the tack of using bombardment units to cause damage to multiple units to help spread out the forces though.

I do find that the CTP2 ZOC rule is not realistic because it creates an artificial constraint. Thus, a lone unit can sit on the middle of a plain and block a large army from entering any adjacent tiles. Realistically, if I had 20,000 men, 1,000 men would not block me from entering a block of land 30 miles to the north of those 1,000 men.

My thoughts is that if you want to stop an invader, you eventually have to attack it. If you want to block it, you could throw up a screen. The invader then has a choice - either destroy the screen or walk around it. If the invader chooses to walk around it, you, the defender, have to either attack it to slow it down or cry in your beer in fear.

Don't depend on an artificial forcefield created by a ZOC rule do the job for you.

Ironically, the loyalists doggedly use realism to support their arguments (especially regarding combat) and the conveniently forget realism when it does not suit their purposes.

And in AOM, you have a feature that allows you to retreat during battle, while that AI cannot use this feature. You end up hitting an enemy stack with 2-3 stacks on a turn, retreating them in the middle of battle to minimize your losses. Bottom line is that you lose few units while the AI loses a bunch.

You also score multiple slaves and increase your chances to get generals and heroes.

Ask the loyalists how often they use this feature. The argument is that this a balancer for AI cheats. It may be realistic for the player, but it certainly is not realistic for the AI...

Related to this, I have yet to see a lone AI in CTP/AOM CONSISTENTLY (and that is the key word, CONSISTENTLY) launch multiple attacks on a SINGLE TURN against a player when it has the opportunity. (but I have not played AOM for close to a year though) If you have multiple fronts against a particular AI and it does not leverage it's advantage with lightning-fast strikes (multiple attacks on a single turn), then the model is flawed, unrealistic, and it not at the level it could be.

This happens all the time in civ4 and EU2, and at least gives an impression of coordination. The AI will attack from multiple directions, and at multiple points on a SINGLE turn.

In AOM, the result of this is that the player ends up with a tactical advantage because the dual benefit of player-only retreats and the inability of the AI to use its own numerical superiority when it presents itself to the AI allows the player to preserve his forces. He may get hit, but it is a half-hearted hit. That is a different type of blob vs blob with a clear advantage to the player.

If this happens in your game, let me know. If the AI does leverage it's strength on a turn-by-turn basis, then AOM has truly evolved.

AOM is a very good game in that Stan has really taken CTP to a much higher level - and it does offer solid and creative gameplay - but like any other game it is not perfect, and it is not for everyone.

In many ways, it is superior to civ4.

Simply respect people who may have other preferences. I believe you do, and you offer a perspective that goes beyond the simple knee-jerk reactions of some of the AOM loyalists I've dealt with in the past (BTW, I do not count Stan in this camp)...

Hex

[Ekmek]

I'm glad to see some of the AoM forum guys bringing life to these threads.

I've done some research into merging AoM3 into the playtest. Here's what I wrote here

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?postid=4454203#post4454203

[Generaldoktor]

Originally posted by E
I'm glad to see some of the AoM forum guys bringing life to these threads.

I've done some research into merging AoM3 into the playtest. Here's what I wrote here

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthrea...03#post4454203

Okay, E; what I get out of the thread link you posted above is that people are using the finally available CTP source code to do some sort of a "CTP3" and you are considering including parts of AOM into it, but it would not be AOM; which last, from what I can see, downloading the AOM III "update" last weekend is of itself sort of a "finished product," albeit of a different form than what you're working on.

I'd be interested, but as I have no programing skills at all, (look how I struggled from prior posts in this thread with Stan's simple "cut and paste" instructions,) I would personally only be interested in a finished product.

Hexagonian: Your criticisms of AOM are many and detailed, glad you and StanK are still speaking. I haven't played enough to answer you, which is something I need to work on this week. (Also because I simply want to play the game, now that I've downloaded the latest! )

I will answer on this simple level. Stan himself has said that some of the prior products in strategy series' were too wimp on AI participation, i.e. aggression. This did not reflect the real course of world history, which involved in most of that history virtual non-stop war and aggression; an analysis I accept. Ergot, if AOM is heavily about warmongering, it is because it draws a basis from world history, which is also mostly about warmongering. (I should have some nice quote from an old "Star Trek" episode here about the millennia of depravity of most of human history. )

To me it is a little bit of a shame, as I'd like to just diddle with his trade system and some of those extra cool wonders some game, without having to worry about churning out endless hoplites to fight off the inevitable unprovoked attack. I may dumb down the difficulty level below recommended for a game or so just to try to do that, but don't tell Stan or any of the "loyalists."

Also, on the individual issue of one warrior stopping many; we have the example of Thermopolyae, which admittedly was a choke point, but from what I understand a fairly wide one, for the bold Spartans trying to block the Persian horde. The better example I suppose was the "mobile defense" tactics of Field Marshall Von Manstein and others in the Russian steppe during the German defensive period 1943-44. I think ZOC, originally developed in old cardboard board strategy games of the Sixties and Seventies, was inspired by these types of things.

BTW, I'm glad you don't lump me with the still unnamed "knee-jerk...loyalists" who have evidently so offended you in defending the concepts of and participaton in AOM.