AOM3 Is Out

[Dale]

Let's recap shall we.

The ORIGINAL claim was that 4 games had been played at the highest level and an IAS win was done easily.

I challenged that, and now it is 2 games at the 3rd highest level on one specific map that makes war easy against all but one pacifist AI's.

That's what I was calling full of sh1t.

Read carefully.

Re promotions:
Promotions, like nearly everything else in Civ4, progress in a tree like fashion, with most promotions having pre-requisite promotions. To claim you couldn't choose which of the 40 promotions you wanted is bunk because if you'd spent more than a few games you'd know this (or if you read the manual or looked at the chart).

Re x/y wrap:
Your claim is pure horsecrap. Civ4 has always had x/y wrap, x wrap and flat maps.

Re resources:
What you claim is also crap. Every resource is useful. Admittedly food a little less as you can't trade it, but you still get health benefits in your cities from food resources.

Re goody huts:
Smithldoo, let me guess, you played on great plains too?

Re "maps exactly the same each game":
If you read up about the maps you would know the the great plains map simulates the US great plains. IT SAYS QUITE CLEARLY THIS MAP IS SUPPOSED TO BE THE SAME EACH GAME!

At least when you make a claim about civ4, make sure its correct first.

Re AI attacking:
smithldoo, I was talking about ONE AI coming at you from multiple fronts. Not every AI coming blindly at you due to frenzy marching its units blindly towards me.

LASTLY:
Play the game at patch 1.61 at the highest level and then tell me it's easy to get an IAS win.

Dale

[hexagonian]

I only responded in my last post (...Friday, June 16) because angrybowen and smithldoo decided to drag this thread off topic. If they want to stir up the hornet's nest with lame attempts to take shots at me (...and Dale for that matter, but I know Dale is more than capable of holding his own), I am more than willing to follow suit.

Originally posted by angrybowen
Thats was my point.

I really have to continue hammering this point home, because of the fact that you continue to use this example as a means to try to criticize me...and it is a piss-poor attempt to boot.

In 2001, I enjoyed epic style gaming. I do not now and have said so publically...COMPRENDE???? You obviously do not comprende, so I will continue to publically call you out on this EVERY TIME it comes up.

That does not invalidate what I did in 2001. It merely means that my tastes have changed and it reflects a gaming preference that has evolved over time. And I suspect a lot of people go through that in their tastes in gaming.

I respect the fact that a player may like something and dislike other things, AND that these things do change over time. I may have not in the past, but I have learned to accept it.

Dale was a very loyal CTP-style player. He no longer is, and frankly, it really does not matter to me what he plays, but that he enjoys it. Generaldoktor was the opposite...good for him. He plays what he enjoys, and that is all that matters.

If you enjoy AOM, good for you. If someone else enjoys civ4, good for them...

Originally posted by angrybowen 1) As Stan said, you do not HAVE to have 60 cities to win

Let's look at the scoring system, shall we???
From the scoring
================================
• Cities, 8(for up to size 8), 12(up to size 18), 14(up to size30),16(for over size 30), 18 (for size 45) and 20 (for size 60). (size - and the bulk of your points if you do the math...)
• Wonders (easier the larger you are)and capturing an enemy capital are worth 25 points. (conquest)
• Border forts, watch towers, and fortifications are worth 2 points for the first 25, 1 point for the next 50, to a maximum of 100 points.
• Outposts are worth 2 points for the first 25, 1 point for the next 50, to a maximum of 100 points.
• Killing an AI player or having him as a Vassal at the end of the game is worth 50 points. (conquest)
• Your score has your aggression level (/2) then deducted to give your final score. The more aggressive you have been, the more is deducted.
• Feats now count towards scoring, you get 15-20 victory points for each feat you achieve(easier the larger you are). In addition, only half your aggression level is deducted from your score.
• Cartels are worth 5 points each.
• Each AI you have military treaties with at the time of the score check is worth 5 points (that is only 5 points per ai, not 5 per treaty per ai).
================================
Scoring is weighted toward the ownership of cities. You can get points from other things, but the bulk of your points come from how many cities you own...

It is ALL tied into size...

As you get bigger, you have a greater means to do all of the other things to generate points.

When your empire is large, it is no problem to pad out your points with wonders and feats, etc. - because you have a lot of cities, you can spare cities to do that type of build program.

It is more efficient to get your core up and then capture AI cities, most of whom will be large and well-developed.

Choose to go peaceful and you increase the length of the game, because it simply will take a great deal more time to start a city from scratch and get it to a size where you gain your points. If you choose to merely enslave, you still increase frenzy levels because you are at war.

Thus, the focus of the game becomes one of city conquest. Even the frenzy penalty that may work against you is little more of a speedbump (max of 100 point penalty, because Frenzy is 200 pts.) Once you go on a military rampage, you overcome that speedbump easily. The Frenzy penalty is approx (-5%) of your total score on the lowest level, and is even less on the higher levels.

By design, AOM funnels a player into a Bigger is Better...TM mentality as your PRIMARY strategy. So the PRIMARY choice is either capture cities (and this is where capturing city 36 becomes just like city 65) or take the longer road in playing time of creating your own cities. (which isn't what I want either)

You, yourself, had criticized Yin because you said he did not understand the point system because he was playing defensive/peaceful. Your assertion was that he had to be aggressive - which means expansionistic.

I am not saying that is a poor game design. After all, most TBS games (as well as RTS games like AOE) are based on that premise. Get bigger than everyone else, then leverage that size advantage to victory.

What I have said OVER AND OVER is that it is not for me. If you enjoy that, good for you. But that is the mechanic that underlines AOM, and that is what I have focused on in this discussion.

Originally posted by angrybowen you can play on a smaller map version of AOM II(which no one ever commented on(source stan)...

Which I acknowledged in this thread. And note that there was no explaination in the readme files about this setup either...

Originally posted by angrybowen 2) There is an in built penalty in all AOM versions for going big after Tribunal Empire,

Are you sure you understand the game???? For my supposed 'lack of playing' AOM, I seem to have a firmer grasp on the mechanics...

...from the AOM_govern.txt

The penalty for exceeding the city cap is 0.5 for BOTH TE and many of the Medieval governments. The difference is that the city caps are higher by 5-10 cities for the medieval governments (35 for TE vs 40/45 for the medieval governments) Simply sticking with the cap in both governments means that a Medieval government (45 cities) operates at 10%-20% greater capacity than TE (35 cities) because you are allowed more cities.

Exceeding the caps incurs the SAME penalty, to both governments, so comparitively speaking, one is NOT more efficient than another.

This is offset somewhat by the (10%) higher science research rate of TE, but you also have to take into account that some of the Medieval governments have higher knowledge AND gold rates - making this whole issue a wash.

The end result is that a 45-city medieval empire will have a better science rate than a 35-city TE empire

Since you get the bulk of your points come from cities, the cap is not going to slow you down from your PRIMARY goal. All it means is that your cities need to use more entertainers.

End result... Bigger is Better...TM

Originally posted by angrybowen 3) If you want to play just a builder/peaceful game, there are 2 victory options that don't involve conquest (diplomatic and science). The first target for a science victory is on turn 400. A perfectly manageable game. A well resourced Trib Empire focused on science should be able to give this a shake.

See point above...Bigger is Better...TM. To reach those techs entails that you have to be big to support the high science rate that you will require to do so ---> which most likely will lie on the path of conquest to get to that size.

Originally posted by angrybowen Some people are perpetuating a MYTH that you can only win AOM by playing on ultra gig maps with 10-12 opponents and drawing your sword on turn one.

This is not myth, but fact...

Stan has said in his readme - if you want to win via points, YOU have to play huge maps.

I remain skeptical that the other victory options are viable unless you follow the same PRIMARY strat of Bigger is Better...TM.

For instance...Can a science/diplo victory be achievd on a small map?

Can it be achieved on a gigantic map with only 20-25 cities?

The game defaults to normal victory options if you do not play for points, but I have played enough Cradle and CTP to know that the mechanics of the CTP system does stress Bigger is Better...TM.

I know AOM has not changed this dynamic.

And you continue to perpetrate myths about what I say....

What I have said CONSISTENTLY...

- AOM funnels players into a strat of continual growth as the way to boost your score. Bigger is Better...TM And all other victory options will also funnel you into this type of game.
- You are NOT forced into a strat of military conquest expansion in the early game. You will find that you can do either/or as a matter of choice.
- HOWEVER, you will find that once you get a core of cities, the MOST efficient way to win is to take cities from the AI as your PRIMARY strat (due to the scoring system). Doing anything else means the game becomes much longer, turnwise.
- ALL TBS games have this type of mechanic to some degree. It is not necessarily bad, but it also tends to funnel players down fewer paths in PRIMARY strategy. Dale alluded to the fact that in a game like AOM, your overall PRIMARY strat stays the same throughout a game, and allows for less flexibility within a game to go fora different victory option if the situation suddenly changes.

I see LESS of this Bigger is Better...TM mentality in civ4, and thus, it has become my game of choice.

Example: smithldoo pointed out in this thread an AOM example where he was blindsided by the Celts. Called it very innovative...

I had the same type of thing happen to me in a civ4 game.

My focus was to get as many religions as I could, and to grab the early wonders, so I had a very light military for most of the ancient age.

India declared on me from the north, so I was drawn into a longterm war, because I decided to take them out. And I did so, but at the cost of the higher maintenance rate, which slowed down my science

At that point, Katherine decided to attack my southern flank. I had pulled my forces from the south to deal with India, and was still very thin, and to top it off, Kate had Ivory (War Elephants) and Longbows. I lacked both, so I was outgunned. My city conquests has slowed down my science rate.

Kate also was two civs away from me, so getting to her was not easy. The same mechanic that happened in smithldoo's game happened to me. I had to pull everything I had to the south - I hunkered down in my cities, put everything on a military build, and all I could do was wait her out. It was a stalemate, and I had to pay her off in the end - but I chose to do so because in my game, my focus was primarily cultural/peaceful, and MOST IMPORTANTLY I did not need/want the extra cities BECAUSE I knew my success in the game did not require it.

[Dale]

Dale was a very loyal CTP-style player. He no longer is, and frankly, it really does not matter to me what he plays, but that he enjoys it. Generaldoktor was the opposite...good for him. He plays what he enjoys, and that is all that matters.

I just want to touch on this subject for a minute. I played ctp2 from 2000-2004. I was very loyal to ctp2, often bagging out civ3 due to it's "issues". I made a number of popular mods for ctp2, and helped push the boundaries of what was possible using slic.

But there comes a time when you completely burn out. I did in 2004 and moved onto other games in different genres. And then I got the invite from Soren and Jesse to join the Civ4 team last year.

I gladly joined. Primarily, because I AM a civver. Always have been since playing civ1 on my commodore 64 in the early 80's. I wanted to help make civ4 so much better than civ3, and to bring some of ctp2's better parts to civ4.

Locutus, myself and Peter Triggs did this. We hounded daily the civ4 developers on what we wanted. Pretty much a lot of the modding ability of civ4 can be attributed to what the three of us wanted.

So even though I am not playing ctp2, I do still have a loyalty to the game. This is plainly evident in civ4. I'm sure I speak for Loc and Peter when I say that the three of us saw in civ4 the best way to keep certain parts of ctp2 alive and kicking. Cuz the actual game itself was pretty dead, except for Stan's great efforts.

Dale

[hexagonian]

Dale
I should have said 'blindly' loyal to CTP. My bad...

I actually decided to do the math on the scoring system, and post the breakdown in a concrete manner...

From the readme
================================
• Cities, 8(for up to size 8), 12(up to size 18), 14(up to size30),16(for over size 30), 18 (for size 45) and 20 (for size 60).

• Wonders and capturing an enemy capital are worth 25 points.

• Border forts, watch towers, and fortifications are worth 2 points for the first 25, 1 point for the next 50, to a maximum of 100 points.

• Outposts are worth 2 points for the first 25, 1 point for the next 50, to a maximum of 100 points.

• Killing an AI player or having him as a Vassal at the end of the game is worth 50 points.

• Your score has your aggression level (/2) then deducted to give your final score. The more aggressive you have been, the more is deducted.

• Feats now count towards scoring, you get 15-20 victory points for each feat you achieve. In addition, only half your aggression level is deducted from your score.

• Cartels are worth 5 points each.

• Each AI you have military treaties with at the time of the score check is worth 5 points (that is only 5 points per ai, not 5 per treaty per ai).
================================
Scoring is weighted toward the ownership of cities. You can get points from other things, but the bulk of your points come from how many cities you own...

So do the math...

50 cities that average size 30 = 700 points
10 wonders = 250 points
Maximum forts = 100 points (max capped)
Outposts = 100 points (max capped)
Killing 4 AIs = 200 points (this also will give you more cities)
Capturing 4 AI capitols = 100 points (this also will give you more cities)
10 feats = 250 points
20 Cartels = 100 points (and I am being very generous on this one)
Treaties = 200 points (again, this is generous)

Total = 2000 points
minus 100 points for Frenzy penalty

Grand Total of 1900 points - and this is only the victory margin on the lowest level.

You tell me how I am going to get an additional 1100 points to get to 3000 points unless I have more cities?...Please enlighten me!!!

It's Bigger is Better...TM
Plain and simple!

...and this is why I do not have to play the game to the end to understand the mechanics, and what is involved to win.

[stankarp]

Dale, point exactly where I ever said I:

"claim was that 4 games had been played at the highest level and an IAS win was done easily.".

Exactly WHERE I claimed I EVER did it on the HIGHEST level! And ALSO, where smithldoo or angrybowen claimed they did it on the highest level. I do not recall either of them making that claim either.

Also, what is the EXACT benefit of the 2nd cow in the exampe referred to? If you have 2 cows, and no one wants to trade, what does the 2nd cow do? Does it give you ANOTHER +1 health, i.e., +2 altogether?

Hex, I have already pointed out that you have science and diplomatic victory options that kick in and override the points system, but also, you can continue if you like.

If you choose to play on a smaller map then:
"In this case victory will default to the original CTP2 victory conditions unless you choose the Blood Lust option when setting up the game from the original CTP2 menu. " from the manual.

Edited, double paste error.

[smithldoo]

DALE, are you saying I doctored that picture I posted on 11 June of my progress score of the IAS game??

Firstly where is your comparable picture of your AOM game??????

Secondly i understand hex is a bit of a graphics pro. I demand he looks at that picture and highlights where I doctored it. (BTW Hex, I already had 23 cities, less than half what I ended up with).

Exactly WHERE I claimed I EVER did it on the HIGHEST level! And ALSO, where smithldoo or angrybowen claimed they did it on the highest level. I do not recall either of them making that claim either.

Yes, I DEMAND to know EXACTLY where.

I missed the bit about wrap around maps now in Civ 4, sorry.

Hex, why can't you acknowledge that there are other things apart from a Points Victory in AOM? WHY? That is the main issue here.

[angrybowen]

Hex, please check this out.

http://apolyton.net/forums//showthread.php?s=&postid=4476499&t=9274#post4476499

I also demand to know exactly where I claimed:

The ORIGINAL claim was that 4 games had been played at the highest level and an IAS win was done easily.

I wait with baited breath.

[Generaldoktor]

RE: Peaceful victory. My current game, started Sunday, I jumped ahead on the power graph finally and am getting peaceful results. This is with "beginner" rather than "impossible" difficulty, and the five starting nomads and two warriors, rather than one; but all other recommended rules and map conditions are in force.

I have three neighbors as Russia, (I like the slight boost in production and hit points,) Mesopotamia, Harrapan (aka Indus?) and Sumer. The Meses are ahead of me and everybody on the power graph, but settled their war with Indus shortly after finding me and both they and Indus came to an early peace treaty with me, which is still in force. Nice they accepted my neutrality and kept the treaties with me, while fighting each other.

Indus did some sabre-rattling around a locale I colonized with cotton and horses both; but they never adopted the "dislike" grimace or aborgated the treaty and the resources are now firmly within my borders. I have just finished Stonehenge and am working on "Temple of Theocracy." Pyramids are still up for grabs, though I'm not much interested, have to build even more military I know and stock PW for big barb invasions later.

I am comfortably sandwhiched between the polar regions, with plenty of room to expand and Sumer and Indus as buffers from most of the early game sporadic barb activity. I've got about eight cities, but there are numerous good sites and the treaties allow me to go on a nomad construction spree for the present. It is about turn 125. so I've got time to build for the more insistent barbs. Swamp and forest to the north and interminable steppe to the west (and to some extent the east, which I'd better explore better,) make barb incursions on me difficult. Native Americans are strong on the graph and out there somewhere and so are weaker civs Japan and one other. I appear to be securely buffered against all but the worse barbs and, aggressive civs.

Sumer and I are now recently at war, due to a botched conversion attempt apparently by my naughty Princess, (who escaped with horse escort, but the horses on the border seem to have set off the Sumes too; might try dismissing them to other duties after escort, next time. ) Without underestimating them; the Sumes are at the bottom of the power graph, got recently beaten up by Indus and appear to be absorbing most of the spontaneous barb activity out of the polar region. My escaping royal party has encountered none of their field units. Perhaps they don't have many. I am not losing sleep over my war with the Sumes.

Thus, I am focusing on trade and science. With the dumbed down difficulty, I probably won't make science or diplo victory, certainly not in the early eras, but what I learn now I may be able to take with me when I "take it up a level."

Without denigrating anybody else's point of view, I feel this supports my initial confidence the game can be enjoyed without endless bloodletting and fear over extinction. The Great Debate rages on, but I'm not really looking to be a piece of it; I don't see where it has much point anymore, (nobody is being convinced of anyone else's POV,) but it does flesh out the AOM threads until we get more adherents in here posting questions or strategy.

Btw, I played an earlier game on the weekend where I was doing very well and this while parked under an amazingly rich mountain range, but the game crashed. This was probably due to either a malfunctioning video card, (I'm inclined to blame overplay of Civ4 for this, but don't want to start another controversy,) or an annoying update of a firewall that interrupts any time a background program updates itself, shaking the game in the process.

Point being, Does anybody know a way I can recover a crashed game from a temp file. I haven't swept the system since. I foolishly didn't ever save this game; I was on about Turn 120. but I was playing great.

Have also read through today AngryBowen's science game thread. A far better example under tournament-challenge grade conditions than my little story here, but he is an experienced player and I am still learning In any case, I'm happy to again support the point of view that the game is multi-faceted, intricate and worthwhile.

[stankarp]

I'm happy to again support the point of view that the game is multi-faceted, intricate and worthwhile.

Thankyou, thankyou Generaldoktor, this ALL I have been trying to say for some time.

Does anybody know a way I can recover a crashed game from a temp file.

I have trouble with something in my system (since post Civ 4 but can't specifically blame it) that causes my game to minimize to desktop, or minimize to desktop because my connection to the internet comes up. But they do not cause crashes.

There is an autosave function for every game that saves at the start of every turn. It is in your saves in a folder with your leader name and in it is one autosave file for that game. It is generally reliable but if you have researched an advance in that turn, it will revert back to the start of that research.

Once you crank up your difficulty level be prepared for far less cooperation from the AI. Having said that, if you work hard at diplomacy, even the worst ai will eventually improve.

[Generaldoktor]

I think the game is gone. I checked that "autosave" file that is available when the disc is running. It had my games from the week before, which were at least once saved. This one was never saved and so I guess there was no autosave. Boo Hoo! I really liked that mountain range and all those cities I built in the fertile foothills around it. I could spend the rest of gaming career trying to duplicate that Shangri-La!

Here's some more questions, about diplomacy:

1. I seem to get better results giving gold in 100 unit increments than 200. Do I make myself look weak by giving too much?

2. I knew the Princess would be consumed on the conversion attempt, regardless of success, but she wasn't. That was confusing enough, but I am also curious whether my attempt failed because I hadn't finished a temple yet and had not been identified with a specific religion, (for Sumer to "convert to?") Or that my cash and military were too low at that moment to win the entire nation over to vassalage? (I would have settled for just the city in question.)

3. I am also curious whether those two lousy horsemen I left on the border, to carry the Princess back for local marriage in case Sumer declared war before I got her up to the city or some such, (which sort of happened, in fact, since she didn't "consume" after failed conversion, making the boys rather handy there,) may have set off Sumer to war? They were kind of surly before that, but recently had an improvement in relations due to gold gift and the declaration of war was sort of surprising. They attacked the horsemen without really declaring, (attack, by paltry, unsupported slingers, failed.) The lesson would seem to be, if true, don't hang around borders with any military of nations you are trying to win over.

4. Excluding nutso Sumer, did my improved position on the power graph in this last game make the other nations more willing to make treaties with me, (as opposed to declaring war shortly after first contact?)

5. Since Sumer By the North Pole is sort of barb country too, I assumed I needed an escort for the Princess. She has no intrinsic defense against roving barbs, as opposed to what a King would?

[angrybowen]

Have also read through today AngryBowen's science game thread. A far better example under tournament-challenge grade conditions than my little story here,

by Generaldoktor.

Thanks mate I am in mourning at the moment, Brazil 2, Aust 0, Brazil 25 free kicks, Australia 9

1, Can't really say about diplomacy, small gifts all the time seems to keep the ai from going backwards, but a big lump (2500) really makes them smile. 2500 gold also drops your frenzy level by 1.

2. AFIK the princess can only acquire one city and not from an empire you are at war with. To do this she must have a succesful conversion and you have enough gold. I got 2 cities in my science victory game, each was 11-12000 gold. If the conversion in unsuccesful, you may loose the princess anyway, but not always. If she is succesful and you accept the city, she disappears.
3. The Princess is a special unit (like a diplomat). She is not a tresspasser, whereas the horseman are (they are military). The horseman would eventually trigger a declaration of war. Rule no 1 is don't tresspass with military units against someone you want to stay friends with. The Princess is not a stealth unit (like the Patriarch), so don't send her into an empire you are at war with. I had to bribe the Ku****es to accept a cease fire, then used my princess to get that handy strategic city.
4) AFAIK strength does not begin to tell in diplomacy until the ai are down to 1-2 in strength on the diplomacy display. Once you have that, then you can try threatening a declaration of war if they refuse diplomacy, works a lot of the time.

[stankarp]

Generaldoktor, check, go to options/advanced options (middle top of screen) and see if the "Enable Autosave" option is checked.

[Dale]

Okay, firstly I will address my claim at the top of this page.

I remember reading it somewhere, but can't find it now. Therefore I cannot point to who said it and where. I will withdraw that claim now, but only because I cannot find the comment.

Re: hardware issues.
It has since come out that one of you having problems actually has an underspeced video card. This was one person who was blaming the game for his problems, not the rig it was running on. (BTW, this is what originally brought me to this thread). I had the same problem during the beta tests and bought a AU$65 ATI 9550 which fixed it. You don't need to spend $400 to upgrade as previously claimed.

Re: those IAS victories.
So, you play ONE specific map (which doesn't have x/y wrap and designed to be the same each time) with ONE specific strategy (IAS) at a lower than highest level, to "break the game". If you only play games to break them, I feel sorry for you. I play games to explore them and enjoy the multiple facets they present. Every game has a way to break them, even your precious CTP2. With CTP2 all you have to do is play a majority water map and you win. Fullstop. And that affects ALL the mods for CTP2 as well. In EU2 you buffer with allies, use their wars to gain land, then when you eventually hit the BB limit ride the BB wars as wars of conquest. Now if there EVER was a game with scripted DOW's its EU2. The Total War series was even worse at the ally buffer routine than EU2. Every game has a way to break it. And it's a poor way to play in my opinion.

Re: Blob versus blob.
Comparitively speaking, civ4 has more options to reach victory than CTP2/AOM if you have a smaller blob than everyone else. Every comment here has spoken of a concerted effort from turn 1 to reach a non-war victory type in AOM. Every comment here has focused on needing a bigger blob to win any victory type in AOM.

All from this thread alone:
Page 1:

Stan: "It will be tough. Tough to win. Surviving, even building a reasonable empire, will not get you a win. You will have to build the largest and longest lived empire of all time."

Generaldoktor: "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."

From page 3:

angry: "the main big difference in AOM is that yes you have to be big to win"

smithldoo: "When the original diplomatic victory conditions were introduced I played a game geared to that exactly. I still had to "Trim" 3 aggressive AI types until I was sufficiently big that they would accept a peace treaty. I thought it was actually a bit too easy and unrealistic, so Stan has made it a bit harder to achieve for AOM III."

From page 4:

angry: "Stan has said and although i have never tried it, you can win with 35 cities if you maintain a total focus on that victory condition."

In civ4 if you find yourself in a bit of a lockout from land, and end up with a smaller blob, you don't throw away the game and start again. You CAN win a diplo, culture or science victory as easily as a large blob can win a war victory. Everything in AOM as mentioned here says you can't do that. In civ4 if my conditions change within the game, I can easily refocus my main strategy and direct my nation towards a different victory.

Re: the 2nd resource comments.
In civ4 every resource brings a benefit. Whether it's the simple +2 food/+1 hammers (or whatever) down to the +1 health or +1 happy. A city with 2 cow tiles will be a food specialist city. Build those workers and settlers by the bucket load. A city with 2 iron resources will be a production city with about 1/2 the time to build anything as normal cities. And these cities will be better off with a 2nd resource than with 1. Also, specific buildings bring in a bonus if connected to resources. EG: harbour +1 health if connected to fish, whale or clams.

Re: AI pacifists in civ4.
I would just love to see how one of you guys go on these settings:
- Terra large map
- Always war
- Raging barbs
- Agressive AI
- Highest difficulty
If AOM has tuned you up enough, then it should be a cakewalk for you. Forget the great plains map and come out of the closet.

Re: Epic AOM versus Epic Civ4.
As has been mentioned time and time again, and acknowledged by the designer and fanbois, AOM leads you through history. Civ4 does not. Civ4 allows you to create your own history. AOM holds your hand and pulls you into the Dark Ages, the Mongol Hordes, etc etc. Civ4 only YOU direct your nation through history. You grow too fast in the beginning, you bring on a dark ages of your own. You piss off an agressive AI, you bring on a mongol horde of your own. No scripts, no events, no hand-holding.

This is the main reason I play civ4. I create history, not re-write it.

But, that said I'm outa here. I'm over the one-sightedness of you guys over civ4. Sure it may have problems, but AOM isn't perfect either. Sure there's a way to "break the game", but AOM has one too. The failure of the AOM fanbois to acknowledge this, is this communities biggest folly.

Thanks for the debate, it's reinforced my opinions about AOM and Civ4.

Dale

[stankarp]

This is to let everyone know I am going overseas tomorrow for 45 days.

I am taking my lap top with me and will make every effort to keep up to date with all matters, but it may not be as regular as normal.

I apologise in advance for any inconvenience it may cause.

[Generaldoktor]

I really didn't want a part of this Great Debate, but I was quoted.

The first quote (in Dale's last post) from Stan refers to a worldwide AOM tournament he is designing that will feature a prize from Apolyton. This presumably will feature a set map, opponents and other conditions that would be unusual compared to a normal game of AOM.

The second quote, from me, was based on a preliminary lookover of AOM III right after downloading it. I hadn't played much AOM II by that time either and never saw AOM I. (I was playing a lot of Civ4 beginning last fall; and still do, but feel I can still be critical of it.) Citing me as an "authority" on AOM is like citing a beginner driver on the virtues of the new Jaguar. I will admit I made this cursory analysis because I do feel I'm a mature consumer of games who can generalize from a few observed specifics and also, I had hoped to defuse the argument (and the resultant "Great Debate") early by basically saying, "Ok, there may be something to that, so what?"

BTW, I hope I'm not the guy with the "underspeced" video card. Mine is an ATI Radeon 9700, admittedly three years old and only 128 mb, which I should maybe improve, but everything else I ever run (games, multi-media, whatever; I've said this several times on several threads,) runs OK with it as it is, except for C4. This with the one caveat that, after watching Civ4 violently seize up my resolutions, drag my screen action to a crawl and taking forever to do something to my system so it can even run; for nine months; I now, perhaps coincidentally, have a problem with the monitor periodically totally conking out, (black screen.) Dell says its a software problem, (not covered by warranty.) Maybe coincidence, maybe not. I'm not a tech by the way and don't know the name for all these "wresting" changes that happen to my machine when Civ4 takes over, but the contributor here that called it a "system hog" appears to be right on the mark.