AOM3 Is Out

[Dale]

BTW, I never said "not selecting your promotion until you need to" if you check. Oh and you do already know that some units have bonuses versus specific classes of units too don't you? EG: spear vs horse.

This is what I said, and feel free to quote me:
In Civ4 I can create my own history, in AOM you are hand-held through history.
If anything, AOM is a game "of" history. There's no way to avoid the Dark Ages if you have a strong nation. Just because Europe had the Dark Ages, 3/4's of the world didn't.

And your comment about decisions. If you read what Hex, me 'n others have complained about AOM, then less decisions == less victory options == single path to victory == bulls**t game.

[Solver]

Take my word for it, AOM III is nearly as different to play, as AOM I was to cradle, because of the diplomacy changes. If you read Angrybowen's Science victory thread, you will see that he depended on the goodwill of 2 not so aggressive neighbours to be able to keep his military down and focus on science.

I don't really doubt that AOM3 is sigificantly different from AOM1 - that just makes sense, if anything. Should I take a break from Civ4 but not Civ, I'll give the third version a whirl, too, at least because I'm curious to see how much it's changed.

[angrybowen]

"Single path to victory".

Refer to the Science victory game thread. And before you complain I did not build a space ship, it was one of the hardest gmes I ever played. Also I had 3 options of going for science victory, not one.

And the ability to go for a science victory really depended on the individual game circumstances.

As far as civ 4 goes, when you take something as basic as trade, the firt type of contacte between virtually every nation, and hack it up just for the sake of making extra decisions, that earns no repsect IMHO.

Dale if you read further re the Dark Ages, Stan's explanation is that every empire Had its own dark age, for the Aztecs it was the Spanish invasion, the chinese the Mongols etc. He just modeled it on the Roman one.

[Generaldoktor]

Some guy made that point to me about "Dark Ages," on another thread last winter, (can't remember, maybe it was one of you. )

This guy maintained there was a "Dark Age" in the central Mediterranean around the time the Sea Peoples were wailing on Egypt. He then gave some other examples for the thread, claiming the post-Roman, pre-Renaissance Dark Age was Northwest Euro-centric.

Hmmm.

[Dale]

angry,

You are failing to grasp what we are saying about "single path to victory" in AOM. You yourself even imply the same thing about your science game of AOM.

You state that it was the hardest game you ever played.
You state that the second science goal is now out of reach for you.
The implication is that even though you have the first stage of science victory, you will not be able to maintain that level of isolation and neutrality to achieve further non-conquest victories.
You state that conquesting civs are on the same level on the graph.
You state those conquesting civs are moving on you and you couldn't defend yourself at that level of science output.
The implication (and very obvious too) is that as you slow science to beef up the military those conquesting civs will shoot past you on the graph, unless you yourself turn to conquest.

All in all, you are doing a nice job of showing that pursueing science in AOM is not as viable as conquest. Just on pure score, conquest will FAR outweigh a science victory. If in a tournament, to win the tournament you have to conquest. At the point in the game where you finished, you say (not in direct words) that you now have to concentrate on military and turn towards conquest to maintain your power graph level and survive.

Hang on a minute everyone, angrybowmen, a proud AOM warrior, the defender of AOM and an "expert" at playing AOM, has just proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that in order to win a full game of AOM you cannot sit in isolation and science victory, you cannot hope for a peaceful builder game, you cannot hope to be left alone by other civs, but you MUST conquest to not only survive, but to survive long enough to win a major victory! Therefore conquest == victory. A single path to victory.

QED.

Thanks mate, a better arguement I or Hex could not have given.

Dale

[Generaldoktor]

When I bother with the Great Debate anymore, I always jump in on the fringes. Somebody else can jump into the maw of the previous provocative argument, but first of all:

1. Did anyone expect Dale to say anything different, even after AB played this special, deadline and perhaps inconvenient game to address his criticisms?

2. I, in accepting AOM, accept the potential of increased conflict over the average game of, well, how about Civ4? The argument preferring AOM, as I understand it; is that in accepting this conflict, which closely matches real world experience; (and unless you've been abducted by aliens, there is only one world experience we can go by, "historical"/ahistorical arguments be d-mned; ) but still working, within a rich game framework, toward goals other than sheer bloodletting in the tradition of the X-Box shoot-em-up; you have a richer, more relatable game experience than a game that gyrates between mediocre simplicity of goals or crushing, impersonal brutality. (The latter two examples is the way I usually find Civ 4, technical problems aside.)

3. I missed my calling as an English teacher, but please note:

arguement=argument

"...to win the tournament, you must conquest...You must conquest to survive" = to win the tournament you must [allegedly, my notation] conquer...You must [allegedly] conquer to survive.

Literacy in expressing one's view does make it more convincing.

[Dale]

Actually, in terms of AOM and Civ and other thus-styled games, conquest is a method to victory, thus a verb.

[Changmai Beagle]

Thanks for your responses

I really didn't want to be controversial. I just quite enjoy playing AOM3 and am hoping other people are aware they have that opportunity.

[angrybowen]

Yes, Generaldoktor, Dale is good at going off half cocked and making sweeping generalisations. I achieved a science victory without attacking on AI, only barbarians but conquest is the only way to win ???? What BS. Conquest ALONE cannot win you a game of AOM.

The second science victory would be very difficult because I was short on military and had top switch to military production.

[Dale]

angry:

Whilst you achieved a great goal, that was no full science victory. In EVERY game I've played where there's a science victory it entails researching the entire tree. You didn't even get out of the medieval period.

*shrug* But if you like to delude yourself, be my guest.

Dale

[hexagonian]

Edited fore clarity...

The parameters for a science victory, as Stan set them up, was for a couple of particular Medieval techs.

Within those parameters, I will give angrybowen credit for pulling off the science victory within one of main contentions that I specified...(peacefully as opposed to conquest). That was one of my contentions, and I will admit that I was wrong in that.

But...

Turn 400...angry has the normal amount of cities (40+) for that stage of the game...perhaps a few less than he normally would if he had focused on conquest, but here's the key...certainly ABOVE the framework of the government that he is using.

So the focus still remains to get to your government city cap ASAP as the PRIMARY mechanic in order to succeed.

This is still 'Bigger is Better...TM'. Angry's game did not change my viewpoint on this matter - in fact it reinforces it. Remember, I also specified 20-25 cities to get a science victory as one of the parameters.

I'd be really impressed if you could pull off a science victory with that...

I fully accept that most TBS games require 'Bigger is Better...TM' as a hallmark of that genre, but I still see less of this dynamic in civ4. I do not need 40+ cities in civ4 to win at science.

I do not fault Stan for this in AOM...he has come up with creative victory options within the CTP framework, but that framework is still primarily driven by 'Bigger is Better...TM'.

And there still is the 'either/or' dynamic of AOM. I see more victory option choices in civ4 that give a player more freedom to choose his path in a game...
such as conquest/dominion/points/science, i.e. spacerace/diplomacy/cultural
...and most importantly, allows that player to change his overall victory goal during the course of a game.

Please note...

He is still less than one-half of his score to get to a 'points' victory. Why do I bring this up?

Simple...

This means that within the course of a particular game, he does not really have the flexibility to change his goal to win the game without paying a large penalty of game playing time...i.e., if he decides to go conquest at this stage of the game, he pays the price of greatly increasing the amount of turns to get his points needed over his normal approach.

I will say this..it may be easier to to be a conqueror and then switch to science, but the opposite appears not to be true.

In short, the game is structured in a way that forces a player to make his choice of what to do early on. And there is nothing wrong with that, except that after a while, ALL of the games start looking the same from an OVERALL strategy viewpoint, especially if 'Bigger is Better...TM' is what drives that OVERALL strategy.

That is why I compared AOM to RTW. I like RTW, but after a while, the games feel exactly alike because the OVERALL goals are limited, and are determined early on in each game. 'Bigger is Better...TM' drives RTW too...

Perhaps what Stan needs is a single setup for a time limit on all victory options. Figure out a standard setup for the different options...for conquest/dominion/points/science, i.e. spacerace/diplomacy/cultural for a 400 turn game, and at a variety of map sizes.

This is one of the things I like about civ4...it has a clearcut endpoint (of turns) AND a host of victory options (that can be met by the last turn) within a game that allows a player to change his mind on how he wants to win that particular game while he is playing it, and this type of choice for the player is available throughout the course of that particular game.

...and I maintain that civ4 tends to be smaller-scale than it's predecessors. If that is not your cup of tea...no problem!

I simply do not have the desire anymore to dump my personal time into the sinkhole that is the hallmark of most epic-style games.

[smithldoo]

Turn 400...angry has the normal amount of cities (40+) for that stage of the game...

Not based on my experience, I can easily have 60 + by then, and I have seen posts by Angry where he has too.

He is still less than one-half of his score to get to a 'points' victory. Why do I bring this up?

But he still has ther option to continue and gets points for his science victories.

I will say this..it may be easier to to be a conqueror and then switch to science, but the opposite appears not to be true.

Don't see why. To get to the science victory (with 40 cities) meant an effecient and compact empire. Switching at this stage would be no problem and he would have a tech/military advantage over the enemy. (trebuchet and Knight/medieval infantry vs catapult and man at arms).

The key to the big empire conquest option is MANAGING YOUR EMPIRE. Much, much more than in any previous game of AOM and also civ 4/ctp2/cradle etc. When you go for the conquest option, you have to go way over your cap or wait till at least Democracy. I have won most games with the middle ages government but that means managing 15 or 20 cities over your cap and that really takes something.

I like RTW, but after a while, the games feel exactly alike because the OVERALL goals are limited, and are determined early on in each game.

Could not disagree more. Angry has won a science victory before turn 400, he could go or have gone conquest at any time. But he also had the diplomacy option until such time as he captured another religious wonder or killed at least one AI, that then makes the diplomacy option nearly impossible.

[hexagonian]

edited for clarity

Originally posted by smithldoo
Not based on my experience, I can easily have 60 + by then, and I have seen posts by Angry where he has too.

Reread my post, please, because you miss the point again...

...but certainly ABOVE the framework of the government that he is using. (which was TE at t360 with a cap of 35)

So the focus still remains to get to your government city cap ASAP as the PRIMARY mechanic in order to succeed.

This is still 'Bigger is Better...TM'. Perhaps at a smaller scale, but it still funnels a player into that PRIMARY mechanic.

Originally posted by smithldoo
Don't see why. To get to the science victory (with 40 cities) meant an effecient and compact empire.

And 40 cities for me was a lot of tedius micro...(my preference)

...and AOM III does not change from what I experienced in AOM I in that regard.

I do not need anywhere near that in the civ4 setups, unless I choose to go domination.

Originally posted by smithldoo
Switching at this stage would be no problem and he would have a tech/military advantage over the enemy. (trebuchet and Knight/medieval infantry vs catapult and man at arms).

I'd check and verify in a game whether the AI is behind the player at this stage of the game, given that the most efficent AI destroyer (the player) has been lying low...

Originally posted by smithldoo
I have won most games with the middle ages government but that means managing 15 or 20 cities over your cap and that really takes something.

With your very words, you verify my main point. Thank you for clarifying it.

To win at points quickly, you have to be...15 or 20 cities over your cap...or in a goverment that gives you 65+ cities
This is 'Bigger is Better...TM'. Plain and simple.

Choose anything else, and you merely extend your playing time until you get to the required cities.

And that boils down to a lot of tedious micro (for me)...
Most of your cities are in the 20-30 pop range at that stage, so all you are doing is spending time allocating entertainers. Continue creeping over the cap and you have to go through each city and allocate another entertainer, after exhausting the other options (sliders, buildings, wonders, cartels). And when you have the Dark ages and get hit with the fluxuating happiness hits, you also have to do the entertainer allocation dance...

Originally posted by smithldoo
Could not disagree more.

In a 500 turn setup you have double the victory choices in civ4, as opposed to AOM...You can run the gamut of history from ancient to near future in that 500 turns too.

At half the size.

Here is the crux too...More variety in your civ4 victories, more challenges that the AI can pull out a different victory than the one you are targeting (you may be gunning for a domination and the AI pulls out a diplo victory). In civ you are always playing with the possibility of losing. In AOM you cannot lose, with the exception of the science victory - and it is not against the AI that you lose (the AI cannot win a science victory).

And the ultimate bottomline for me...I've played both, and civ4 takes much less time for me personally. AOM III will NOT change that over AOM I.

I'm not into games that act as timesinks for me personally (that is my preference)...you are certainly free to do what you want with your own time. It's your life...play what you want.

My playing choice is set, and will not change in the forseeable future.

Happy civving...

[angrybowen]

All I can say is I am not frightened to have 40 cities or more. In addition I found them far easier to manage than Civ 4. As you have pointed out hex, you can have more, many more cities in civ 4 anyway.

Going for a science victory created an entirely new game feel for me, it was certainly tense as I had to make sacrifices to achieve it which could have led me to disaster. It had a certain "racing" feel about it.

While I had a tech lead, I had a very small army and I could see that the Arabians were going to give me a hard time and once the French cleaned up Hexegonia, they were ready as well.

For the life of me I cannot understand your obsession with small empire victories. Maybe if you could give me a historical example or 2 it would help.

[Dale]

Military:
North Vietnam vs USA.
North Korea vs USA.
Afghanistan vs USSR.

Diplomatic:
Cuba vs USA.
Taiwan vs China.

Scientific:
Singapore vs the World.