AOM3 Is Out

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
...and this becomes increasingly likely (attack) in Civ 4 at the higher difficulty levels the dissenters are begging us to try; as with AOM.

Which is why any analysis of the AI's military capabilities in civ4 done by AOMers has to be done at the same difficulty level applied to preferred difficulty level when playing AOM.

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
So I find it a poor debating point....

Actually, it's a good debating point...
...and it hinges on how you approach the game.

I tend to like to play minimalist. I do enough to get by. This is also my personality...ask my wife and kids how thrifty and cheap I am.

I tend to focus more on striving to create cultural and economic power as a priority - in fact I generally try to keep my military at a minimum. When I do invade in civ4, I oftentimes have many of my cities creating buildings while at war.

It's almost daring myself how close to the edge I can go...

I dislike long never-ending wars, simply because if I want that, I'll go play RTW.

And this is why I like civ4...because rarely is my approach specifically geared towards straight warmongering and conquest in that game. Warfare does play a part, but my goal is not to eliminate all the rival civs.

Contrast with AOM...

For the AOMers, warfare is the primary focus too...and it is also what drives their gameplay when playing civ4.

Since there is little in the way to motivate the player down different victory paths on the economic/religious/cultural side of things in AOM, the end result almost invaribly leads to ongoing war with somebody as the norm. (Angrybowen's science game notwithstanding...)

There's nothing wrong with that, but if I want warfare as the primary focus, I'll play RTW or AOEII.

And ask any AOMer what the prevailing AOM strategy is.

You get the response...get to, or above your city cap ASAP. Without fail, this is what will make or break you, or it determines how fast you will finish the game. I have yet to hear from the loyalists any other strat that does not include this as a MAIN goal.

And this is a hard and fast number...15 for Dynasty, 20 for City State, 25 for Republic, and so on...

So for the first couple of hundred turns in AOM, player focus is creating a steady stream of military units and settlers, with the occasional wonder thrown in. Most of the buildings are not worth the trouble of creating until your cities reach a size 6-8 and above. By t200, you should be at 20-30 cities.

It's utterly predictable - (and as a parallel, civ3 had the same exact problem. It falls into the trap of forcing a player to landgrab and settler vomit.) Sure, the details may change slightly from game to game (...ohhh, look, I got 3 settlers from goody huts this game - last game I only got 1...), but the overall strat does not. And this PRIMARY focus applies to both points and science victory.

You will find that after 200 turns, the bulk of your construction will still be military units, because slaves, cartels and tile improvements give you what you need economically.

At that point, I probably will not lose any cities to the AIs, and the main goal becomes surviving the Dark Ages (which to be truthful, is interesting to play out) and then getting enough cities to round out my score. This is what I mean by repetitive gameplay.

This is why after playing and modding CTP2 and AOM for the past 6+ years, I'm ready to move on.

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
A culturally rich, small civ in Civ is still going to get trounced at the high difficulty levels due to AI aggression and the superior military of large AI doing the aggressing.

Since I play with a somewhat minimalist mindset (disliking tedious micro, long drawn-out wars and huge empires simply for the sake of saying I'm the biggest), the challenge becomes finding the right balance.

Or to put it another way...how small can I be in the game and successfully get away with it.

And civ4 offers for me a greater degree of options in that area of gameplay than AOM, in that I can choose to play either small or large.

I cannot choose that in AOM. The game dynamics and city cap forces the player to continually expand the number of cities you own to win the game.

And so I ask...

...what is the prevailing civ4 strat along these lines - for a cultural, for a space race, for dominion victory??? It's a little more open-ended and vague (...at least to me, because I do not frequent the civ4 strat threads.)

I said that 'Bigger is Better...TM' is a hallmark of all TBS games, and it does show up in civ4 - after all you will generate more science, gold, food, military etc, the larger you are.

...but at the same time, civ4 can be won with smaller empires. (After all, it does have a OCC.)

This is not the case in AOM, at least by what I define as small. (again...this is a preference)

Since you have fewer cities in the early going in civ4, as opposed to AOM, you have more of a guns or butter decisionmaking process in civ4 as to what you will build too, especially if you make the decision to try to get multiple wonders (which sometimes appeals to me as a builder), or decide to approach the game from a purely cultural/religious/economic focus.

So the question is...

How many cities do you need by 1000BC...0AD...1600 AD...1800AD in civ4 - to ensure success?

For a culture victory...for a domination victory...for a science victory???

From what I can tell, there is no clear cut answer. And I like that.

And are there different PRIMARY paths to achieve those goals?

Example...you do not have to attack a civ4 city to take it over...the use of culture can take over cities too.

[smithldoo]

I have been having lots of trouble logging onto Apolton lately and not getting notices of emails either.

I simply do not accept any of the examples of Dales as victories. Cuba, Nth Korea are basket cases for example. Singapore, per capita might be good but in total does not compare. The real emerging tigers are India and Chine, the 2 biggest countries in the world in population terms and soon economic and military as well.

This whole debate started because 2 people who have played AOM extensively were trying to refute the claims of 2 people who had at best played 1 game of AOM I on beginner settings (8 players on gigantic map). The latter claimed the only way to win AOM was to get huge and rinse and repeat cities. Angry disbelled that conclusively but it was still twisted around.

If you build commerce improvements and science buildings in a city in AOM and then use scientists as well, the number of science points per extra scientist can be 5 or more times higher than if you did not have those extras. The same is for mines, farms etc. Not really a lot of difference really except for the cute idea of generating bonuses through great people

Hex correctly pointed out that many empires tried to get beig at one stage or another, then failed, But even the Dutch went on a colonising and exploring spree. The key is they tried.

One thing that Hex and Dale have missed is that in AOM III you have to do, if going for a domination victory, what no empire achieved in history, conquer and HOLD for a prolonged period. No government alone will give you enough cities and city points to win AOM III in this way. My last victory required 1500+ points of from NON city sources. That while holding an empire up to 16 cities over my cap. It was either that or wait until the modern era.

[angrybowen]

I seem to also be having trouble logging onto Apolyton in the last 3 days.

Dale, none of your examples come even close to a victory of soughts IMHO, especially not in the context of 6000+ years of struggle and achievement.

If you look closely, in 5 out of 6 cases you are referring to ex colonies or captured regions that have achieved independance in the last 60 odd years and, you guessed it, become a pawn in a struggle between SUPER POWERS. Now look at most of them. Nth Korea, Afganistan, Cuba, Nth Vietnam. Nth Vietnam did not win a victory, it started a war, was on the verge of total collapse when propped up by 1,000,000 veteran chinese troops to produce a stalemate. How is that a great victory for anyof them developed over 6000 years

In the last case, Singapore, as smithldoo said, per capita they might be good, but they are a nat on the backs of the G8 and they have only been around for 50 years. Some victory

Your examples a BS in my opinion.

As far as the Dutch go, they only became independant some 450+ years ago, and what is the FIRST thing they did once established and secure at home, tried to GET BIG through exploration and colonisation. (take note). They set up ahd held an oversea empire for 400 years. Look at the example of USA hex, what did they do as soon as they were independant, EXPAND, EXPAND, EXPAND.

The difference is that USA developed much like Rome in a way, it occupied then quickly built and developed the areas. Unlike the colonial powers (except to some extent Britain) which colonised to mainly exploit.

BTW, please be clear, I am not trying to get anyone to play AOM, I have simply been trying to dispell the myth that AOM is a total time sink (hex). Per turn it is easier to play, and quicker than any civ game per turn I played while retaining the epic feel that I like.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by smithldoo
...The latter claimed the only way to win AOM was to get huge and rinse and repeat cities. Angry disbelled that conclusively but it was still twisted around.

Dispelling one part of the parameter while failing to do so on the rest is not conclusive...

Again...reread my initial posting...He met only ONE part of the parameter (peaceful means to obtain a science victory) and I admitted error in that one area.

When he dispells the others, I will admit error...but I'm not going to hold my breath on that either.

He did NOT meet the requirements of 20-25 cities on a giagantic map. He also followed the guidelines of getting to/exceeding his city cap ASAP as the prime strategy mechanic. Bigger is Better...TM

Speaking of dispelling myth, I'm still waiting for that civ4 highest level/largest map/most aggressive game from you guys...

Originally posted by angrybowen
BTW, please be clear, I am not trying to get anyone to play AOM, I have simply been trying to dispell the myth that AOM is a total time sink (hex). Per turn it is easier to play, and quicker than any civ game per turn I played while retaining the epic feel that I like.

...and the opposite is true for me...i.e., so it boils down to preference, and what is important to the individual gamer that determines if a game is worthwhile to that player.

...and game choice does not determine the intelligence of said gamer.

You play in your little world, I'll play in mine...

[Generaldoktor]

AB, I think you accidentally mentioned N. Vietnam when speaking of who started a war, then relied on Chinese intervention to finish it. That should be North Korea.

The Chinese and Soviets only backed Vietnam indirectly during their struggle with France and the United States. China had ancient issues with them and reinvaded in 1979, allegedly over disrespect by Vietnam for their support of Pol Pot's genocidal Cambodian regime, (which the Vietnamese toppled, suggesting, despite all the Americans, French and Australians they killed, there might be something good about them; several magazine and television travelogues now suggest this is a great tourist country.) The Viets also defeated the Chinese, or at least stopped them cold in what was probably, really a land grab against a new regime, suggesting the truth in the frequent surmise that they did (at least in the Seventies) have the world's best infantry.

All of which has nothing to do with your point, but I'm sure in the one aspect, you meant North Korea.

2. Infinite city builder? What is this, a glitch? Settlers in my game expire after building one. It is not unusual for mods to spot glitches; it has nothing to do with the quality of the design for the game flow.

3. AOM at the high difficulty level is hard, but has aspects that interest me, including the commerce, the unit mix, the succession; among others. I think it is the veteran experts, not me, that are being asked to do this anyway, but I consider C4 to be a total time sink at the highest levels because you can never outech the AI with all the breaks they get, no matter how clever you choose them; and they are always mindlessly aggressive, despite your best negotiating, including the pitiless barbs, who would have to be included at their highest level for an adequate comparison; and in C4 they are so profligate and merciless they can wipe your civ before you even make contact with others on "raging" and high difficulty. AOM can be tough in these areas too, but comes off to me as more playable, with at least something of a chance, but still definitely a challenge.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
2. Infinite city builder? What is this, a glitch? Settlers in my game expire after building one. It is not unusual for mods to spot glitches; it has nothing to do with the quality of the design for the game flow.

I initially posted the comment, and immediately decided to pull it after a reread, as it was a little flippant. (and knowing that the other debaters in this thread do not come online for 6 or so hours)

It's an AOM bug that recently surfaced, which could be considered a VERY substantial AI cheat if true. It hopefully can be fixed.

[Generaldoktor]

Yeah, I frequently edit after post too; bad habit I guess if somebody's reading and responding right away. I have an original CTP disc, I use, maybe that's why I don't seem to have the glitch. But I must admit at times the AI seem to spawn cities fast, so who knows.

As you say, has nothing to do really with intended strategic composition of the game; and hopefully can be fixed.

[hexagonian]

Originally posted by Generaldoktor
As you say, has nothing to do really with intended strategic composition of the game...

In one way, it does, because it then forces the player to do likewise...if the AI is continually building cities for next to nothing in cost, it adds to the snowball effect that already is in place for the AI (AI PW/production/ science/gold/growth bonuses, as well as the scripted AI bonuses through player attrition (like the Dark Ages) )... then the player has little choice but to play the 'Bigger is Better...TM game.

I did an extensive breakdown of all the AI cheats and bonuses in AOM - it is located in the AOM forums.

Cheats located here...

This one was not part of the list, because I was not aware of it - but if it is true, I consider this one to be a major one.

Think about it, if true...FREE AI cities. Not just a few, but potentially a lot.

Part of the issue relates to the fact that this sort of AI bonus is not tied into difficulty either.

I see this as worse than civ3's settler diarreha.

[smithldoo]

I have been busy practising for the AOM III competition

I did an extensive breakdown of all the AI cheats and bonuses in AOM

IMHO you gave no where near enough weight to the human advantages that come with some of the extra things the human does. In AOM III there are now more advantages/options for the human.

Re the alledged free ai cities, never seen it myself. What I have seen is ai who have lost a lot of cities start producing lots of settlers (probably only setrtlers/nomads because of a setting in strategies) to try to catch up and have killed stacks with up to 3 settlers in them.

Try making peace with an ai who you have cut down to 5-7 cities. The settlers/nomads come flooding out of the cities like the march of the penguins. Angry published a counter to this some months ago in the strategies section and I was sort of using a similar method. You turn this last attempt by the ai to rebuild into a plus because cavalry move 3 mp per turn making it easier to hunt those settler types down.

I believe this has been put to rest as at least one person who thought this was happening now concedces they may have mis interpreted what was going on.

[stankarp]

I am back from holidays and am working on a few tweaks for AOM III.

One thing has thrown up, where if your aggression level gets far too high, you are no longer able to attack. I am currently hunting down the problem.

[Generaldoktor]

Stan, please read the comments above about the AI allegedly being able to spam out settlers for free and decide if that's something you want in the game. I haven't had time to work with it lately and didn't get far enough in the game's chronology during my investigations earlier in the year to determine if this behaviour exists and is widespread. The critics of the game who have dominated this thread are trumpeting it as a ridiculous flaw. Supporters are saying it doesn't matter, it's an "additional challenge," but I think that should be supported by the designer if the characteristic does in fact exist and is allowed to remain.

[stankarp]

Generaldoktor, I am 99.9999% sure it does not exist and is a misinterpretation of AI behaviour when under extreme threat. I am sure strategies text causes the ai to produce virtually nothing but settler types if it has been cut back to 6-9 cities.

The AI does produce a lot of settlers if it has lost a lot of cities. (confirmed by several experienced players). The ai will, if the opportunty arises, march out a stack with several settlers in it to found a city, after a couple of turns, part of the stack will continue and found another city. When in the throes of finishing off an AI, I often encounter 1 and 2 Nomad/settlers in cities. If I make peace, they (the settler types) come swarming out of the cities like the march of the penguins as described by someone.

It is a non issue as far as I am concerned. No evidence (i.e a saved game) has been sent to me. And in over 200+ starts of playing AOM to turn 300 +, I have never seen it myself.

[Generaldoktor]

Okay, hope everybody else who's been carping about this reads your post. "March of the Penguins," eh? I'm going to have to start a new game, just to see that.