02-10-2004 18:44									#61
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I would prefer not to make AI more like MP humans. MP games are different, and are typically played aggresively. As in, conflict starts early and the focus is on military action. In fact, everyone plays warmonger style there.

In SP games, I want to be able to play them how I like it, warmongering or not (I know that warmongering seems to be the most powerful strategy). And consequently, I'd like the AI to be able to put up a challenge in the tech race if I'm peaceful and in combat if I'm fighting.

Mind you, one of the changes I think needs to be made is more benefits for builder strats.

	02-10-2004 18:54									#62
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: I would prefer not to make AI more like MP humans. MP games are different, and are typically played aggresively. As in, conflict starts early and the focus is on military action. In fact, everyone plays warmonger style there.

Not true in all MP games, but I see your point that MP games are played differently.

quote: In SP games, I want to be able to play them how I like it, warmongering or not (I know that warmongering seems to be the most powerful strategy). And consequently, I'd like the AI to be able to put up a challenge in the tech race if I'm peaceful and in combat if I'm fighting.

What if then, the AI's are all peaceful scientists and you are an aggressive player? This would be very hard to balance to make sure the AI's didn't get crushed in the first 100 turns, considering peaceful players need a lot of time to establish their infrastructure and a considerable science lead.

An idea for this might be changing AI personalities for different situations and game settings. Small map the AI plays aggressively all the time, gigantic map the AI starts out scientists until it finds out how close the enemy is and decides from there, also based on diplomatic situations etc etc

quote: Mind you, one of the changes I think needs to be made is more benefits for builder strats.

Builder strategy was very good in CtP1, there are 2 reasons for this (I believe), one is that buildings had much higher benefits, and two it was easier to defend than to attack. I think its definitely a good thing in a civ game when its easier to defend than attack, I tried to improve this in the MP mod.

	02-10-2004 19:00									#63
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: An idea for this might be changing AI personalities for different situations and game settings. Small map the AI plays aggressively all the time, gigantic map the AI starts out scientists until it finds out how close the enemy is and decides from there, also based on diplomatic situations etc etc

Yes, personalty changes are nice. Some AIs should be pre-disposed to agression, some to building. They should also build up their militaries according to the threat - and they should evaluate me as a threat based on my actions, relations with them and what they know about my military size.

At the same time, AIs that are predisposed to war should be aggressive. If I'm playing a peaceful strat, that should not mean that some AI wouldn't decide to conquer me as a good target.

quote: Builder strategy was very good in CtP1, there are 2 reasons for this (I believe), one is that buildings had much higher benefits, and two it was easier to defend than to attack. I think its definitely a good thing in a civ game when its easier to defend than attack, I tried to improve this in the MP mod.

Yes, we had that discussion in the Tile and City Improvement Bonuses thread or something similarly named in the Source forum. In CtP2, building benefits are lower, which makes it more effective to capture new cities for yourself or at least takethem from the enemy. I don't know whether that is good. But a definite fact is that it's hard to defend in CtP2, exactly because of the aforementioned inability to defend cities against large stacks with small stacks.

	20-04-2005 03:11									#64
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

The Ages Of Man

AOM is based on the CTP2 fomat of civ-games, but it can be said that AOM is much more than CTP2...AOM can be considered a evolution of not only CTP2, but an evolution of the civ gaming experience. It merges
concepts that are present in other games like civ3, RTW, and EU2, as well as CTP2.

Approach AOM with an open mind, and you will be rewarded with great gameplay. Put aside prejudice about the tiresome comparisons between civ3 and CTP2. It is a merging of the best elements of both setups. For those civ3 loyalists, it will fill the time until civ4 hits the shelves.

C civ3 enthusiasts will recognize such elements as
- Civ-specific traits and bonuses
- The inclusion of luxury goods as happiness enhancers
- Strategic goods
- Dark Ages barbarian spawning events
- Leaders, generals and heroes that are either spawned after the construction of a Wonder, or spawned in the heat of battle
- Unit upgrades
- Creation of elite units in battle
- Kings which must be protected, as well as the need
of players to ensure the line of succession

There are actual historical events that affect your civ, similar to the event-driven games RTW and EU2. A prime example is the Dark Ages, which will greatly affect your civ. (In fact, you are forewarned to take a very long-term planning approach to this event, which occurs on t300.)

AOM greatly improves not only on CTP2, but it addresses and fixes many of the problems that were part of CTP2 'Cradle', which is the philosophical and gameplay foundation of AOM...
- A more focused AI in terms of attacks
- An AI that now expands and more importantly expands
via warfare. (Frenzy has been polished)
- AI multi-attacks you on a single turn
- Captured AI cities do not fall into revolt because
of unmanned militias, and cities are well-garrisoned
- Ingame graphics have been polished
- Wondermovies for all wonders
- New governments/units/techs
- More balancing of ingame elements

I want to say that I am flattered that Stan Karpinski saw the value of CTP2 'Cradle' and was inspired to build upon those files to create AOM. It is the ultimate validation of what I, as well as all the others involved in 'Cradle', tried to do with my Mod.

The process of creating AOM with Stan has been enjoyable. I might disagree with some of the gameplay elements that Stan implemented, but these are minor and do not detract from the overall picture of what AOM is.

In short, AOM is probably easier than 'Cradle' in the early game, but AOM becomes harder than 'Cradle' as the game goes on. 'Cradle' had a very hard beginning, but once you got established, you could usually
thrive.

Long-term thriving is much harder in AOM...

http://www.theagesofman.net/index.html

David Sobotka.

	20-07-2005 06:51									#65
	Remove this text

I looked at the list changes you have made and looks like it adds to the epic feel that CTP2 gives.
Civ3 never reached this level even with mods. I think it was because the games many features didnt seems to come together as a whole.
Every CtP2 game has its own story and min history that give the game a life all its own. Only games like EU2 or maybe Galciv came close to this. True empire building.
To sum it up many new games are jamed with too many features . CtP2 lets you see the whole picture without chasing down every option before clicking next turn