This is a pretty good guide, IMHO, (at least after its severely edited it wil be), of why AoM will be a very fresh experience, and NOT just AoK with 3d graphics. Here we go...
Quote:
Basically its AoK with a 3D engine, a few added features, and a mythological twist?
Not at all...
AoK and AoM appear to contain similar gameplay to from a casual glance, but upon looking in-depth, they are VASTLY different experiences.
First off, the three cultures play extraordinarily different from each other. The Greeks seem very AOK-esque, but the Norse and Egyptians are very different.
The Egyptians, for example, start out with a Pharoah unit that, at the start of the game, players can choose to "empower" buildings with, meaning increasing the speed of tech/unit creation, as well as villager production, if the building is a gathering point. Perhaps more dynamic is their buildings: while being very strong, they cost only gold to erect, some (probably houses/gathering points) being entirely FREE! This interesting new twist will truly separate Egyptian style players and make for some very interesting early-game economy decisions, allowing the Egyptians to shy away from early wood, but at the same time, making them very gold-hungry and -intensive.
If you think that's something, take a look at the Norse. First off, instead of gathering points like granaries and mines, they have ox carts, which are all-purpose, mobile gathering units. This alone adds much to the gameplay experience: a Norse player will have to guard his cart early in the game (he only gets one), but it is quite an advantage to him if he guards it well. Moving the cart up will save wood, compared to the Greeks, who would have to build an entirely new gathering point for wood/gold/food. The Norse villagers' only purpose is to gather. Their units that build are infantry-class ulfsarks. The impact on gameplay this creates is self-explanatory, so I won't go into too much detail, as you should find the basic idea in gamespot's Thor Showcase. Finally, dwarves allow an alternative for villagers in some cases, and make quick decision-making a MUST for Norse players. Should I build a villager next, a dwarf, an ox cart, or an ulfsark? As opposed to the other civilizations, who only build villagers and maybe occassionally a priest or hero from their Town Center.
Stone being removed as a resource also differentiates AoM from AoK. No more worrying about fighting over that elusive stone pile to build a castle... But perhaps even moreso is the addition of favor, the new 4th resource. This will be vital in producing MUs and MTs, and each culture has its own way of earning it, further diversifying the game. Mythological units will be your support, and careful micromanagement will allow their special abilities to turn the tide of battle for you.
The addition of God Powers is bound to be visually pleasing, but, as much so as it is, its effect on the gameplay will be all the moreso. You probably know all about how an Egyptian choosing Ptah can instantly transport a group of enemy _or_ friendly units from one place to another. You also probably have heard how Poisedon can get a huge food intake with its God Power that allows it to summon wild animals, as well as the all-powerful meteor, earthquake, and tornado GPs, already renowned for their pure destructive power. While this many look at this as just being in for the "fun factor," I think I can guess at the true purpose of God Powers and ES' intent behind them.
Basically, God Powers are, in my opinion, included to prevent any one strategy from becoming dominant, and thus, stopping a "flush" equivalent to predicatble-ize AoM. Say that a Norse second-age rush, for example, becomes dominant. Imagine it consisting of relatively slow-moving ulfsarks killing villagers quickly, and building gathering spots where the enemy's were, thus hurting enemy econ and helping their own. A crafty Ptah player would cast shifting sands and send the ulfsarks all the way to the end of the map, preventing the Norse attack and their ability to scout and build, giving them time to prepare and seriously crippling his opponent. Or consider a Zeus rush - since they start with favor and have a big bonus in it, it consists of a super-fast rush with one really powerful Minotaur. A crafty palyer would pick Zeus and cast lightning bolt, killing the minotaur and preventing the rush.
So, in short, God Powers are the wild cards that stop any one strategy from dominating, and are there to ensure the game will last for a LONG time to come. What I mean to say is, there WILL be popular strategies, _but_, if one becomes _too_ popular, someone will find a counter to it, and then the new popular strategy will be the counter to the old one... Thus, strategies will develop over time in a far more interesting way than in previous age games. Also, the games themselves will be more interesting because you will never fully know what to expect.
Settlements make expansion a key to AoM. It is almost as if population is a fifth resource, and if you guard it well, you will have a clear advantage over your opponent. In AoK, a common booming strategy was to build a cluster of 5 or 6 TCs around the same spot, covering each other and providing their own defense. No more in AoM. Now, players are forced to play aggressively. But even with this said, each culture still plays very different. The Greeks will aggressively scout the map, know all the sweet spots before anyone else, and establish bases there. Or they might focus on rushing their opponent. The Norse will have to aggressively attack their enemy for favor, and while doing so, set up TCs on settlements, perhaps storming an enemy TC and setting up their own on its settlement, which they can do well because of their dual-purpose ulfsarks. The Egyptians will have to grab as many spots as they can, aggressively defending each one, before they have enough power to launch a massive attack. They will also be raiding, etc. So, as you see, while turtling is pretty much suicide, the various nuances of each culture forces each one to approach the game from a different angle, adding unprecedented variety to an Age game.
Also, I remember an ES guy (forgot who at the moment, sorry) saying that in AoK, the player with the best economy ususally won, but in AoM, it is possible to turn the tide over an enemy who has a better economy than you, using your powerful military to steamroll him before he can put those resources to work. Such is an example of how different AoK and AoM are. Although economy is still central, it is possible for a well-prepared surprise attack to completely destroy a superior economic opponent. This will also aid in the disintigration of build-orders.
I hope you got a good idea of how different AoM is from AoK. AOM: 3 extremely unique cultures. Within each culture, 3 unique civilizations. An intimidating, master Egyptian player will be worthless playing the Norse, unless he mastered that culture, too. Each culture is a different game! AOM: Tons of choices and interesting God Powers mean that it will take a LONG time for that "unbeatable" strategy to come into existance, if at all. Finally, a game that has infinite replay value! In each game, you don't know WHAT your opponent is going to do, as opposed to AoK. AOM: Dynamic population limit. Focus is on expansion, defending controlled lands, settlements, and resources. Best economy will give you a great edge, but upset victories will occur more often for those who innovate...there are tons of choices. Where and when to cast a GP, what myth units to use, etc. AOM: Favor adds a whole new dimension to gameplay. AOM: Everything AOK has plus more: New trading system, population-shared teams, relics with special bonuses, etc. etc. etc. Quote: I think if your expecting a HUGE change in this game from the last games ES has released, thats going to revolutionized what Gaming Studios think about games, your going to be let down. I doubt I will be let down. No, it won't be revolutionary, but it will be unlike any other RTS, and will be a very refreshing and new experience. Look back at AoE. Did you approach AoK as you did AoE? Hardly. The strategies and the way to play the game were completely different because of the newfound balance between archers and infantry and cavalry, and because of gargantuan buildings and garissoning. There were no more one-unit armies, no more guarantees of winning if you hit 3rd age first, no more ridiculously large boat booms, no more ludicrously powerful assyrians and shang, etc. etc. An ES employee (forgot who again, sorry) said that however big the gap was between AoE and AoK, the gap between AoK and AoM will be much larger. [This message has been edited by TheSmurfster (edited 06-05-2002 @ 10:05 AM).]
SUMMARY:
AOC: 18 civs that closely resembled one another. If you were good at one civ, chances are you would be able to play decent with at least half of the rest.
.
.
.
AOC: Predictable. On water, you grush, on arabia, you flush. Sometimes in team games you'll go for a fast castle. Period.
.
.
.
AOK: Static population limit. Focus is on micro-ing econ and striking the weakspot. Best economy wins.
.
.
.
AOK: Stone is pretty much a super-rare version of wood.
.
.
.
AOK: Good UI and in-game abilities. Overall good variety.
.
Plus, there are undoubtedly tons more surprises (that big Greek building, for one) that will be revealed to further widen the gap between the experience of AoK games and that of AoM games.
In conclusion,