You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition
Moderated by Suppiluliuma, PhatFish, Fisk, EpiC_Anonymous, Epd999

Hop to:    
Welcome! You are not logged in. Please Login or Register.12 replies
Age of Empires Heaven » Forums » Age of Empires / Rise of Rome / Definitive Edition » Thorfinn's Theory of Pointgrubbing.
Bottom
Topic Subject:Thorfinn's Theory of Pointgrubbing.
Thorfinn
Clubman
posted 03-10-99 12:17 PM ET (US)         
Our LAN group went through a phase of points games. In time, the strategy developed was:

  • One player went for econ bonus (Mr. Econ), one went military (Ms. Mil).

  • Ms. Mil would send a villager to the Mr. Econ's camp in Stone.

  • Ms. Mil attempts a tool rush or even a tool blitz.

  • Once tooled, Mr. Econ tribs everything except the food he needs for sustained villager production and econ upgrades, including stone, to Ms. Mil.

  • Ms. Mil pops up some combination of stables/range/rax/towers in Mr. Econ's town. She also has villagers close to enemies laying down all kinds of military buildings.

  • When Ms. M feels she has plenty military buildings and wood based troops, she start laying down temples.


From here on out, they both develop their strengths. Mr. E eventually bronzes, or not, depending on how successful Ms. M is.


Results:


  1. Mr. E almost certainly has villager high, a 25 point bonus.

  2. Ms. M has military, because all the team's towers are her's as well. Another 25 points.

  3. Mr. E has as many villagers as the pop limit, and 1 pt/villager...

  4. Ms. M can usually get the number of techs, because of all the resources. At 2 pts/tech and a 50 point bonus, that's somewhere around 100 points if it goes Iron.

  5. Ms. M should be able to bronze ahead of anyone not slingshotted. Another 25 pts.

  6. Here's the sweet part. Mr. E has 1 point for every 60 resources spent on trib, whether he pays the tax or not. Its what he gave, not what was received. In addition, by switching to building temples, Ms. M gets 3 points for every temple. Just 30 of Mr E's villagers chopping should net around 25 wood per second, enough for a temple every 6 seconds, or 55 points per minute! You don't even have to complete the temple. Lay the foundation and you get credit for it. Cancel the build and you still get full credit, and it only cost you 100 wood.

Micromanagement of combat gets a lot more free points. Deleting your attackers just prior to their death still gives you the loss, but costs your opponent his 1/2 point/kill, and, more importantly, cripples his (kills-losses), meaning that even if both generals leave the battlefield with no survivors, the general who is better at the Delete key is way ahead in points.

Then as the points get close, turn your military on your own buildings. You get 1 point per building destroyed. Have cats target walls, since they are also 1 pt per section. If you had a little time to prepare, you can construct blocks of walls say 4x4 and have your cats destroy up to 14 wall tiles every volley.

Lastly, don't forget priests. Many games it only takes one conversion to get the 25 point bonus. Just make sure you have enough of a lead on the competition so you discourage them from building priests.

Keep your stick on the ice.

[This message has been edited by Thorfinn (edited 07-07-99).]

AuthorReplies:
Scarab
Clubman
posted 03-10-99 01:15 PM ET (US)     1 / 12       
The only thing that would make that a better point strat. is to have Ms. M build a wonder. (extra 100 points)
Hemlock
Clubman
(id: S_Hemlock)
posted 03-10-99 01:27 PM ET (US)     2 / 12       
If you're looking for easy points, why don't both of you build markets and trib all your resources back and forth? (Not being familiar with points games, I don't know if this would work.)

"Ms. M has military, because all the team's towers are *his* as well." Sounds like Ms. M has a dirty little secret, hmmm?

Thorfinn
Clubman
posted 03-10-99 01:59 PM ET (US)     3 / 12       
S_Hemlock, trib doesn't work that way. It is net tribute, so trading back and forth just cancels out. Thanks for the his/hers catch, S_Hemlock. Fixed it.

Scarab, we flirted a while with building a Wonder, but it always turned out fewer points per unit time. It would be more effective in terms of resources (3000 Res for a Wonder=100 pts, 3000 Res for temples=45 pts). However, considering that Ms. M did a tool rush (or blitz, depending on Mr. E's starting position -- Garden of Eden=blitz.) she doesn't have many villagers, less than 20, anyway, counting attrition, and the build time on a Wonder is 120 times the build time of a temple. In other words, if you had the resources, you could build 1 wonder(100 points) or 120 temples (360 points) in the same amount of time. As for Mr. E building the Wonder, he probably isn't Iron, and you wouldn't get the points from the trib.

Not that I'm right and you're wrong, just the way it worked out in our games...

BTW, usually Ms. M was Hittite or someone else with strong bronze/iron standing, but I've been wondering if the 15% Roman bonus would be an ideal match...

Keep your stick on the ice.

Cherub Shadow8357
Clubman
posted 07-05-99 08:35 AM ET (US)     4 / 12       
I was browsing Thorfinn's One-Stop Strategy Links post when I came upon this interesting thread. I often wonder about alternative victory conditions, like Ruins, time limits, etc.

Anyway, what civ seems to work best for Mr. E? Palmy sounds attractive, with the free tribute (less wood wasted on tax=more temples). However, the extra vill cost might offset this, especially when building them to the pop limit. On the opposite end of the spectrum is Shang. Cheap vills means fewer food gathers, thus more wood gathers, and ultimately more temples. Phoenicia would be a definate contender as well (for obvious reasons). Assy is well known for strip mining the map. This civ might work, but I probably wouldn't risk it on the lower point victories.

What do you do for 4v4? I assume with a 3v3, you would just have one econ, one temple builder, and one military (thus splitting Ms. M's currently two faceted purpose), but 4v4 is different. Doubling the econ sounds nice, but you don't get a second shot at vill bonus, etc. Perhaps a fast iron? An iron jumper with HHA could theoretically get the most exploration bonus, but a heavy tooling Yam could probably do better with scouts.

Thorfinn
Clubman
posted 07-06-99 10:09 AM ET (US)     5 / 12       
Cherub Shadow8357, for Econ, we primarily played Palmy as I was interested at that time in the best way to use their rather unique cultural abilities, although Max_Ray loved to use Phoeny. Shang may also be a top contender, but that goes without saying, especially if their double hp walls become useful.

Red_Karen preferred battle to building, so took the bullet as Egypt or Hittite, usually.

We never really developed strategies for beyond 3v3, mostly because we had a very inconsistent group. There were only 3 that you could count on being there every time, Red_Karen, Max_Ray, and myself, and most people seemed to to play too chaotically to count on them filling a role in a scripted game. Max_Ray liked to be Rome. It didn't dawn on me at the time, but his temples were cheaper, so we probably got much more out of that than I had thought.

Ah, yes, the exploration bonus. The scout rush is indeed king, and in the moderate point games, its over before anyone hits Iron.

Keep your stick on the ice.

sixpac_shakur
Inactive
posted 07-06-99 07:47 PM ET (US)     6 / 12       
So this is the Darth Rader forum ..

Ive never played pointgames, but the first thing that comes to mind is: the winner always has best score. try to win the game, anyway possible and you get the best score.

A game where one player tributes and does the domestic work(slingshot) is too boring for the economy guy. No action whatsoever. If you like to play mr economy maybe you should dust off Civ 2.

And switching to neutral and convert allys troops takes care of the conversion 25 pts.

Thorfinn
Clubman
posted 07-06-99 10:30 PM ET (US)     7 / 12       
Well, I don't follow you here, because it is possible to be losing by points and yet win the game in default victory conditions. I virtually guarantee that will be the case in a long game of sending swarms of lesser-value troops against a well-prepared greater-value force, say a Phoeny or Shang against a Hittite or Babylonian. You might lose 50 scythes to get into a walled area and kill a single cat. But because that is a gold troop, it is sometimes worth it. You will eventually bleed him dry. The scythe player will usually end up with no generalship points (kills-losses) while the fortified HCat/HHA player one can easily end up with several hundred. Under moderate score victory conditions, you I'm sure you can see that the phrase "acceptable losses" has a different meaning.

That is the essence of the other victory conditions -- they give rise to a different set of strategies which are more applicable. I recall one 900 point game in which the victors had no kills -- lots of razings (all their own), lots of conversions, but not one single kill.

I don't like playing for points because it is too easy to mess with the figures. Sure, you can get the bronze points without enough resources to do anything. In a default game, you will usually get punished for that, as long as you are playing people of average skill. But in a points game, that bonus can make the difference, even if it means you are forced to relocate. The static bonus points (i.e., Bronze and Iron first, temples built) frequently overshadow almost every other consideration, sometimes including being killed completely.

Winning by points can be a little boring. It is not something that I would choose to do every game. But with the correct set of strategies, 300 points is well within bounds of about 12 minutes, 900 within 18, i.e., you do a standard boom and you will lose before your game really begins. When I suggested that you may not bronze in the game, that is exactly what I meant -- you may not have the chance. It is quite reasonable that the game is over before that point. I would actually like to see a random victory setting. You would have to click on Menu -- Scenario Objectives to find out what all your winning options are.

Oh, and something I forgot to mention. Getting the gold mining upgrade becomes far more important, as you get points for mining gold, but not for any other resource.

I guess what I am getting at is if you want a unidimensional game, go ahead and play your conquest games or dust off your Warcraft II. I think that the range of victory conditions makes this a far more intriguing game, and you should not deprive yourself of the depth of experience and variety inherent in the well designed game of RoR.

Keep your stick on the ice.

borgboy12
Clubman
posted 07-13-99 05:18 PM ET (US)     8 / 12       
Bringing strategy threads to the top.
Mark_Aurel
Clubman
posted 07-13-99 11:28 PM ET (US)     9 / 12       
I've really only played one multiplayer game on the zone with a Score-based Victory Condition, namely Time Limit (I lost).

What Score and Time Limit games are all about is really acquiring the highest Score. Now, acquiring high Scores can be done in many ways in AoE/RoR. Your original post mentions a lot of manipulation of these, by assigning speciality tasks to the various partners. Score and Time Limit games are thus basically about being able to manipulate the various numbers in the best possible way as a team. The point is that score can be manipulated even beyond what has been stated here, to the point where it borders on cheating (switching diplomatic stance, razing your allie's houses, for instance). I even think someone once stated that you can get points for razing your own buildings with cats, though I'm not really sure about that.

The point I'm trying to make, is that these kinds of games can be fun - if done with trustworthy people. If done with someone willing and able to cheat to win, they aren't nearly as fun.

Anyhoo, I think I'd stick to Standard Victory. It's generally the Victory Condition that offers the most versatility. But Score and Time Limit could certainly be fun for a change.

Thorfinn
Clubman
posted 07-14-99 00:05 AM ET (US)     10 / 12       
You even get points for destroying each of your own wall segments! 1 point for every 5 stone you mine. That's a bargain! And, yes, it borders on cheating (or goes over the line, not sure which). The next closest is the house at 30, followed by the temple at 33. (Start construction, cancel construction. Net cost = 100 wood, net gain, 3 points.) Thus, when it just became a matter of who can exploit the most quirks of the scoring system, we quit playing those rules.

Keep your stick on the ice.

Tenaciti
Clubman
posted 03-25-00 03:14 PM ET (US)     11 / 12       
strats to the top!
G
Clubman
posted 03-25-00 03:24 PM ET (US)     12 / 12       
We scorehoggers gota lov this one
You must be logged in to post messages.
Please login or register

Hop to:    

Age of Empires Heaven | HeavenGames