Some ideas: raiding, seiging, spell AI and more..

[Kel]

Soapyfrog said:
This is completely untrue. WIth 17 players on a large map, at least some players will be able to fin the time and space neccessary to horde effectively. These players will win. Period. There is NO counter.

Yes, if 17 players all started hoarding and hoping noone attacked them, then the ones who didn't get attacked would have a head start. Much like they would probably be more powerful if they were just researching or site searching or taking indies or any other part of the game. If you are left alone and noone messes with you, you will probably be stronger than people who engaged in early wars and it has nothing to do with clams.

Seriously, how many times have you been beaten by people who did nothing the whole game but build clams ? I don't mean they had a dozen clams because they didn't have anything to do with their water supply, I mean how many people did nothing but clam thae majority of the game ? How many times ? 10 ? 20 ? 30 ?

- Kel

[alexti]

Kel said:

Yes, if 17 players all started hoarding and hoping noone attacked them, then the ones who didn't get attacked would have a head start. Much like they would probably be more powerful if they were just researching or site searching or taking indies or any other part of the game. If you are left alone and noone messes with you, you will probably be stronger than people who engaged in early wars and it has nothing to do with clams.

That's not always true. Quick and successful conquest is very beneficial in the early game (especially if the graphs are off). And good players often go to war with exactly that purpose if they see they can crush the neighbour quickly. Typically, because they've reached their target research or troop production before the neighbour has counter.

In all games I've played, the winner was somebody who has successfully (and quickly) conquered 1 or more neighbours in the early game.

[Kel]

alexti said:
In all games I've played, the winner was somebody who has successfully (and quickly) conquered 1 or more neighbours in the early game.

I find it hard to believe that all your games were like that, no offense. I would certainly say that has not been my experience, though all of my games haven't been absolutely one way or the other.

- Kel

[alexti]

Kel said:

I find it hard to believe that all your games were like that, no offense. I would certainly say that has not been my experience, though all of my games haven't been absolutely one way or the other.

- Kel

There were few blitzes on a small maps where things were different (usually because somebody was able to conquer enough VP's without totally conquering anybody) and there were few MP games that were never finished, because of uncurable game crashes (in 2 of them which were in later stages it was very likely, that one of early conquestor would won). I don't know the result of my first MP (because I was quickly eliminated). There was also game won by Norfleet (I'm not sure if he has conquered somebody in the early game or not, but all his games are under question now anyway). In all other games the game was won by somebody who had successful early conquest (plus a couple of still going games, where one of the early victors is very likely to win).
So it would be more correct to say that I'm yet to see the game won by somebody who have stayed out of wars and {something}-hoarded.

I've faced clam/fetish hoarders several time myself in the late game. In one case the real war Lasted about 5 turns before hoarder conceded. In another case the hoarder conceded the game even without trying to fight. Of course, I had much larger empires at that time. And if I didn't have a large empire in the late game, that was usually because my lands got added (contrary to my wishes) to somebody else's large empire, which wasn't making things any better for the hoarder.
Concerning the size of the maps, they ranged from Aran to Orania. Nothing super huge, though I've found even Orania to be too much micromanagement for my taste.