Warlords: first expansion pack announced

[Matrix]

See CFC front page.

That's rather early. The game is just six months old...
Well, I hope (though I doubt) this will get more people here to play. The actvity hasn't really been "to write home about".

[akots]

They better patch whatever it is with vanilla version before rushing a new expansion full of even more bugs.

[grahamiam]

I saw a quote from Thamer @ CFC that they were waiting for Take-2 QA to start and or finish testing it. Kind of reminds me of the C3C 1.22f patching process....

[Socrates]

quote:Originally posted by Matrix

Well, I hope (though I doubt) this will get more people here to play. The actvity hasn't really been "to write home about".

I wrote quite a little of Civ4 solo games, but I suddenly stopped playing, otherwise I would have continued reporting... It's crazy, I really like Civ4, but I've entered a state of "non-playing video games at all", and I'm now trying to do other things with my free time. Didn't really see that coming back then.

Anyway I agree this is quite early to annouce it. They still have to patch the game correctly, release a full PitBoss, release the SDK, and I believe they even had more surprises (other than the obvious expansion pack(s))...

[Shabbaman]

PTW all over again... what's there to add to the game? ... Oh, vassal state. Well, they better bring back civil wars! They can add the obvious new leaders and scenario's, and I think most of us could come up with some leader traits as well. This better should be cheap.

[Sir Eric]

Maybe the expansion pack will be like C3C?
Extra Civs and some period based mods?

[Darkness]

quote:Originally posted by Shabbaman

Well, they better bring back civil wars!

I couldn't agree more! :)

But, like akots said, they'd better patch the vanilla game first...

[Pastorius]

Isnt it a bit ironic, that while they claim civ4 is customisable, they develop an expansion that so far seems to contain elements that people can create themselves.

If they do not ad to the core engine, they wont get my money (and since it is multiplayable, I dont think I ll bother with civ4 xp. I am not as fond of cIV yet as I thought I d be)...

[Kingreno]

Hmm. so another 40 Euro's probably. If they are going to make an addition how about an option to adjust corruptionlevels so it is actually interesting to conquer the world.

[Matrix]

Perhaps the new patch and better working Pitboss is this expansion pack. [satan]

[Shabbaman]

Woa!

Upon closer inspection, two other Sid games are announced as well: railroads! (aka the real railroad tycoon 2) and Civcity Rome. WTF, civcity rome, wtf? Anyway, more sid games can't be bad. I'd rather see him invest his time and money in colonization2 though.

[Matrix]

Hehe... He ought to know by now Colonization II is very much wanted!
Though if he doesn't like to make it, it's unlikely to become a good game anyway...
Then again, he's not the only developer there...
Thoughts, thoughts, thoughts...

[AciDemon]

hmm...i'm kinda looking forward to the add on, even if it's totaly overprized and all thos vanilla-bugs which are still there.

but at least they implemented my favorite 3 civs into the pack: vikings, celts and cartaghs.

ps: hej i'm new here. came over from hattrick.org (i made there a short introduction of myself but wasn't very active) as you can see, english isn't my mothertongue, since i'm swiss. i'm 26 yo and civer from the beginning. :) sorry for the OT.

[Shabbaman]

Welcome to CDZ Acidemon :)

[Pastorius]

quote:Originally posted by Shabbaman

Woa!

Upon closer inspection, two other Sid games are announced as well: railroads! (aka the real railroad tycoon 2) and Civcity Rome. WTF, civcity rome, wtf? Anyway, more sid games can't be bad. I'd rather see him invest his time and money in colonization2 though.


Take2 purchased some developers. Putting two teams to work on one game is to exploit synergies or whatever it is called in english.

Firefly, the company is called, that works with Firaxis.

Why they need 2 teams for such a game is beyond me though


edited to remove killer typos

[ProPain]

expansion according to webster online (black) and firaxis interpretation(green):

Expansion
Noun
1. The act of increasing in size or volume or quantity or scope. (So a patch could actually be an expansion....hell even new bugs count!)
2. An interpretation that provides additional information. (See, they're saying it again!!)
3. Adding information or detail.

[Beam]

Why is it me reinstalling SMAC atm? [uglyham]

[Shabbaman]

An E3 preview on warlords on IGN (http://pc.ign.com/articles/707/707377p1.html).
Three new traits, imperialistic, charismatic and protective.

And the great wall explained :)

quote:There are also three new wonders in the game. Building the Great Wall will automatically create a massive defensive wall all around your cultural borders. Barbarian units won't be able to cross this border but you'll still need to be careful as your expanding cultural borders will soon extend beyond where the walls were placed.

[Matrix]

Wow, that actually sounds very cool! [yeah]

[Pastorius]

Bah. I start to dislike XPs more and more.

They add marginally interesting stuff, but price vs interesting stuff ratio really isnt all that good.

with civ3- it was a logical move for me to purchase c3c - since I didnt have multiplayer (never got ptw ;) ) - so that XP actually added a lot for me. I also found one of the cheapest stores to purchase from - so it cost me less than the average norwegian civ3 player would have to pay.

This here civ4 xp holds no gem as I see it. MP was a huge difference from playing with myself (haha). This time around, I havent felt like civ4 is tha shiznit in the first place (probably this could be because I havent got around to playing it much but a few games last year). Since in theory anyone could change the engine now (unless I am wrong) - that reduces the value of an expansion pack quite a lot. The only thing you seem to get is "official stuff" and not player created. Which apparently does not mean less buggy stuff than what players can make themselves...

[Shabbaman]

On CFC I read the Great Wall is visible from space. Neat.

[Matrix]

quote:Originally posted by Paalikles

Since in theory anyone could change the engine now (unless I am wrong) - that reduces the value of an expansion pack quite a lot.
Just because it fits the existing engine doesn't make it less valuable. It's still a creative art and on anything creative the maker may claim copyright. And anything with copyright has a potential value.

[Shabbaman]

Expansion packs are overpriced though, in almost every case.

[BCLG100]

just wait for the second expansion pact to come out and get that one

[Matrix]

quote:Originally posted by Shabbaman

Expansion packs are overpriced though, in almost every case.
That I agree with. :)

[Shabbaman]

I'm reading about the reshuffling of the civ traits (including the new ones) on IGN (http://pc.ign.com/articles/717/717727p1.html). It's good they made new pairings instead of simply adding the new traits only to the new leaders. I also like civ specific buildings. Some of them are pretty strong. Russian research institute anyone?

[Darkness]

I like the Mongolian Ger building a lot. +4 experience points for mounted units. Coupled with barracks and theocracy that gives your cavalries/knights/keshiks +10 experience points, a level 4 unit without even having to win a battle.

[Shabbaman]

Wouldn't it make sense if barracks now only give a bonus to non mounted units?

[Darkness]

quote:Originally posted by Shabbaman

Wouldn't it make sense if barracks now only give a bonus to non mounted units?


Sure, it would, but I haven't read anything about that in any preview...

[BCLG100]

but then the building wouldnt be as much of a bonus because it'd mean you'd have to build a barracks and that if you wanted to produce varying unit types.

maybe if they made you build both the mongolian thing could be +6 for mounted units.

[Matrix]

From the CFC Warlord Info Center: "Stable is a new building available with Horseback Riding. It costs 60 hammers and adds +2 XP to mounted units. The stable's bonus is cumulative with a barrack's."

Source (http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/warlords/#uniquebuildings)

Barracks: +4
Ger: +4 (Stables: +2)
Vassalage: +2
Theocracy: +2

A possible total of 12XP for new units! [eek]

With West Point and the Pentagon it can be even 18 XP. [tongue]

[Tubby Rower]

for aggressive civs, producing a mounted gunpowder unit (calvary I think) then that 16 XP (18 for Mongols) unit would start with Combat I. That's a unit promoted 5 times!!

[grahamiam]

For aggressive civs, only melee and gunpowder units start with combat 1. I think Cavs count as mounted, not gunpowder, iirc. Still, with 16xp to start off with, that would mean one could build a slew of commando units without any combat required [eek]

[Robboo]

There has got to be some sort of balancing factor that will be in the game. maybe a limit to how many cities you can build it in.


ALSo does anyone know if installing warlords will change your normal civ game...I am asking due to teh many multiplayer and MTDG at CFC. I havent seen any one confirm or deny that it will or wont change it.

[Tubby Rower]

and you probably won't until someone inevitably tries it and then complains that it doesn't work

[Robboo]

Well I am planning on buyin git..I have an Amazon gift certificate that I have to use before the end of August. I sure dont want to have to uninstall or do a dual load just to play multiplayer and the MTDG. Was teh Civ 3 expansion separate or was it integral part of Civ 3...( I never bought the expansion....had another kid and moved right when it came out)

[BCLG100]

i think you could play civ3 with the expansion pack against someone that doesnt have it, though i dont really remember tbh.

[Furiey]

You can still play Vanilla Civ 3 when you have Conquests/PTW, until recently I played SGOTM in Vanilla rather than C3C as I was on a team with mostly Mac players. Hopefully this will be the same.

[digger760]

quote:Originally posted by BCLG100

i think you could play civ3 with the expansion pack against someone that doesnt have it, though i dont really remember tbh.


Vanilla Civ never had multiplayer
PTW -> Conquests i doubt was ever compatible, even patch versions of C3C were not compatible as far as PBEM was concerned.

If you had conquest then you got Play the world Free, you could run it as if it were a seperate game from conquests, so if somebody did not have conquest that is how you could play against them.

[Shabbaman]

To some of you this might be old news, but I just noticed the viking berserker is erm, totally awesom!!1!!11!!eleven!!. It's a maceman that starts with amphibious and +10% city attack, but because the vikings are agressive it'll also start with combat I. Nice.

[digger760]

Just noticed it is due in Stores 28 July...to be honest i'm not sure if i'll buy it. Ive only just completed my thrid game.

[Shabbaman]

Well, apparently it's already available...

[Shabbaman]

So.

A word of warning: apparently, this expansion is about the same type of masterpiece unpatched civ4 is. It looks as if it has the same kind of memory leakage or something. I saw a BSOD, which is a rare sighting on my system. Civ4 runs great on it, minor problems with the unpatched version.

Until this piece of junk is patched I'd advise you to keep away.

[Tubby Rower]

thanks for ponying up the money to be our beta tester on the released expansion pack

[Shabbaman]

It might be heat related btw, trying to figure that out. Still, I don't get these kind of heat errors like, well, ever.

[BCLG100]

Its not out here i think for a couple of days and i dont think i'll be investing in it straight away unless am forced to because of MP games requiring it or something.

[Robboo]

I may end up gettign it..got a amazon gift certificate I have to use.

Shabbaman..can you play "normal" civ4 or does it change everything.

[Shabbaman]

You get a different desktop icon, the program is seperate just like conquests, for example. The savegames are in a different format as well. You're probably able to play civ4 savegames in warlords, though I doubt you'd get the warlords options in that game.

[Robboo]

Thanks Shabba

Now I will go buy it just to use up the certificates...(shhhh....no one tell my wife)

[Shabbaman]

Wow. I don't know what that game is doing, but 5 minutes playing raises the temperature of my GPU with 10 degrees celsius! And that's with the extra fan blowing air in the case. That's different than civ4... what's happening here?

[Matrix]

quote:Originally posted by Shabbaman

Wow. I don't know what that game is doing, but 5 minutes playing raises the temperature of my GPU with 10 degrees celsius! And that's with the extra fan blowing air in the case. That's different than civ4... what's happening here?

I suggest to post the exact same text in the bug report forum at CFC. ;)

[Beam]

Installed it this afternoon playing Ragnar on a pelago map [evil] 1500BC now and it has run without a flaw until now. About the same feel as vanilla IV with the latest patch in terms of performance.

[Rik Meleet]

I don't think I'll buy it.

[Beam]

Well is it worth the buck????? Couple of scenario's, some new tribes, couple of features.....

$30 [scratch]

[Shabbaman]

I surely can't recommend it. It feels exactly the same as civ4, which isn't a good thing for something that costs money. The new civ traits aren't something to spend money on (I assume), but that's probably the best addition. More options for different play styles. Protectionism is very annoying, it makes early conquest a lot harder (for the opponent). Good for builders, but early conquest is already hard enough as it is. The adddition of more and better siege weapons change nothing: the trebuchet is nice, but I'd have preferred an earlier (ancient) siege weapon like a battering ram.

I haven't checked out the scenario's, but I'm sure they're nice. But I don't give a damn about scenario's. IMO that's something a mod is good for, an expansion is about additions to the core game to me. Some things might/will change with new patches, but obviously that's where the true annoyance starts: Firaxis has proven that they'll just stop supporting the core game once they've released an expansion.

One thing of note: I get the idea they have a new map algorithm: resource distribution seems better.

OTOH: what's a few bucks for something you might spend hours with, compared to the price of a movie ticket?

[Robboo]

OK since its gettig such mixed reviews...I wonder how cheap it will be by Christmas. I figure they drop the price 5 to 10 by the end of the year.

[romeothemonk]

My plan is to get it as a Christmas gift. The reviews and patches should be more solid by then.

[Matrix]

My birthday is august 13th, so I hope I'll get it as birthday present. Otherwise I'll buy it soon after. [rolleyes]

I'm playing it already though [mischief]. Epic game (not speed). Not much different indeed. But who knows the scenarios might be fun. I generally didn't care much for scenarios either, Shabbaman, but the Conquests scenarios ruled! So I'm definitely gonna try these ones as well.

I can't say it's worth the money until I've tried the scenarios, but reading the (p)reviews they seem nice.

[Beam]

So, finished my first CWL today, Ragnar in space! There are a couple of small improvements I never really cared about like:
- Things like culture, maintenance goes with 2 decimals
- When attacking with retreatable units it now can show the change of retreat
- Iirc with Robotics SAMs and Marine became obsolete. In CWL you can still build them.
- In the turn where you capture a city it asks what to build there at EOT (not sure if this is an improvement as I did like to go back to such a city when it came out of revolt and the question coming up by then was a convenient reminder).

Some new units and buildings are nice of course but barracks are down to +3 experience points and both Herioc Epic and West Point are up an experience level (so you need 17 XP points for HE and 26 for WP). I like the General btw.

One of the imo most annoying "features"/"bugs" imo however isn't resolved and that has to do with the buildchoices that are presented for each city that just finished building something. It still does not take into account developments during the turn. Like if you just traded a tech with a new unit that unit does not show up in the list so you have to go "Examine City" and select it there. Also applies to stuff where you can only have limited amounts like missionaries and religious buildings. Same applies to EOT tech choices, i.e. you just developed something, start trading around but the EOT list does not take this into account. It's annoying, not really a bug but specially for the builds it can easily leave you with a city building nothing if you for example choose to build a 4th missionary of a religion. Means checking F1 ecery EOT.

In terms of gameplay I hardly noticed a difference, I mean the AI hasn't changed its prefs for the techpath so the same tricks still work (and in my game were all new AIs!). Tokugawa was as xenophobe as ever before.

So in terms of gameplay I'd rate this $30 thing at the level of a reasonable patch with some bonusses, couple of things solved that need not be solved and a couple of things the other way round.

So I went for the "real" content where the bang for the buck should be. Scenario's

Since imo Rise of Rome was one of the best in C3C this was my first choice. It instantly pissed me off:
- Historical accuracy sucks. It starts 300AD and the leader of Rome is Augustus Caesar. Kiss my ass. Colossos is build in Knossos LMAO.
- Creativity sucks. For example the techs that upgrade units for the Romans are called Praetorian, Preatorian II, Praetorian III and so on. I know there was Legionary I, II and III in Rise of Rome but iirc that was an exception. Here it applies to almost all techs. Now look at this resource overview:

http://www.civ3duelzone.com/forum/uploaded/Beam/2006730215544_cwltechtree.jpg
53.66KB

- The aaaa Victory Resource stuff is the key to winning this game. Sure you'll call 'm Blue, Green, Purple, Red and Yellow. Rubbish. And what did people do in 300BC with Aluminium, Uranium, Hit Singels / Musicals / Movies, Oil to mention a few? But that's something for the lack of effort section.
- And in general it feels uninspired, it is a feeling so hard to be factoid about it.
- Scenario's used to give a differnt type of gameplay with different units, building, techtrees, governments you name it. I often avoided scenarios in Civ III as I had the feeling it could kill my CivIII vanilla skills. In this case I am only slightly worried cause the difference I see in these scenarios is marginal. For example the new unit Trireme in vanilla warlords has strength 2 and +100% against Galleys, in Rise of Rome it has strength 4. Maybe it is just an older development version of the unit.

So right now I've played one full game and started one scenario. I am going to check the other scenario's before posting a final conclusion but atm I'd say if you got 30 bucks burning in your pocket better spent them somewhere else and check your countries copyright laws.

[Pastorius]

Many reviews give the same general impression.

Won't spend a buck on it

[akots]

Good to know. Do these scenarios have multiplayer version? It was a great fun to play RoR PBEMs.

[Beam]

Seems to be the case Paal. :(

I reread my own post and found it a bit negative. So I decided to check the scenario's one by one something new, something showing inspiration.

I spend quite some time finding out how to make maps and place units and also investigated a lot of the xml structure so imo I have a reasonable picture about what is easily modable. Renaming units, changing strength isn't much of an issue even more because this game is sold to us as being easily modable.

Another aspect of a scenario are graphics and some of the graphics in cIV are pretty hard imo, just think about the animated leaderheads.

Last but not least is a scenario where you feel the creators cared for enjoyable gameplay. You don't need fancy stuff if it gives fun.

Let's with the graphics:
- it's either familiar cIV / CWL or low budget replacements unless I missed something. Please correct me if I am wrong.
- each scenario comes with a nice starting still.

Depth of mods:
- I did not find anything that could not be done by the mod community using freely available tools and time.
- Some of the mods seem to use only renamed stuff. As said I haven't done a full check, it is gut feel

Promising scenarios:
- The Viking one looked very interesting to me. It shows S of Norway, British Isles and NW continental Europe. Historical setting also looks correct. Will play this one. There is Omens, setting Ohio river but will have to try after playing Vikings. And there is Barbarian where you let the game autorun for a selectable number of turns then go kill'm all with your sole warrior.

All in all I see a lot of marketing and little content, besides very weird to make an official release during summer. $30 bucks really is spent better somewhere else.

[Beam]

quote:Originally posted by akots

Good to know. Do these scenarios have multiplayer version? It was a great fun to play RoR PBEMs.


All scenarios appear as options in Multiplayer > New Scenario. Haven't tested though.

[akots]

Like with those 2 scenarios which Trip released earlier, they were specifically not intended to be playable as MP. And MP versions of Conquests had a separate maps and settings. It has to be balanced in terms of victory conditions and stuff.

We do appreciate good things only when compared to not so good things. ;) IMVHO BreakAway Games did a very good job with Conquests scenarios scecifically in terms of balance of gameplay both SP and MP except for a few glitches.

The problem with Civ is that it is actually a pretty boring and weird game in terms of empire building. But if you are already given some empire, then it is more fun and actions comes more rapidly, no need to waste two months pressing the enter key before the first axeman is built.

Another IMVHO, they should decrease the costs for some units and support costs for units as well especially on higher difficulty levels. Of course, this is moddable. It is not a question of modding but more of a question of playtesting the results to find the right balance.

And I'm still struggling with military wins on Immortal and especially on Deity on standard maps and with Deity even on small maps. The handicap on Deity is ridiculous. It seems to be even somewhat worse than Sid level in Civ3 because the AIs continue to tech non-stop to the Space victory despite the hordes of units they have, which were not the case on Sid in Civ3.

And these colored victory conditions are at least somewhat creative, they could have just put numbers, like VC1, VC2, etc. [lol]

[Matrix]

I've played the barbarian scenario and it was fun for 15 minutes. Then I got a strong feeling I was wasting my time. When I was twelve years old I would've loved it though!

[Shabbaman]

quote:Originally posted by Beam

All in all I see a lot of marketing and little content, besides very weird to make an official release during summer. $30 bucks really is spent better somewhere else.


Actually, a lot of games are published in time for the summer holiday.
$30 is just too much. You can probably get better scenario's from the web, and the core game additions are minimal. Be it compared to C3C, or just stand alone. I like some of the tweaks: a castle now gives an additional trade route, for instance. For battlefield2 you can download expansion packs for $10. That'd be a reasonable price.

[Darkness]

OK, that settles it.
I'll just wait until october or december and see if I can get it as a present...

[Tubby Rower]

After reading the content on CFC's main page, I was actually thinking that I might attempt to sneak this one by my wife. Then I came over here and read the more recent reviews and I'm thinking that I'll burn that money elsewhere.

[Beam]

Played Vikings close to the end on Monarch. Couple of nice ideas in there:
- The Vikings start with the Berserker while the AI only has weak units. The AI however gets stronger and stronger units as the game progresses. The best combo the Vikings have is Berserker / LB / Treb. At the end of the game the AI has Knights, Maces, Crossbows, Pikes. All units the Vikes can't build. So the game actually becomes harder as it progresses.
- VC is a large amount of gold.
- Cities can be ransomed once captured, i.e. go back to their owner for cash.
- A tech can be researched revealing Treasure which gives a lot of cash when returned to the cap. It works a bit like Future Tech cause it can be researched multiple times but from the start of the game.

But the gameplay variation is a bit limited:
- No trade or diplo because none of the AI can be contacted.
- Besides a few buildings that can be build it basically is about building units, shipping them to the front and have them fight.
- Although the Vikings have their own religion I found no way to build missionaries and the Pedia does not explain a lot about it.
- The Vikes can not build triremes which makes health from seafood very hard to obtain.
- Resources can not be traded between Scandinavia and the other lands.
- Treasure can appear eveywhere on the map so also outside your terr. From the 7 researched I could capture only one.

As said couple of nice ideas but to much downsides to my liking.

[Robboo]

I got it today....freebie sort of due to gift certificate. I hope to have a sorta review of it by the weekend. My view on it being worth teh money is a little differnt.

30 bucks wont get my wife and I out the house but for about an hour or two due to babysitting costs, so if it entertains me for longer than 3 hours...I will consider it a good deal.

[Matrix]

Then you got yourself a bargain. ;)

[Pastorius]

quote:Originally posted by Darkness

OK, that settles it.
I'll just wait until october or december and see if I can get it as a present...


IMO, you should ask for a cooler present

[Darkness]

quote:Originally posted by Paalikles

quote:Originally posted by Darkness

OK, that settles it.
I'll just wait until october or december and see if I can get it as a present...


IMO, you should ask for a cooler present


[???]
I can never figure out what to ask for my birthday or for Christmas anyway, so why not ask this?

But do tell: What do you suggest I request as a present?

[Shabbaman]

A whip [whipped]

[Darkness]

quote:Originally posted by Shabbaman

A whip [whipped]


No thanks. I don't need a whip... [nono]

[Shabbaman]

Really? Whipping is the way to go in civ4 you know...

[Darkness]

quote:Originally posted by Shabbaman

Really? Whipping is the way to go in civ4 you know...


It is...?

Well, that explains why I am such a bad player then... :(

[Pastorius]

quote:Originally posted by Darkness

quote:Originally posted by Paalikles

quote:Originally posted by Darkness

OK, that settles it.
I'll just wait until october or december and see if I can get it as a present...


IMO, you should ask for a cooler present


[???]
I can never figure out what to ask for my birthday or for Christmas anyway, so why not ask this?

But do tell: What do you suggest I request as a present?


Oh, if that is the case, then why not.
Or (dunno what your pricelevel is for this though) perhaps a bottle of good booze?

[dunno]

edit: a new fish or three perhaps?

[Robboo]

First part of the review:

I played the barb scenario....

I was in a mood to destroy stuff. Had a rough day and many unexpected expenses recently. I suggest playign thsi only if you want to war and burn stuff. I havent quite figured out a strategy for this its more of attack, burn, buy troops, attack, pillage, burn, and buy troops.Great for thsoe days when you want to kill something....I killed Gehghis and then saved the game to play another day...probably when my electric bill comes in or the air condition repair bill.


Oh and Threbuchets kick ass...try them.

[Matrix]

quote:Originally posted by Robboo

Oh and Threbuchets kick ass...try them.
Indeed, they do!

You know, I'm beginning to think they purposely withheld and reserved the Great Wall for the expansion pack when making vanilla Civ4. Cos actually it's a must-have, isn't it?

[Robboo]

Never tried it yet....;)

playing my next game as a protective civ to test out that trait. Looking at the new traits for multiplayer.

[Darkness]

quote:Originally posted by Paalikles

quote:Originally posted by Darkness

quote:Originally posted by Paalikles

quote:Originally posted by Darkness

OK, that settles it.
I'll just wait until october or december and see if I can get it as a present...


IMO, you should ask for a cooler present


[???]
I can never figure out what to ask for my birthday or for Christmas anyway, so why not ask this?

But do tell: What do you suggest I request as a present?


Oh, if that is the case, then why not.
Or (dunno what your pricelevel is for this though) perhaps a bottle of good booze?

[dunno]

edit: a new fish or three perhaps?


Fish are louzy presents. Most people just don't know anything about them and then you either get sick fish (which infect your whole tank) or fish which are totally incompattible with the rest of the fish you already have (either aggressionwise or water parameterwise)... Better buy those myself. :)

[Pastorius]

gift certificate for a fish then.

Bah. Don't be so difficult here dude

[Darkness]

quote:Originally posted by Paalikles

gift certificate for a fish then.

Bah. Don't be so difficult here dude


Who? Me? [blush2];)

[akots]

quote:Originally posted by Beam
...
All in all I see a lot of marketing and little content, besides very weird to make an official release during summer. $30 bucks really is spent better somewhere else.


I've got the Warlords over the weekend and played a few scenarios to get a feeling. Have not tried a "normal" game yet. Oh, and I did not spend $30, just $15. It were on general games sale in one of the stores and got some coupon.

Must overall agree with Beam here again. Scenarios are fun, at least some new ideas here. However, IMHO, the balance is not there and they would be obvously heavily patched in the near future.

What had been true with the vanilla game is still there. Which is very tedious troop movement, plus not so creative tech tree and considerable lack of balance at least for Monarch level against the AIs. They did improve the playability at least a little bit because AIs are not only building hordes of archers and sitting in the cities but actually try to wage wars in the open and attack the offensive forces. Also, it seems that AIs now are somewhat tweaked to being able to accumulate substantial counterforce.

This impression is mostly based on Alexander scenario. I've tried it first on Emperor and it were very tough right from the start. AIs had a plently of units and they use them more or less OK. So, it seems I'm not ready for Emperor here but Monarch seems a bit too easy. Some strange feature i've noticed is that you cannot join GG to cities or build war Academy. Also, all troops built in the mainland must travel a horrendous number of turns to the Persian or Egyptian front. IIRC, in Civ3, road movement had been specifically increased to make it more playable. Same thing can be rather appropriate here as well or so it seems.

Also, I've tried Mongolian scenario and was rapidly stuck on Monarch and I'm completely clueless as to how horse archers or mounted swordsmen can beat pikes in the cities with walls without losing many units. I just don't see it happening. Even with all promotions, Mongols are unable to have more than 30-40% probability of winning so it very heavily depends on RNG and this actually sucks because the scale in terms of numbers of units is laughable and each loss is painful. It is possible to wait and pillage meanwhile before trying to advance but still AIs manage to grow and build even more troops. IMHO, this scenario needs substantial rebalancing to improve playability.

Also tried the viking scenario which has an annoying bug that does not allow for the ransom tag to be stored while saving the game and then loading. But that one is very easy. Just again, extremely tedious. You can capture most or all on England, build a Palace there and cottage-spam to get a nice income of around 800-1000 gpt that is enough to bring the victory even without ransoming.

RoR also seems like fun and it might be a good idea to start a PBEM or a PitBoss game with this one since it is the only one which is really suitable for multiplayer and seems to be relatively balanced. Of course, these victory resources are annoying as well as very odd tech tree. Also, most of the cities at start have only a handful of improvements and lack, for example, barracks. Which does not improve playability.

Chinese unification is also pretty weird scenario, too short imho. It can be won on Noble in about 3 hours of gameplay but on higher difficulty levels it might be a tough nut to crack.

The Peloponnesian war is just plain stupid imho or may be it can be fun if played against a human player. Otherwise, it sucks.

Barbarian mod is funny but nothing else.

And I still don't get the idea about Omen. I'm thinking that the religions domination there is easier to achieve with weapons than with missionaries. Which is somewhat weird. And again, it is extremely short and the rules for spreading religion and probabilities of conversion are very strange and counter-intuitive.

In general, it seems that the AI had been somewhat improved compared to vanilla. had not noticed any particular glitches with the software itself, game runs just fine on my machine but same was true even for unpatched Civ4.

[BCLG100]

I dunno about the mongol scenario i played a prince version of it and it was insanely easy-them camps keep producing units and you only need to knock out 2 of some fellas cities before you can build trebs to combat the walls and pikes-so allthough initially you'll lose units eventually you'll have a force to combat the pikes/walls/defensive bonuses.

I didnt like the Pelopenasian scenario its such a large map with so little on for instance it took me 10 minutes to find the enemy cities!

[Lt. Killer M]

I bouhgt it two weeks ago and played some (on holiday :D). Now, all fine, regular game has imporved, methinks. But I do have, as seems usual for civ games, aserious issues with.... let me say: weird things happening.

Like: me and Saladin are on an island. No contact possible until Caravels. I develop IW, build some Galluic Swords, go for a town - and encounter not one but three archers with EACH 4 different promotions. Can anyonw explain how Saladin managed to get this much experience in ancient/classical times if there is NO OTHER PLAYER TO FIGHT??????


me hate AI cheats. [mad]

[Shabbaman]

Indeed.

Although I hate my own reloading sometimes, when I missed out on the Taj Mahal I reloaded. Then I whipped for 6 pop (not that smart, considering that we're talking about the Taj Mahal...), and the same AI suddenly completed Versailles instead. I hadn't seen a great engineer being born or something like that, very weird.

Akots, for $15 I'd go as far as to recommend it.

[Kemal]

@Killer: Saladin is protective, meaning his archery units get two free promotions of the bat (drill and city garrison)... adding to that barracks and vassalage or theocracy equals 4 promotions total.

A bit rough, but attacking a protective civ is supposed to be a tough task to manage.

[akots]

I disagree about the Mongol scenario. The scenario is a dead end in terms of techs. So, you never get any overwhelming chances. The combat system is built in such a way that in that scenario, unless you are willing to sacrifice many trebuchets, which you don't have and never will, the chances of winning are in between 66-85% for most fights. Considering combat RNG mechanics had been changed in warlords compared to vanilla, this exactly means what it means, so that with 66% chance you are losing about 1/3 of your precious units and at 85%, your losses are about 1/6 of the attackers on average. Plus add raging barbarians which produce/autogenerate mostly horsemen and in horrendous numbers all over the map. You are not fighting here with guerilla archers against axemen but with a units with strength 9 or 11 or such against units with strength 10 or 12 (pikes, elephants). There are a few promotions here and there to strength 11 units (combat II to start + 25%versus melee and 25% versus mounted) but it just does not feel right. This one is from a completely different game. The problem is with fold of difference. If the attacker has only a slightest advantage, the chance jumps up already to 66%. If your unit is even slightly injured (10.5 out of 11), the chance drops down immediately down to 25%. And I've never seen any Mogol units retreating except trebuchets. Even those with flanking promotions. I'm planning to test that.

This does not add historical accuracy. Also, camps do generate units very slowly and very randomly. The light javelin-thrower is a very weak unit which had some defense bonus but all attackers are immune to first strike. Besides, it just feels odd to defend against barbarian horsemen with javeliners.

City maintenance also is horrendous and there is no palace given for free, you've got to build one. So, overall, this scenario seems like fun but it actually sucks. It should have a considerable replay value though since you can either fail to raze your fourth city on around turn 5 or succeed with a low margin of probability and this just means a completely different game.

Also, AIs do not wish to become your vassals in this scenario. They tend to stick to some other AI on the other side of the map when they are down to one city. Which mean that they are being eliminated. This is certainly a glitch because it makes no sense absolutely.

I've tried it on Emperor and quit somewhere in the middle because of barbarians. Now trying on Monarch and it goes better and is more reasonable.

[Robboo]

yep protective is wickedly tough to attck till catapults and before gunpowder.