Apolyton Warlords Review by Solver

**MarkG** · July 27, 2006 08:10

Civilization IV: Warlords Review by Solver

**MarkG** · July 27, 2006 08:15

OTHER REVIEWS

http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...ds/review.html

http://videogames.yahoo.com/gamerevi...e=0&eid=472193

**yin26** · July 27, 2006 08:47

Great review, as always, Solver. I'm glad to see you added your final thoughts, which I thought were quite fair. I'm a vassal junkie (thanks for the mention and for trying settings you normally wouldn't play), so, for me, Warlords is a winner. But, as you note, not all players enjoy the kind of setup that seems to lead to the most interesting vassal situations.

Thanks for the obvious time (and expertise) you put into another outstanding Solver review.

**Solver** · July 27, 2006 08:53

Thanks Yin

.

I feel the way I do about Warlords not only because I don't typically enjoy those cutthroat settings. It's just that, to me, there's not enough added to the core game, particularly when played under some sort of standard settings. I'm tempted to say that the change to Chariots is the best change in Warlords

.

Then again, I'm still one of those weird guys who think that new civs don't really add anything to the game. New traits do, yes, and I appreciate those additions - civ additions I feel rather indifferent towards.

**Gibsie** · July 27, 2006 08:54

Any chance of putting the review onto one page?

**Slax** · July 27, 2006 09:13

Nice review. Happy to see some criticism where one might expect fanboyism.

Aside - could use some "<- Prev Next->" links for page navigation.

**MarkG** · July 27, 2006 09:13

Originally posted by Gibsie
Any chance of putting the review onto one page?

i actually spent a long time cutting it up

**yin26** · July 27, 2006 09:22

Originally posted by Slax
Nice review. Happy to see some criticism where one might expect fanboyism.

Indeed.

**Alexander I** · July 27, 2006 09:33

Good job, Solver. Not afraid of criticism when necessary, but generous with praise as well. Fair and equitable as always. (And I must say it's nice to finally hear what you really think after so many cryptic hints.)

**Solver** · July 27, 2006 09:35

Hmm, I've posted cryptic hints?

**Alexander I** · July 27, 2006 09:42

Originally posted by Solver
Hmm, I've posted cryptic hints?

What a cryptic thing to say!

**monkspider** · July 27, 2006 10:14

I have to admit that I'm surprised that Solver's review is less than enthusiastic. Then again, I am the type of player who is absolutely giddy at the thought of new Civs.

Still, I am very surprised that he advises the fanbase to wait until it drops in price. For me, the new music alone was worth the meager 29.99.

**padillah** · July 27, 2006 10:26

Solver, I noticed that you didn't mention the Celts at all (other than saying they were in the XP). Is simply because you didn't play much with them (and why not!) or did you not find them interesting or think they'd be fun?

I think they'd be quite powerful and a SPR that starts with Myst could be a religion hog.

(but, then again, I've never won the game either so...)

Tom P.

**Solver** · July 27, 2006 10:27

EDIT: This post is in response to Monkspider.

I'm glad to see that someone is surprised

.

I primarily advice the *hardcore* players to wait until the price drops. The less hardcore and those who think that new civs are a great addition will absolutely get their money's worth out of it.

With Civ, I'm somewhat on the hardcore side, I've always cared more about the strategic options and, most of all, about the AI. My involvement with development of vanilla Civ4 also turned me into a Civ (Civ-style) game analyst for balance, strategic depth and similar issues. Which ultimately what leads me to my conclusions about Warlords - few good changes to the actual strategic gameplay.

But as I say in the review, it's not a horrible expansion. It could've been much worse if it screwed up combat balance, or had vassal exploit galore, or overpowered Generals, or somesuch. Warlords manages to add that stuff without screwing the game up, and I have to give due credit for that alone.

**Solver** · July 27, 2006 10:29

Originally posted by padillah
Solver, I noticed that you didn't mention the Celts at all (other than saying they were in the XP). Is simply because you didn't play much with them (and why not!) or did you not find them interesting or think they'd be fun?

I think they'd be quite powerful and a SPR that starts with Myst could be a religion hog.

(but, then again, I've never won the game either so...)

Tom P.

I haven't played a game with the Celts with the final version or the last few before it. The last time I played Celts, quite a bunch of things about the game was different, so I can't assess anything fairly based on that game.

I don't have that much to comment on them, as it stands right now. Although I do think they have one heckuva trait combination - I adore SPI - and the Gallic Warrior is an interesting "flavour" unit.

**Blaupanzer** · July 27, 2006 11:53

Thanks, Solver. A review, "warts and all," is much appreciated.

6 new civs, meh, given you can rename any current civ anything you want; three new leader traits, good; new units and promotions, expected -- artillery line still weak, even with trebuchets; UBs, nice idea; vassal states, real progress in diplomatic options. Kind of feel like its okay, but where is the rest of it? I too would have preferred a little more work on the AI as to non-ground units and alliances.

Of course, the rest as given is the addition of great generals and their optional uses. I read somewhere that this was something that had to be abandoned in the original due to deadlines and commitments. Good to see it implemented.

Again, thanks.

**DrSpike** · July 27, 2006 15:19

Hmm, I was planning to make some sly comment as usual but I actually think this is pretty good. I guessed that Warlords would probably not be that impressive as it's just impossible to make great x-packs for Civ games (you can find lots of my posts over the last few weeks that argue this) but I didn't guess Solver would be balanced instead of being a fanboi.

Nice stuff. Couldn't find the bit for the scenarios though.

**Solver** · July 27, 2006 15:50

For all of my other flaws, I don't think I can ever be fairly accused of being a fanboy

. My very positive evaluation of Civ4 itself is certainly my honest opinion.

It's interesting to remember how, after I posted the review for vanilla Civ4, certain people immediately accused me of having become a "yes man" for Firaxis, alleging that Firaxians invited numerous prominent members of the Civ community into beta testing with the goal of being guaranteed positive reviews. What a ridicilous thought that was

.

**Prussia** · July 27, 2006 16:02

Very nicely well done.

**DrSpike** · July 27, 2006 16:04

Originally posted by DrSpike
Couldn't find the bit for the scenarios though.

**Solver** · July 27, 2006 16:12

I mentioned the Barbarian one in one sentence

.

Really, though, I'm not very good at reviewing scenarios. I've played most of the Warlords ones, but I don't feel like I have much to say in a review about them. Anyway, I think they're good fun, though certainly not mindblowing like some other scenarios I've seen, and the biggest downside of Warlords scenarios, IMO, is low replayability. Except Barbarians.

**DaviddesJ** · July 27, 2006 16:28

Aren't you a bit kind to the Trebuchet? It seems gross to me. Stacks of CR3 Trebuchets can basically rampage over any conceivable city defenders. All that you need are enough defensive units with them, to keep the AI from coming out to engage you in the field.

**Solver** · July 27, 2006 16:31

I don't see the problem. If you are in a position to get a large number of CR3 Trebuchets, AND enough defensive units, you deserve some pretty easy wins. But assuming that you don't have an army that much larger than the AI, then balance is fine.

**DaviddesJ** · July 27, 2006 17:48

It doesn't seem hard to build 4-6 Trebuchets, and a few defensive units. March to one city, take it with no losses. March to the next city, etc. You don't have to have more units than the AI.

I guess I'll try it and see what happens.

It just seems odd to me that Trebuchets are the best city attackers in the game. I'm imagining my Trebuchets storming the gates of the city. Maybe they will swing those big arms and bonk the defenders on the head?

**Forwarn45** · July 27, 2006 18:20

Thanks for the review Solver. I think I like Warlords a bit better than you - but I definitely agree with what seems to be your criticism of a lack of AI improvement. It's hard to tell from my own limited experience with the game at this point, but you suggest there is not much. This is a concern as the AI has always been weaker than a human opponent at combat strategy and tactics and Warlords really opens up combat options for a number of the civs. In any future expansions or patches, I'd like to see improved AI as priority #1!

**Thedrin** · July 28, 2006 00:40

Nice review. I think I'll be happy with the expansion. Since I play on crowded maps with the aggressive option, vassal states looks like it'll be enough for me to get the game. Is it feasible to introduce lots of new strategy elements? How long would it take to get the AI to handle each element at the level of competence that it does now?

Originally posted by DaviddesJ
Aren't you a bit kind to the Trebuchet? It seems gross to me. Stacks of CR3 Trebuchets can basically rampage over any conceivable city defenders. All that you need are enough defensive units with them, to keep the AI from coming out to engage you in the field.

Are you sure about that? A CR3 trebuchet against a city garrison II fortified longbowman is at a disadvantage (11 vs. 11.7). Throw in a couple of the advanced drill promotions (reduced collateral damage, right?) and the trebuchet - while still a good artillery unit - doesn't look that powerful. Also, if you have trebuchets it's not unreasonable to assume that the defender has castles so more time would be needed to reduce the defecnes.

**DirtyMartini** · July 28, 2006 03:38

Originally posted by DaviddesJ
Maybe they will swing those big arms and bonk the defenders on the head?

In some of the animations, it looks like they do.

On a positive animation note -- I'm a fan of the sword flourish that the knights do now.

On topic:

I think there is plenty in the XP. I for one don't think cIV needed a bunch of additions to gameplay, -- I haven't come close to mastering all of the various aspects of the game yet. I'd rather have a few well thought out, well balanced additions than a load of stuff that results in a broken game.

edit: nice well thought out review though.

**Nugog** · July 28, 2006 05:25

Great review - thanks Solver!

**LordTheRon** · July 28, 2006 05:26

Very nice and informative review Solver. I'm not that interested in the scenario's so I hardly missed that part.

This is the first review I've read that goes into the details that interest me. All those gamemag reviews are just way too shallow.

I like Warlords for what it is. There are some AI improvements in there but I would love to see more and bigger improvements. I'd rather have a better AI then more new content for the next expansion. That said though the new traits, wonders, UU's, UB's and GG's are very nice.

**DrSpike** · July 28, 2006 05:37

Originally posted by LordTheRon
This is the first review I've read that goes into the details that interest me. All those gamemag reviews are just way too shallow.

QFT.

Thread: Apolyton Warlords Review by Solver

Thread Tools

Apolyton Warlords Review by Solver

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions