A Better Expansion After Warlords?

[Rommel2D]

Originally posted by Alexander01
More AI improvements and game elements are good, but I never use a lot of them.

Yes, I've never used AI improvements either. Firaxis should stop wasting resources on such frivilous features.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Rommel2D

Yes, I've never used AI improvements either. Firaxis should stop wasting resources on such frivilous features.

I meant the game elements. Sheesh.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by Rommel2D

Yes, I've never used AI improvements either. Firaxis should stop wasting resources on such frivilous features.

But I've used tons of AI improvements:

They build their cities -> They build their improvements -> I build my Praetorians -> I use their improvements

[Zoid]

[armchairknight]

Originally posted by LordShiva




But I've used tons of AI improvements:

They build their cities -> They build their improvements -> I build my Praetorians -> I use their improvements

[Forwarn45]

4. A less aggressive Aztec leader

"Honestly, we have enough hearts right now. Lets just trade pigs for sheep."

[armchairknight]

Originally posted by Solver
I don't know... really, are more civs/leaders the most important features for an expansion? To me, it's probably the least important. I mean, it doesn't hurt, naturally, but it doesn't add much to the game either, IMO. I'd always much rather have new gameplay elements, AI improvements, new systems. Heck, I'd gladly buy a Civ expansion that contains only AI improvements, but a good amount of them.

Leaders...meh, but Civs? Sign me up! More is better. Think of competing football games. Which would you rather play (assuming for the moment you'd actually like to play one ), the one that let you play your favorite team or the one that didn't? Being able to (eventually) play the Vikings ( ) does add to my pleasure (purr, purr). Now don't get me wrong, I also like new features, bring 'em on! But better AI? What? Do they suck or something? I must suck worse, because they're fine enough for me!

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by armchairknight

But better AI? What? Do they suck or something? I must suck worse, because they're fine enough for me!

True enough! When playing on Deity setting, I don't even need Montezuma to kill me. I might as well cut out my own heart and put it on his altar!

[Son of David]

Adding more civs and UUs will increase the longevity of the game much more than adding new game mechanics for many people, including me.

Personally I'd rather they took their time and made a 'killer' second XP, jam it full of new civs (including Israel) and scenarios and forget adding new stuff to the core game.

Civ3: Conquests added a lot of stuff to the core game that didn't work properly and they didn't even patch it to an acceptable level.

Therefore, away with endless tinkering and let's have more new faces on the block

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Son of David
Adding more civs and UUs will increase the longevity of the game much more than adding new game mechanics for many people, including me.

I concur. If they're going to put in the Zulus, then Israel really is a must.

Originally posted by Son of David
Civ3: Conquests added a lot of stuff to the core game that didn't work properly and they didn't even patch it to an acceptable level.

No kidding. I would hate to see that happen to Civ4. It's such a great game and it supercedes its predecessor in every way. Let not Firaxis return to the abysmal past of C3C, rather, now that Atari's out of the picture, let a new day dawn for Civ expansions!

[armchairknight]

Unique Units are way too cool not to have more of them in the xps. You know, like the Viking longships that won't be in Warlords. {sigh}

[Solver]

Wow, it's really interesting to see how different the perspectives are here. Personally, I'd love the second expansion if it included a bunch of AI improvements, and improvements to the core game, but not a single new leader/civ.

[Alexander I]

Originally posted by Solver
Wow, it's really interesting to see how different the perspectives are here. Personally, I'd love the second expansion if it included a bunch of AI improvements, and improvements to the core game, but not a single new leader/civ.

Almost the reverse is true for me. Note the 'almost.'

[JimMac]

I have to echo Solver's comments. It is a real surprise to me how it seems that for most folk here the selling point is the additional Civs. To me, another Civ is merely what I have already, except they will be carrying a different coloured flag. I have NO interest in having any more.

However, what I would happily pay for is additional game features: (improved espionage, improved UN, better role for navies, increased combat strategy, more meaningful resource utilisation etc).

I know that I WILL be buying Warlords for the Military Leaders, unique buildings, vassal states and the new traits. I also know that I will not play any of the scenarios and continue putting the selection of AI opponents on random.

(Hmmm... I wonder if there is a correlation between those who play scenarios and want additional Civs?)

[Solver]

I'm also not the biggest scenario fan, but I probably will give the Warlords scenarios at least one playthrough. After all, they are historical scenarios, which makes them somewhat interesting.