Concerns about the new "Warlord"

[Badtz Maru]

Originally posted by wardhali


What about the good old USA? the closest i can think of would be teddy Roosevelt with speak softly and carry a big stick. but genocides? Ruthless Militaristic? not words you think of when you think of USA...

We committed genocide against a number of Native American tribes, complete with biological warfare (smallpox blankets). We were involved in a number of wars of aggression solely to expand our territory (Mexican-American War, Spanish-American War, Indian Wars). We are the only nation to use nuclear weapons in war. I'd say that the USA is just as ruthlessly militaristic as anyone.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph



Overall, so far the Warlords expansion seems to offer little of what this game needs. New Civs? Meh. New units? Meh. Scenarios? Meh. Option to vassalize? Nice but unnecessary. New traits? This is interesting. But it's the only interesting thing I see so far. I may pick it up at some point, mainly to remain compatible in DGs and PBEMs, but I am not anxiously awaiting it.

From another thread:

Originally posted by DrSpike
I don't want to be a doomsayer (I will buy Warlords for sure) but Civ x-packs/follow ups have a poor history. ToT was weak, FW weak. PTW's main new feature was hopelessly broken out of the box and if you weren't into MP it was basically just a patch with a few small new things. C3C was most promising - it added some new traits and bells and whistles, but also scenarios of dubious worth (check out my scenario thread) and rebroke the corruption model, with most of the problems never ever being fixed.

I know some had problems, but for me Civ4's release was exemplary, and the game polished.

However, we have to face the truth - it's hard to do good x-packs for Civ games. Can the Civ4 x-pack break the x-pack curse?

My guess is they wont break anything this time, but that the x-pack wont really be impressive. I'd like to be wrong though.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


As I wrote further down in my post, this game is pretty good as is.

Besides, I thought you didn't like Civ4. I knew you'd come around.

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
This game has enough civilizations, let new ones be made by the modders, it's their job. Just like scenarios. This game has enough units as well, even more so.

I don't agree with this. Modding is fine, but splits the community, and there is nothing at all bad about new professionally added civs/traits/units to the core game. Scenarios I can take or leave.

[Nugog]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Modding is fine, but splits the community, and there is nothing at all bad about new professionally added civs/traits/units to the core game. Scenarios I can take or leave.

New civs/traits/units + buildings are very cool.

Scenarios are not.........

[DrSpike]

Go and post that in my scenarios thread please.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by DrSpike
From another thread:

... ramblings about Civ3 XPs ... (deleted)

My guess is they wont break anything this time, but that the x-pack wont really be impressive. I'd like to be wrong though.

I don't know what they will break, but I should break your nose for mentioning C3C. I was happy to have overcome this scar in my mind.

Besides, I thought you didn't like Civ4. I knew you'd come around.

Why, I like it. I just don't play it as often as I played Civ3; not because it is worse (by God it is not!) but because my main interest has shifted to other genres. Which you should know, by the way. I'm playing Civ4 occasionally, I always have a huge marathon game running of which I play 3-5 turns per day. With this pace I really could care less if there is an expansion out or not, couldn't I?

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


I don't know what they will break, but I should break your nose for mentioning C3C. I was happy to have overcome this scar in my mind.

Well it wasn't like I was posting favourably. You should have left my ramblings.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph

Why, I like it. I just don't play it as often as I played Civ3; not because it is worse (by God it is not!) but because my main interest has shifted to other genres.

I knew this - I wasn't sure you did though.

[Dis]

war is fun.

but seriously, the OP has good points. And it is true. But I sometimes play game without getting into any wars the entire game. Although I don't play a high difficulty level. I wouldn't be able to win like this at higher diff. levels. I know you have to hit the financial civs early or they will smoke you in the end game.

[Dis]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Go and post that in my scenarios thread please.

where is a link to your scenarios thread? I love scenarios. scenarios are fun.

[DrSpike]

It's on the front page, helpfully entitled 'scenarios'.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Go and post that in my scenarios thread please.

Do you mean that scenario with cities like Ascalon, Lion's Arch, Droknar's Forge and Temple of Ages?

[zeace]

Originally posted by wardhali


What about the good old USA? the closest i can think of would be teddy Roosevelt with speak softly and carry a big stick. but genocides? Ruthless Militaristic? not words you think of when you think of USA...

Uhm, how about that whole slavery thing... It's not quite a genocide, but it was pretty ruthless.

[Prussia]

Listen, slavery was about as common back then as using a computer is today. Sure, it was cruel, and totally inhumane, but that is how society functioned, and some Blacks even accepted it, and moved on.

All the little American kids are just brainwashed how the United States was bad back then, and after we bombed the evil Japanese and caused 50 years of radiation along with thousands of deaths, we became the good guys, and had to fight other satanic countries like the SOVIETS, and the CUBANS, and the KOREANS, and the VIETNAMESE....OOOOHH!!!

[Dis]

our slavery wasn't as bad as other country's. .

We weren't the only country that had slaves. But we were a little slow in getting rid of them.

the indian thing was pretty bad, no way around it. Same with the mexican and spanish-american war. But you could argue the U.S. built up a substantial economic and industrial power base without warfare in the early part of the 20th century (and the latter part of the 19th century). I won't include ww1 since it was so short for the U.S. and iirc, the U.S. gained no territories from it.


All this was done through ruthless capitalism, not warfare.

You could argue in 1941 that the U.S. was not a major player, but it was. At least economically it was. We just didn't have the military to back us up. My point is, even before ww2, we were one of the big boys on the block, just not the biggest.

And then there was ww2. I won't argue that that didn't project us to the top, it did. But my point was we were pretty damn impressive in the late 19th and early 20th century as well.