Apolyton Warlords Review by Solver

[DrSpike]

/me bows.

[Randolph]

Thanks padillah

[monkspider]

Personally, I feel that Warlords is the greatest expansion pack in Civilization history by far. I think that Solver's criticism of it's lack of fundamental changes to the core game is reasonable, but I find that Civilization IV's core gameplay is so strong, there is no need for a significant number of changes. I think that the vassal state concept was executed geniusly and is indeed the game's greatest addition but I don't feel that Civ IV needs a large number of changes on that scale in every XP.

In addition to Vassal States (which again, are just pure genius) If you look at the number of things that Warlords includes, it's completely unprecedented:
-Six new civs
-Four new leaders for the existing civs
-Three new leader traits
-Great Generals
-Unique buildings for all civs
-Three new wonders
-Two new units to address some of the holes in certain periods of warfare
-New music (The new tunes are great! I love being surprised by a new piece in the middle of a game.)
-Improved AI
-Various UI improvements (most notably, for stacking units)
-Balancing changes: Chariots get bonus against axement (w00t!), Redcoats and Cossacks nerfed, etc)


To me, that is a very, very impressive set of additional content for an expansion pack. And that was just changes to the core game, that is to say nothing of the eight scenarios, all of which seem very well-crafted and are almost like new games unto themselves. In any event, they should be fun diversions from the core game.

So, to the extent that Solver criticizes Warlords for not bringing enough to the table as an expansion pack, I have to respectfully disagree. Perhaps Solver has been involved in the project too long to fully appreciate the extent of the changes. I do agree with him on being disappointed that certain weaknesses in the core game weren't addressed (modern warfare, expanded UN, etc). It was unfortunate that these problems weren't fixed, but we can hope that Firaxis will take a look at them in a future XP.

My main criticisms are that the new leader traits were poorly dispersed (Cyrus is Imperialistic/Charismatic and not Napoleon? Julius Caesar is imperialistic? Mao is expansive? and that the unique buildings were balanced poorly. Some of the UBs are clearly very weak (Odeon and Mall in particular) and Firaxis doesn't seem to appreciate the disadvantage that the late UBs have compared to the early ones which may have been rewarding their host civ for several hundred turns by the time, say, America gets their malls. In the case of the mausoleum vs. hamam,, there is no question at all which building is better since they give the exact same benefits, yet the hamamm is available far earlier! This should have been caught by someone and addressed.

Overall however, I congratulate Firaxis and the testers for delivering a blockbuster expansion and I highly recemend it to all, *especially* the hardcore Civ fans. Anyway, that is just my fanboyish review.

[CarnalCanaan]

I finally got around to reading the review and would like to give my kudos. Much deeper than any other review.

There is but one criticism I can make: Solver encourages the "hardcore" civvers to wait for a price cut. But the next XP won't happen if this one sells at a razor-thin margin.

Nonetheless, I applaud your willingness to give free advice before free advertisement.

[saad_23]

Isnt there any thread to report bugs in Warlords?? did any1 come across the Mehmed Leaderhead problem?? if u did pleaz post here and tell me how to get around with it.........pleazz.

thanks.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by monkspider
Personally, I feel that Warlords is the greatest expansion pack in Civilization history by far. I think that Solver's criticism of it's lack of fundamental changes to the core game is reasonable, but I find that Civilization IV's core gameplay is so strong, there is no need for a significant number of changes. I think that the vassal state concept was executed geniusly and is indeed the game's greatest addition but I don't feel that Civ IV needs a large number of changes on that scale in every XP.

In addition to Vassal States (which again, are just pure genius) If you look at the number of things that Warlords includes, it's completely unprecedented:
-Six new civs
-Four new leaders for the existing civs
-Three new leader traits
-Great Generals
-Unique buildings for all civs
-Three new wonders
-Two new units to address some of the holes in certain periods of warfare
-New music (The new tunes are great! I love being surprised by a new piece in the middle of a game.)
-Improved AI
-Various UI improvements (most notably, for stacking units)
-Balancing changes: Chariots get bonus against axement (w00t!), Redcoats and Cossacks nerfed, etc)


To me, that is a very, very impressive set of additional content for an expansion pack. And that was just changes to the core game, that is to say nothing of the eight scenarios, all of which seem very well-crafted and are almost like new games unto themselves. In any event, they should be fun diversions from the core game.

So, to the extent that Solver criticizes Warlords for not bringing enough to the table as an expansion pack, I have to respectfully disagree. Perhaps Solver has been involved in the project too long to fully appreciate the extent of the changes. I do agree with him on being disappointed that certain weaknesses in the core game weren't addressed (modern warfare, expanded UN, etc). It was unfortunate that these problems weren't fixed, but we can hope that Firaxis will take a look at them in a future XP.

I think your expectations seem to be quite low.

Basically if you look at the game we have now 80% of it was in the original game (I'm feeling generous). The x-pack was about £5 less than the original game for me.

You criticise the UBs for lack of balance. From the sounds of it you have a point, though I haven't had enough time to form considered views on Warlords balance yet. Since this was one of the few additions (ie in the 20%) shouldn't it be better balanced?

Overall I'm not knocking Warlords as my main desire was from them to not screw up Civ4 like C3C screwed Civ3. But if you to ask me in a few weeks my overall satisfaction with the original game and the x-pack I think I would probably say original game very high, x-pack fine but nothing special. This means I agree with Solver.

[monkspider]

Maybe I am just easy to please.

I do agree that the UBs should have been better balanced, and in my opinion Firaxis and the testing team did an uncharacteristically bad job. Like I mentioned above, I just don't think they quite grasped the advantage an earlier UB has over a later one that offers similar bonuses. Since this is their first stab at trying to offer UBs in a Civ game, I suppose this can be forgiven to some extent. The first time we saw UUs in Vanilla Civ III, they were pretty badly balanced too. But still, the hamam vs mausoleum situation was just shamelessly bad and I'm shocked no one ever tried to correct this.

[Solver]

I'm glad you're enjoying the game, Monkspider. I have to disagree about this part, though:

Perhaps Solver has been involved in the project too long to fully appreciate the extent of the changes.

I think it's quite to the contrary. Since I see how the game develops, see intermediate results, and see what problems come up during development and how hard they may be to fix, I think it makes me appreciate the end result more in the end.

I fully agree that the core gameplay of Civ4 is very strong. And thankfully, it means that the game didn't need an XP to fix what should have been in it at first. That's great. But to me, strategic depth matters. And that's where my main criticism lies, Warlords doesn't add a lot of that. To me, new civs and leaders are a nearly worthless addition in itself, because the strategic depth doesn't increase from those. Vassal states are a much better addition, and probably the most interesting thing about this expansion - in the games when they DO play out interestingly, it's great.

But again, I'm glad you're enjoying it, and I never said Warlords is a worthless expansion .

[MoonWolf]

I didn't know that Charismatic had a -25% XP required for promotions (haven't seen it in the manual). Nice to know, I think I'll try that one next time I'll start a new game

[Palpster]

Excellent review, my compliments.

[Solver]

Thank you

[=DrJambo=]

Yes, it was a good review and pretty much spot on the mark for me. I'd agree that vassal states are one of the most interesting additions, but to really get them to play out you need to have the Aggressive AI option ON. Otherwise, there are too many games where the AI civs, regardless of who they are, will just sit and build happily away until 2050..

In fact without Aggressive AI on, Civ IV takes on a remarkably different and somewhat disappointing and boring complexion. The irony of it is that even with Aggressive AI option on it's still possible to do all the diplomatic stuff that one might normally do anyway.

Solver, question for you - does the 'Shuffle' map type also include Terra maps in the random selection?

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by monkspider

I do agree that the UBs should have been better balanced, and in my opinion Firaxis and the testing team did an uncharacteristically bad job.

I want to emphasize that it's not important, or even desirable, that the UBs be balanced. (Except perhaps for the minority of players who play multiplayer.) Variety is good. One of the things I don't like about Warlords is the nerfs to some of the UUs, that make them less interesting, in the name of "balance".

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by Solver
Castles give more defense, hence possibly more time needed to bombard.

No. Regardless of the level of your city defense, the time to bombard it down to zero is the same. (A flaw in Civ4, imho.)

Comparing a CR3 Trebuchet with a CG2 Longbowman is not fair. If you want to compare, use the same number of promotions.

I strongly disagree. The attacker is usually on a war footing and will make much greater efforts to give experience to his units, e.g., by choice of civics. The defender will generally be not on a war footing and will have non-military civics. I think it's completely appropriate and normal to assume that attacking units will have +1 promotion over defenders.

A CR3 Trebuchet isn't easy to get, you can't make one, you need to win battles with it.

Charismatic leaders can make CR3 Trebuchets pretty easily. Even a non-Charismatic leader can promote several to CR3 with a single warlord. But you can also just build them at CR2 and many of them will win battles quickly.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by DaviddesJ


I want to emphasize that it's not important, or even desirable, that the UBs be balanced. (Except perhaps for the minority of players who play multiplayer.) Variety is good. One of the things I don't like about Warlords is the nerfs to some of the UUs, that make them less interesting, in the name of "balance".

On the contrary it is both important and desirable that the game be balanced. The UBs are part of this though a strong one can offset weakness elsewhere so needn't be balanced per se. The Civ needs to be balanced though.

You say you like variety, but fail to see that lack of variety often stems from imbalance. A well balanced game offers the most strategic depth and the most ways of achieving a given goal. It also doesn't have civs with major advantages.

In SP as well as MP, balance is everything.