Apolyton Warlords Review by Solver

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by DrSpike

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.

This is completely wrong. As wrong as wrong can get. If some civs are better than others, that doesn't reduce variety in any way. I can play different civs, they have different advantages and disadvantages, some are best played in one way and some in another. If I have a weaker civ, or I face stronger civs, I may have a more difficult challenge, or lose. If I have a stronger civ, I may triumph easily but still have to work to achieve the best possible score or victory condition. This is variety. It's all good.

In SP as well as MP, balance is everything.

Does that mean we must abolish all difficulty levels? After all, Noble is easier than Emperor. The difficulty levels are wildly unbalanced.

[DrSpike]

Civ balance is predominantly (but not exclusively) necessary for MP. In SP there is more flexibility. One extreme is a game that attempts to replicate a more realistic situation where there are powerful civs/nations and struggling civs/nations, and give the option of which to choose. The other extreme is aiming for a situation where the civs, whilst having different strengths, are reasonable close in terms of overall power.

Civ has always chosen to be towards the latter of the 2 situations. In my view, and the view of many others around here I'm sure, that is the most appropriate choice - civ players like to form what happens not be driven by inherent advantages (even if there are differences). It's not just about the player either - with an obviously powerful civ this limits even further than the existing situation the AIs that will rise to the top of the pack.

Ultimately though, the choice of which model is best from the 2 above is subjective, and thus saying you prefer one or the other cannot be completely wrong. You might like to bear that in mind in future. You might also consider playing games that suit your specifications better, like the paradox games.

Lastly, I do not consider your final point worth responding to, I'm afraid. Feel free to post it again in a more balanced post if you still don't understand after you have reflected more.

Regards

Doc

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by DrSpike

You might also consider playing games that suit your specifications better, like the paradox games.

Civ4 fits my specifications fine. The civs aren't very balanced, the game favors variety over balance, which is exactly what I like. You are the one who was complaining about Civ4 (and Warlords). I like it as it is (except that the trebuchets are broken).

Lastly, I do not consider your final point worth responding to, I'm afraid.

It doesn't bother me if you don't want to respond. I think everyone else reading understands the point: the game wouldn't have explicit handicap options, which obviously confer advantages or disadvantages, if everyone wanted all sides to always be exactly balanced.

[padillah]

And the "Strategy" layer gets saved!!!!!

Unfortunately the grid goes away in global zoom.

But that I can live with, the strategy layer is worth $20 to me.

Tom P.

[couerdelion]

I have yet to see where it says that Charismatic get either +25% XP or cheaper promotions – the effect is different and will also affect GG emergence.

The other thing I noted was the review comment about Warlord units getting +50% XP. I can see that there is a leadership promotion option but this is not the same as a vanilla warlord unit gaining +50% XP – and I have already argued that this promotion seems to be a poor choice.

One other thing I noted on the review was the comments about Trebuchets. I’m with those who dislike the new toy for several reasons. The first is that it imbalances the game a little. Previously you go a long way simply by throwing Cats at cities and relying on retreats and collateral for them to batter their way through. Even with stronger units, cats could do a decent job of taking out a strong defensive group. Now with Trebs, it’s even easier so for most of the game, your strongest city assault unit will be some bulky machine for hurling rocks at the city.

Which leads me to my second problem with the new unit – it’s just not realistic for a siege weapon to be used as an assault unit. Given that the combat algorithm in CivIV is not that great anyway, this is perhaps a less important point.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by DaviddesJ
I think everyone else reading understands the point: the game wouldn't have explicit handicap options, which obviously confer advantages or disadvantages, if everyone wanted all sides to always be exactly balanced.

Balanced doesn't mean equal - it means strength in different areas. I disagree that inherantly weaker and stronger Civs are the same as different difficulty levels.

I prefer balance across UU's (and UB's), and across the different branches of the tech tree. That is what offers strategic depth - eg: the choice between a religious path and an economic one.

Civ 3 had numerous examples of imbalance, with overpowered traits like IND in vanilla then AGR in C3C, with killer UU's (immortal) and crap UU's (F117). If you like that, fine - but not everyone does.

[Cort Haus]

From Solver's review ...

The Russian Research Institute, for example, gives 2 free scientists, which is a very good bonus, but seeing how the building replaces Laboratory, it just becomes something to extend your lead.

Hmmm, this does assume that the game is already won by the time Computers are researched, which strikes me as odd.

That building looks good for OCC, where two free scientists would come in very handy for the space race.

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by Cort Haus

Balanced doesn't mean equal - it means strength in different areas. I disagree that inherantly weaker and stronger Civs are the same as different difficulty levels.

What's the difference between playing a weaker civ, and playing a higher difficulty level? I really don't get it. To me, the variation in the strength of the civs plays a really useful role in "splitting the difference" between levels. E.g., depending on the map settings, playing one of the best civs at Emperor might be a relatively small step up from playing one of the worst civs at Monarch. You also have the opportunity to meet stronger and weaker opponents, which is also good, although this is less of a factor than it could be because the AI doesn't use the civ's advantages all that well.

[padillah]

I think what CH is getting at is that they are not the same thing. First off, you're "best" civ may not be my best civ, thus it's different than changing difficulty.

Second, there may be a difference in "fun" between playing with an emotionally attached civ (I happen to play the Celts out of sheer bloody-mindedness) the difficulty levels allow for this while changing civs doesn't.

Also, there's the inherent differences in the civs which is not replicated by increasing difficulty levels. Playing Brennus and beating Cyrus at Noble doesn't have the same feeling as playing Cesar and beating Louis.

Mostly I think he was refering to the last point. Playing as any given civ is not the same as playing as some other civ at a different difficulty. In a "feel of the game" kind of way.

Tom P.

[DaviddesJ]

Originally posted by padillah
I think what CH is getting at is that they are not the same thing. First off, you're "best" civ may not be my best civ, thus it's different than changing difficulty.

It seems like a plus, not a minus, that different players attach different value to different civs, depending on their attitudes and preferred style of play. That just creates even more options. You seem to be implying that it would be better if a single civ were clearly preferred to another by everyone, but I don't see how that would be an improvement.

Your statements about people being attached to particular civs or leaders makes sense, but, one of the main strengths of Civ4 is that it's very easy to change a civilization or leader's traits to whatever you want them to be.

[dacole]

interesting

I felt like the vassal states and such should have been included in the begining. As it stands the vanilla game was very imblanced in favor of economic or cultural victory rather than millitary victory. Unless you were playing on an island map with only 1 other civ acheiving a millitary victory was nearly impossible. The addition of generals and vassal states (the vassal states being taken directly from alpha centauri which I still feel is a better game) at least makes the millitary option a little more plausible.

[Adagio]

Originally posted by dacole
As it stands the vanilla game was very imblanced in favor of economic or cultural victory rather than millitary victory.

I felt the exact opposite, the game was very imbalanced in favor of military victory, and with the expansion it only got worse

[Solver]

I don't know why say Civ4 was unbalanced in favour of military victories. I've certainly won most of my games through Spaceship or Diplomacy - I find Domination harder to achieve.

[Adagio]

Ok, agreed, diplomacy is extremely easy to win, but only because of military, which kills the point of the diplomacy victory IMHO

[Solver]

Nah, you can win by diplomacy by actually being friends. Eliminate one civ, that's enough.