Apolyton Warlords Review by Solver

[Blaupanzer]

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]

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]

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]

Very nicely well done.

[DrSpike]

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

[Solver]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Great review - thanks Solver!

[LordTheRon]

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]

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.