For those thinking of getting Warlords

[Willem]

Originally posted by Proteus_MST
I agree that they could have introduced more changes into the addon, but with the 3 new traits, the UBs, the new wonders (especially the great wall) and the great generals and the 2 new units (especially the Trebuchet, a real powerful siege weapon) you have a lot of material which can make it worthwile to change your strategies.

If you don't mind doing a bit of modding, there's also 3 new resources you can add and a Shipyard building. Plus a few more buildings that are a bit too Oriental looking for all civs IMO.

So generally I disagree that the addon isn´t worth the money. I for my part can say that I´m glad that I have bought it.

Likewise. I think having Vassal states in the game alone are worth getting the XP for. And that's not something that any casual modder is likely to come up with. Granted that there's not alot of new things in this XP, but what there is adds alot to the game IMO.

[MasterDave]

I think Warlords is worth the money. Hell, the amount of hours I have played Civ4 compared with 97% of the other games I buy (with a shelf life of a month to six weeks usually before they get boring), Civ 4, even with an extra $25 for the expansion, is well worth the money.

I only wish I could get as many hours of entertainment from $75 total spent more often....

[mkorin]

I guess I wasn't clear in my first post. Yes, the $75 of entertainment is nothing for the hours, hecks days of enjoyment I get from Civ. My point is I would rather pay $75 up front for a complete game then all the hype and repurchasing for basically bells and wishtles. Warlords does not compare favorably to the hype, nor does it add significantly to the game.

Having said that, I started a new game at lunch today and randomly got Churchill. I will continue to play Civ, and enjoy myself. I am just disapointed with the expansion.

[alexman]

Originally posted by Blake
The AI simply can't use Great Generals (as per my Great Comedians thread, were the AI does pretty much EVERYTHING wrong with one)

Link to that thread, and/or a save, please?

They also work differently for the AI and Human:
AI accepts a vassal at war with the Human - Human is forced into war with the AI.
Human accepts a vassal at war with the AI - AI is forced into peace with the Human.

Are you sure about this?
Capitulation should force the vassal into the war/peace state of the master. Peaceful vassalage should result in master and vassal at war with any civ that was at war with either the master or the vassal. If you have any examples (saves) where the above is not true, I would love to see them!

[Common Sensei]

Originally posted by mkorin
I guess I wasn't clear in my first post. Yes, the $75 of entertainment is nothing for the hours, hecks days of enjoyment I get from Civ. My point is I would rather pay $75 up front for a complete game then all the hype and repurchasing for basically bells and wishtles. Warlords does not compare favorably to the hype, nor does it add significantly to the game.

Most people, though, would look at a $75 PC game and pass, no matter how good the game was. Would The Sims have been as popular if they held off release for another two years and released it in "full-featured" form for $200 up front? Because development timeframes don't often jive with quarterly revenue milestones, it seems that game companies will continue to use (and borderline abuse, in the case of The Sims) expansion packs for popular games.

[rah]

I too liked it as two products because you didn't have to shell out the extra 25 untill you learned it wasn't a dog.
I didn't spend and extra dime after III.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by alexman

Link to that thread, and/or a save, please?

Great Comedians thread:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=155616

[monkspider]

I'm confident the Warlords AI will get patched up quite a bit in short order. Consider how much better the AI is in 1.61 compared to 1.0!

[TheArsenal]

Originally posted by alexman

Link to that thread, and/or a save, please?


Are you sure about this?
Capitulation should force the vassal into the war/peace state of the master. Peaceful vassalage should result in master and vassal at war with any civ that was at war with either the master or the vassal. If you have any examples (saves) where the above is not true, I would love to see them!

But I have had, on at least two occasions, an AI I was at war with peacefully align itself to another AI through vassalage, and had myself entered into a “forced peace”. Peace was declared, my units bounced out of the territory, war over. I was the only nation at war with the AI at the time.

I will look for a save when I get home. I'm sure I have one.

[rah]

Yesterday, I stole a vassal of a state that I was at war with, and he immediately declared war on his ex-master. I thought it was fitting. Then, the next turn the ex-master capitulated to me and the vassal declared peace, and the game ended (domination).

[TheArsenal]

I have a guess about the vassal mechanism – can anyone else confirm/deny this at least anecdotally? It appears (again a guess) that an AI being attacked will not enter into vassalage until after the first turn it returns to “speaking terms” with you, which is the first turn you can sue for peace. Any war continued past this point risks the chance of the AI entering into vassalage. Any point before this, the human player seems to be on safe ground.

[yin26]

There are clearly some vassal issues to work out, but I've been pretty vocal about how much I think it adds to the game. I posted something about that on Gamespot, too. http://www.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/...html?id=343812

I don't say anything you haven't already heard at Poly, but if you're reading this wondering about Warlords, it might worth a read.

[Blake]

Originally posted by alexman

Link to that thread, and/or a save, please?


Are you sure about this?
Capitulation should force the vassal into the war/peace state of the master. Peaceful vassalage should result in master and vassal at war with any civ that was at war with either the master or the vassal. If you have any examples (saves) where the above is not true, I would love to see them!

Sorry, I was posting under the influence of insomnia and actually realized I was wrong right as I turned the computer off... and didn't feel like booting it back up to edit my post .

Of course it seems that the overwhelming amount of the time the Human can only get the AI to capitulate while the AI's will often "peacefully" capipulate to other AI's. I suppose this is mostly a playstyle thing, I guess a frightened AI seeks a power leader, which at higher difficulties will invariably be an AI, even if a human with lower power could take on two such AI's simultaneously.

In fact maybe I can make it a personal challenge to myself to get an AI to come to *me* for help against another AI.

But still I think my point is correct that the vassalage behaivour is mostly asymetrical with respect to the player vs AI's.

And anyway I've yet to actually be challenged by a new master coming in to war. This is because I've already defeated the vassals armies (and generated some GG's) and have the vassals cities to poprush troops out of so I'm pretty much ready to beat up the new master - sure I may be a bit hurried along, but the lack of diplomatic penalties for the new war make up for that. Makes it easier to have allies to bribe into the war.

[Stuie]

Originally posted by Blake

Sorry, I was posting under the influence of insomnia and actually realized I was wrong right as I turned the computer off...

[Tacit_Exit]

Right meaning 'exactly' rather than 'correct'?