Why BTS?

[Cort Haus]

Every one seems to be saying that it is far-and-away the best implementation, and I will eventually no-doubt find out for myself what it is like, but most of the new bits don't really appeal to me.

The Apostolic thingy sounds like a nuisance, ditto corporations. The new espionage model is perhaps more interesting, but at my modest level I find there are enough things to think about and divide my resources between, without having to 'build' access to the info graphs etc.

As I don't play that much, I still haven't exhausted all the Warlords civs and leaders, (and scenarios) so I'm not in a hurry to have loads more. Although I have to say, I'm fed up with nearly always getting Toku-grumpy-gawa next door, being by default more friendly with most of the AI than with me.

Does the better AI mean that it is pop-rushing loads of units early on, forcing me to do the same to keep parity? Or does it just mean that it plays more intelligently, easing some of the bonuses - especially the very cheap unit upgrades it gets?

The one thing I do like the sound of is the apparent ease of seeing who is the worst enemy without opening each leader a dozen times hoping they mention it. That drives me mad in vanilla/warlords. Another diplo gripe is the forced lose-lose diplo decisions that always mean a -1 somewhere, which I don't see the AI give each other ('you refused to ...'). Has that been corrected?

[Blaupanzer]

BTS is superior in every way, not only to Warlords (all those improvements are incorporated), but even to earlier versions such as Civ II. In fact, for me, it restores my enthusiasm as nothing since Civ II has done.

Corporations and the Apostolic Palace are meh changes, as you indicate. You have to work at it to master either one. How many dimensions can one human comprehend? However, the new espionage system is well thought out and implemented. It takes concentration to master, but adds to the play even with minimal attention. The new civs and leaders provide the opportunity to test trait combinations previously unavailable.

I'm not a big scenarios guy, but included are an outer space alternative and an RPG both based on the current Civ engine.

The map base has a wider variety, some seemingly designed with certain civs in mind (e.g., the Highlands map to go with the Celts). Similarly the "custom game" option gives the player greater control. Don't like Vassals, turn the option off. Added to this are random events that affect game play in somewhat random ways. Some events likelihood of occurance is dependent on your government and other civic postures or your state of technology.

[Dinner]

I have to admit that I only play Civ4 with all the expansions and I do find it a more fun game then just the base game or even the base game with Warlords.

[Arrian]

I like the additional leaders (my absolute favorite leader was new in BtS - Darius of Persia. ORG/FIN + immortals = Happy Arrian).

The Apolistic can be annoying, but I've yet to have a game really messed up by it. It can be nice too. There are other new wonders as well.

I don't like Corps. I don't often play games all the way out as it it, though. Plus, I often run State Property, which disables Corps (and generally just rocks). I'm neutral on vassals. It can be annoying when you're about to destroy an enemy and suddenly they capitulate to a 3rd party who then declares war on you.

I think they implemented espionage pretty well, though I personally don't like it much. It tends to be an annoyance for me as the AI blows things up or steals techs from me (if it can - I often play ORG civs and lots of early courthouses = lots of espionage points = quasi immunity). I do a piss poor job of using espionage against the AI, which is my fault, not BtS's. When I do remember to use it, I have gotten some real benifit from it. Even the passive use of it (if you have a good enough ratio with a civ, you will see what they're researching & the # of turns until completion) can be very useful.

Random events & quests are a mixed bag. Some of them are genuinely cool & fun (build X libraries before someone else, receive bonus! Build X units before entering Y era, receive bonus! Suffer some unhappiness and possibly pop loss now, receive major health benifit that will be nice later!). Some of them suck (It's 2500 BC: deal with 4 barbarian archers who have magically appeared 2 tiles from your capital - haha, you're dead! Your cattle pasture - the only improvement you've made so far, was just destroyed by tornadoes! You feelin' the FUN?!).

The AI isn't a dramatic change, IMO. I don't think you will all of a sudden be forced to play like you're Stalin in 1941.

There are some new map scrips. In particular, I think the Hemispheres script is BtS-only. That quickly became my favorite.

-Arrian

[Krill]

Basically, I play BtS (or used to, now I start it up, play 50 turns, then close it down) with vasslas off, events off and no diplo victory; this completely removes the really unfun stuff.

The espionage system got revitalised, and totally broken IMO (you can't feasibly protect yourself against it in the early game). There is an option to turn it off though.

Siege got changed (again)...with collateral damage added to mounted units, and focussed onto siege, so in an intelligent game against humans the defender always wins if they are good. Against the AI it's also fairly abusable but not that bad, ie not much worse than how it was in vanilla and warlods really, so not a problem if not playing MP.

Corps are just a mechanic to turn gold back into other stuff like food/hammers/beakers/culture, nothing more really.

[Arrian]

Was it in BtS that they changed siege such that siege weapons can't kill things, or was that earlier?

I remember until that change I'd often launch invasions with 90% cats (backed by an axe or two).

-Arrian

[rah]

Yes, the difference with seige engines and flank attacks totally changed the warfare.
That and the removal of a working colateral damage promotion for tanks. (I really miss that one, so much so that I still sometimes use the promotion even though it doesn't do anything. )

[Traianvs]

BtS = more variety

And more variety means more fun. Vanilla civ got boring after a while because I had seen it all after a while. In BtS there are so much more options and strategies to play that I don't get tired of it anymore. I don't play that often of course, so it might feel different to other people who have gone at length to master every detail of the game.

I have the feeling the AI is much stronger in general. Previously I could only get beaten down through conquest, but not anymore in BtS.

[joncnunn]

I hope the AI doesn't miss it so much that it wastes promotions on it on 3.13. (That's the patch that introduced the change).

I've been playing the unofficial patch; I might try the new Better AI after I complete my current one; it's currently on hold since an unexpected war broke out and I want some time to think about how I want to fight this modern era overseas war.

Was it in BtS that they changed siege such that siege weapons can't kill things, or was that earlier?

I remember until that change I'd often launch invasions with 90% cats (backed by an axe or two).

-Arrian

[Rempedaalops]

Every one seems to be saying that it is far-and-away the best implementation, and I will eventually no-doubt find out for myself what it is like, but most of the new bits don't really appeal to me.

Well, judging from your posts and all, and the icons underneath your name, you're quite the Civ-fan. I would think that being a fan, you should check it out regardless of what you heard or read. It's like being fan of a band. You at least listen to their new cd a few times before deciding whether you like it or not, right? Same with BtS. And if you don't like it, sell it on eBay

[Cort Haus]

I actually bought it a while back, but hadn't played any civ for ages and couldn't be bothered to install it. I stated at the top that I'd find out myself soon enough but I was curious about other people's views. Meanwhile, I had a couple of old Warlords games I wanted to finish off first.

Having read those views, and the hilarious comments in the copycat thread it seems that my thoughts on the main new features is basically correct. Apart from the espionage, the best thing about them is that you can switch them off.

Other than that, it's a few tweaks, plus new leader combos (not that I'd got anywhere near playing all the previous ones) and scenarios. As I said above, the prospect of not getting Toku next door every game is appealing, so I look forward to that, and also knowing who everyone's worst enemy is.

[eris]

I have to speak up as someone who likes the features in BTS that everyone else seems to hate. The Apostolic Palace allows diplomatic manipulation like the UN never did. Espionage is a great challenge, which I know I am not handling as well as I should, but I'm working on it. Corporations are fun but seem to only cement leads that already existed, so I don't think they break things. Vassals are great, especially when my intended victim sells himself out in Vassalage to my best friend, and then I have some very interesting military and political decisions to make. Brilliant! The events are a nice flavor addition, except, of course, for the Barbarian Invasion, which I have to agree sucks dry dusty rocks.

So BTS is quite the attraction to some people, on the new features as well as better AI and the new leaders. (I like the variety in opponents now.) As someone else said, if you are a fan of the series, you really should try it. You may end up despising it, but that is a decision you should rally make for yourself.

[Cort Haus]

There was never any question that I would be making that decision for myself, Eris. I just wanted to see some discussion.