1UP published their review (http://www.1up.com/do/reviewPage?cId=3152799&did=1) of Civ4 Warlords yesterday, giving the expansion 8 out of 10 score. Here is the verdict:

Regardless of the impression this makes, or the relatively minor effects of some of the changes, Warlords still manages to do what any good expansion pack should: generate excitement about a game that you might have left behind to play newer games. If you enjoyed your time with what was undoubtedly the best strategy game of 2005, but eventually moved on to other things, Warlords is enough to get you hooked all over again.

Sorry to disagree. While maybe more visually sophisticated than CIV 3's "Rise of the Roman Empire" , I find Conquests a better gaming investment. Any modder on this site can do much better and exciting mods and senarios than "Borelords"!
To me it's a total waste of coinage. I like the Roman Empire era and wish someone would do a great mod based on the CIV 3 model. I enjoy building and defending and expanding my empire, but all great leaders and warlords know these advances must be strategically opportune. Rome wasn't built in 200 turns.
I found nothing to excite me in this expansion including the other scenarios.
Pale Rider

You dont play Civ4 multiplayergames do you? cause the game is totaly diffrent there after warlords. I think WLs has its strenghts in MP, not SP. Maybe thats the only reason they put in those scenarios at all, to give the SP something, too :D

The eras flow smoothly into each other now cause everything is more rounded and this leads to a way more entertaining gameplay.

I like the Roman Empire era and wish someone would do a great mod based on the CIV 3 model. I enjoy building and defending and expanding my empire, but all great leaders and warlords know these advances must be strategically opportune. Rome wasn't built in 200 turns.
You should check out "The Ancient Mediterranean"-mod (see forums), I think it has everything you could possibly ask for when it comes to Roman Empire-building. :)