Should we use the Warlords expansion for this DG?

What about using a mod?

Please post your desires on these issues.

I have Warlords so using it is fine with me. I also don't mind using the plain [civ4] version. If we use the plain [civ4] version we can use the map finder utility to find a good start!

I suggest we use the HoF mod whether we use Warlords or [civ4]. Hey, maybe we can submit the game to the HoF when we're done! (I'm not sure if the HoF rules would allow it or not but it's worth thinking about.)

Warlords or Vanilla, I'm fine with both, but personally I prefer Warlords. But there are potential participation issues with that...

I suggest we use Warlords now, because it will probably interest more people that are new to the game. After all, who would want to join a game as a new member if it's on a different version of the game they aren't using? It's too much of a hassle, not to mention the fact that we can try out one of the mods.

I don't think we should use the HoF mod - we can trust each other not to cheat, not to mention the fact that the HoF mod limits other user-created mods.

Unmodded Warlords sounds about right to me.

Unmodded Warlords.

warlords is way cooler, vassle states are the ****!

Personally, I prefer Warlords and would find the HoF mod acceptable.

Putting on my moderator hat, if anyone has an issue with Warlords but doesn't feel comfortable airing it publically, PM one of the DG mods. We'll state your case anonymously.

Plain.

Don't have Warlords, and don't plan on purchasing it.

-- Ravensfire

I'd like to put in one more plug for the HoF mod and Warlords. (Sorry, Ravensfire.) If we play on a standard map at prince level (the middle difficulty level) the current Hall of Fame dates for Diplomatic victory is 1548 AD, for cultural victory is 1630 AD and for spaceship victory is 1633 AD. We'd have goals to shoot for and I see nothing in the HoF rules that say the game could not be submitted. After the drubbing in the last game we need to redeem ourselves and go for the gold. Let's try for an HoF level game guys.

Vanilla
I'd support HoF-mod, I use it anyway.

Warlords!!!!

old thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=196848)

Ffh??? Or Rhyes and fall of civs, that would be great gameplay!

and 100's of mb's to download :sad:
I think most people agreed last time that having a mod wouldn't be too good, as it's harder to recruit people when we're playing a mod.

if you announce at the ffh forum, im sure like 20 people will yoin...

if you announce at the ffh forum, im sure like 20 people will yoin...

What's ffh?

One thing we look at each game is how game parameters will exclude people, if any. If a large download excludes a bunch of people, and the idea of playing a "different" game excludes some more who could download but would rather not play it, that would probably offset gains from enthusiasts.

I don't mean to stifle conversation, just making sure the necessary considerations are included.

Fall from Heaven
It's a mod.

warlords, unmodded

Plain.

Don't have Warlords, and don't plan on purchasing it.

-- Ravensfire

Ditto.

However, from everything that I've read Warlords is a better game than Vanilla, and my impression is that virtually everyone that owns both plays almost exclusively on Warlords. Warlords might be the more logical choice.

. . . If we play on a standard map at prince level (the middle difficulty level) the current Hall of Fame dates for Diplomatic victory is 1548 AD, for cultural victory is 1630 AD and for spaceship victory is 1633 AD. We'd have goals to shoot for . . .
The virtue of this idea is it helps us set a goal early in the game. I find the game more fun if I'm working towards a specific victory type/goal.

I've not downloaded the HOF mod. My computer barely runs the game as it is; would the HOF mod add to performance difficulties?

Hey, maybe we can submit the game to the HoF when we're done! (I'm not sure if the HoF rules would allow it or not but it's worth thinking about.)

I see nothing in the HoF rules that say the game could not be submitted.

It's against HoF Rules.

Source (http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/rules.php)

Game Type

Single Player only.

I agree on using the HoF mod, for either version. I'd prefer Warlords though, as the AI is much better.

I've not downloaded the HOF mod. My computer barely runs the game as it is; would the HOF mod add to performance difficulties?

Not noticeably at least. Though it might depend on which options you're using.

Vanilla because Warlords players can play vanilla but vanilla players can't play Warlords

Warlords > better AI, bit more opponents variety and the great generals would add another dimension to a rpg like this. Preferably with HoF mod for the detailed info's you get from domestic/foreign advisor + the extra [civ4]alerts to make "life" easier.

A suggestion, I believe we should start a separate discussion on whether or not to use the HoF mod. The HoF mod can be used in either Vanilla or Warlords so has no standing on which version we play.

I'm kind of torn between Warlords and Vanilla. Although I advocate for no mods.

I think before we decide, we should have an opinion poll that asks:

How would you respond to playing the DemoGame on Warlords?

-I would be more active than if we used Vanilla.
-I would be just as active as if we used Vanilla.
-I would not be as active as if we used Vanilla.
-I would not participate in the DemoGame at all.

It's against HoF Rules.

Source (http://hof.civfanatics.net/civ4/rules.php)



I agree on using the HoF mod, for either version. I'd prefer Warlords though, as the AI is much better.

I thought that meant we have to play a single player version (not multi-player).

I don't have Warlords, so obviously I'd prefer vanilla.

If the majority thinks otherwise, I understand, though. :)

I thought that meant we have to play a single player version (not multi-player).

No. About a year or two ago I asked the HoF Staff if we could play an SG and submit that game to the HoF Tables. They stated that no, as it wouldn't fulfill the single player version.

I'll see if I can find that thread again.

Found it. The thread is Would an HoF attempt by SG be allowed? (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=157390)

Here's the game attempt thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=157561) just for curiosities sake.

I don't have warlords, but I can see definate advantages to using it in the game... It seems to be considered better, and more played.... But this'd probably be better resolved by a poll?

An opinion poll has been posted here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=205663

I agree with tonyf12, unmodded vanilla. In this way, the most number of people can participate (as tonyf12 has said).

Vanilla. Not everybody owns Warlords.

Thanks for the link about single player HoF submissions. It's kind of sad.

Thanks for the link about single player HoF submissions. It's kind of sad.

I agree. At least Superslug was willing to consider it if enough interest was there.

After much consideration on the subject, and seeing how many people don't have Warlords, I would like to very strongly suggest that we stick with vanilla Civ4.

After much consideration on the subject, and seeing how many people don't have Warlords, I would like to very strongly suggest that we stick with vanilla Civ4.Same here, seeing as we might lose a significant amount of participation.

After much consideration on the subject, and seeing how many people don't have Warlords, I would like to very strongly suggest that we stick with vanilla Civ4.
Perhaps with a version of (Blake's) Better AI?
Vanilla overall is fine but I'd miss the tweaks to the AI.

Staying on vanilla would be much preferred.

I don't have warlords, but may buy it in a few months.

After much consideration on the subject, and seeing how many people don't have Warlords, I would like to very strongly suggest that we stick with vanilla Civ4.

I prefer Warlords but using plain [civ4] will not drive me from the game. (Sorry folks.)

This seems pretty decided, then?

I prefer Warlords but using plain [civ4] will not drive me from the game. (Sorry folks.)

Same for me, easy enough to play Vanilla when you've got Warlords, but I do personally prefer Warlords' features.

i prefer the neatness and difficulty of warlords but i fully understand the plight of users without it so i will play either vanilla or warlords :)

I will play any.

Best regards,

Unmodded Warlords.

:king: We need to evolve, sorry for those who doesn't own the game, but this expansion is really neat!

I think this is more than ready to be (re)polled ...How's this?

Should we play the demogame using Vanilla Civilisation IV or the Warlords Expansion?

Vanilla
Warlords
Abstain

I think this is more than ready to be (re)polled ...How's this?
Should we play the demogame using Vanilla Civilisation IV or the Warlords Expansion?
Vanilla
Warlords
Abstain
nothing more nothing less
let's do it.

After much consideration on the subject, and seeing how many people don't have Warlords, I would like to very strongly suggest that we stick with vanilla Civ4.

I think we should go along this line.........

I agree with vanilla civ4

more people has vanilla