Subtle changes from 1.61 to Warlords

I haven't read the Warlords manual so I don't know for sure, but have there been a few subtle changes made with Warlords? I've seen people mention them in a couple of threads, like a change to the Musketeer? Red coat being nerfed from 18 Str to 14 (or was that 1.61?). And the introduction of Guerilla III + 20% percent hills attack.

Does anybody know where I can find more? or do you know of anymore? Feel free to post.

Here's a good place to start.

there is no information on CF warlords info center that talk about 50_dollar_bag's subtle changes from vanilla 1.61 to warlords...

i've heard about a change to kossaks strength (big nef if i remember well)

someone knows?

Cossack is less powerful
I believe redcoat is less powerful
Various leaders traits have changed
A fort can be built on top of forest and city defence and attack promos now work on forts.
The obilisk is now a monument
The guerilla III promo exists
Chariots now +100% against axemen
Barracks are cheaper and now only give 3 exp
castles now give + 1 trade route
horse archers have a -10% city attack, but are much more useful now (can't remember why though)
Quechas have free combat I
There is balanced or standard resource settings at map creation

Thats what I can remember, I keep getting mugged on emperor and get fed up easily so haven't played a full game yet.

It appears city maintenance cost has increased as well, although that's difficult to verify. It had felt different in previous games but in my last one it was particularly noticeable.
I was playing a game on a large map and after founding my third city (so 4 in all) my income plummeted to 0 in a few turns time. Granted, I had quite a few FBs and the cities were fairly interspaced due to desert tiles but I feel this wouldn't have happened in vanilla CIV with the same settings.

Can anyone confirm this, or am I just imagining things?

Another cosmetic change I noticed - in custom game setup you can choose a random leader, but choose civilization (e.g. you can choose England, without choosing the leader - so it will be a random of Churchill, Victoria and Elisabeth). Previously it wasn't possible.

I find it a nice addition to my games, since I like to choose thematic civs (e.g. all European or all East Asian) but like to be surprised with a leader choice.

OK, here's what I've noticed, some of obvious, some of it not. (Noble, Standard, Epic, fwiw.)

1. Map options. Balanced resources for one, and different world wraps (Oasis with Toroidal is a lot less frustrating.) Resource allocation also seems to favor capitals less heavily than before, at least on the Normal setting. Lots more Desert than I recall, but that could just be perception.

2. Different AI priorities, especially with techs. Tokugawa beat Izzy to Buddhism in one my games! The race to the early religions seems less tense, as well as early wonders. Most of the early wonders are there for the taking, but beware the waves of Barbs, and AIs that build huge militaries early on-- early war against Shaka doesn't seem to be the best move.

3. Barbs, Barbs, Barbs. Smarter, more of them, and they don't like city life any more. The Great Wall is an essential wonder for the warmonger, IMO, since it will free up easily a half dozen units on maps (Great Plains, Lakes, etc) where they can come at you from all four directions. Barb cities also seem to spawn closer and more frequently than before, but again, this is a casual perception.

4. Some of the AIs are cottaging a little more, but it's still a farmer's paradise for most of them. They also still hoard Great People for Golden Ages, unless there's a tech or religion up for grabs.

5. Less AI trading in the midgame. Before, there would seem to be only one civ (like Monty) that was woefully behind; now, there might be two or three out of the six on standard settings. Haven't packed a map with extra civs yet to see how many fall behind in a crowded setting. If SS is your goal, chances are I'll only have one serious competitor-- maybe. Seems to be different from Vanilla, or maybe I'm just getting better. May be time for a game on Prince.

Hope that helps, and anyone who disagrees feel free to chime in.

Added decimals to commerce/beakers/notes which probably explain the increased maintance. A bunch of half coins that would be rounded down are now added up. HA are better cuz they now have a 20% to withdraw along with stable giving them +2 exp.

If you owned the Spiral Minaret and you got Scientific Method did that remove the +2 gold from your state religion monasteries in 1.61? I noticed that in Warlords last night. The same applies to the University of Sankore.

What about building research, gold, and commerce?

If I'm correct, you used to only get 50% of your production for each category. Now it's 100%, which makes much more sense in my opinion...

- Retreat Odds.
- Fixed the red team color units (longbowmen, etc.)
- Chariots 100% against Axemen.

I recently noticed that when a city revolts (culture), the units in the city are wounded. Was it like that in vanilla?

Yes, and now here are nine more words for you.

Dr Elmer Jiggle said:

Yes, and now here are nine more words for you.

Click to expand...

Shorter: Yes.

Siege units don't suffer collateral damage and they can no longer get the Amphibious promotion.

@ uncarved block
you're right: much more desert and much more barbarians.

One big change:

I can't easily win on prince anymore.

Martinus said:

Another cosmetic change I noticed - in custom game setup you can choose a random leader, but choose civilization (e.g. you can choose England, without choosing the leader - so it will be a random of Churchill, Victoria and Elisabeth). Previously it wasn't possible.

I find it a nice addition to my games, since I like to choose thematic civs (e.g. all European or all East Asian) but like to be surprised with a leader choice.

Click to expand...

I thought it would be pretty fun to do this myself. I think it would be a little more fun to play, say, Carthage, Arabia, kwaZulu, and Egypt if I were taking Mali out for a spin on a standard map - now this sounds like a great way to do it (although not in this example since Egypt is the only country of the other four to have another leader).

I don't expect Civ to be historical, but I must admit that my struggles as Rome against Russia and America in my current game get me less amped than the time I drew Rome, Persia, Egypt and Russia as opponents while playing Greece in vanilla.

I agree with that. I kind of miss the "culturally linked starting locations" of Civ III, although they never did seem to work correctly for me.

One of my favorite civ games was playing Rome and using Pratoreans to take out Greece, then Egypt, to find that on the other end of the continent Persia had become an ENOURMOUS civ that had eaten several neighbors.

Civ 4 does has culturally connected starting locations.

If you did not notice it yet, but it is easy.
On standart scripts civs will tend to start georgaphically in simular position as there earth prototipes.

For example:

Russia, Germany, England will tend to start north, allmost in tundra.

England, Spain, Egipt will more lickly start near ocean and with sea food resources.

If you pay attention you will notice this.