Future ALCs: Warlords?

Hi everyone,

So I noticed that Warlords is a lot less expensive than I first thought: $30 Canuck-bucks rather than the exorbitant $80 I, for some reason, had dancing in my head. Go figure.

Yes, money's a little tight for me right now (don't worry, I'm not starving and have clean underwear). That's what you get for negotiating a variable-rate mortgage when interest rates are at an all time low and have nowhere to go but up. Still, if I brown-bag my lunches for a week, I can afford Warlords.

So... decision time. I've already indicated that future ALCs will be on Monarch level. Should they also be on Warlords, or should I stick with Vanilla Civ IV?

You get to decide! Vote in the poll and I'll abide by wishes of the majority. Yes, I've researched Democracy and have changed civics to Universal Suffrage!

I don't think it matters all that much. If you want it, buy it and play ALC games with it. If you don't, don't.

That said, I'm voting Warlords, because it will be more relevant going forwards.

I think that you should do at least one civ that changes its traits in warlords in vanilla and then do it again in warlords.

I'd have thought the two alternatives were vanilla monarch or warlords prince. Which would you prefer? Other option would be warlords monarch but that's two jumps in one.

Yeah, if you get Warlords, stick to Prince. The AI is a bit more competent, particularly the barbs, so WL Monarch would be too much a jump I think. WLs would make it more interesting anyways, what with all those new toys and the wonders for the builder in you...

Sisiutil said:

So I noticed that Warlords is a lot less expensive than I first thought: $30 Canuck-bucks rather than the exorbitant $80 I, for some reason, had dancing in my head. Go figure.

Click to expand...

Wow, I should have driven to Canada to buy it. Though with the price of gas, that might have been a break even proposition.

Phrederick has the best answer. Play whatever version you want to play. Having said that, I'm playing on Warlords, so if my personal satisfaction with the threads is the single most important factor in your decision, then you should play Warlords too.

I'm curious as to how many people put thought into their vote beyond if they happen to have Warlords or not. Moving up to Warlords immediately casts aside some of your audience. Other guys are already posting games with Warlords so I don't think it's that urgent for you to do so. I'd rather see this series shoot for a continuous rise in difficulty than skip to a format some of your readers won't share.

I don't know, I've followed both vanilla and Warlords threads, and most of the times without actually looking into the saves, only at screenshots and the talk in the thread. But I can understand how someone who wants to give more detailed advice will be seriously hampered by not having Warlords.

That said, if you buy Warlords and like it better, well, go ahead and play that. No use of continuing if you don't enjoy it, right?

I vote: play what you enjoy most. (you really should have put this option in the poll )

Eqqman said:

I'm curious as to how many people put thought into their vote beyond if they happen to have Warlords or not.

Click to expand...

I didn't. I interpreted the question as asking whether I would like the future threads to be based on Warlords. I would. I can't really guess whether other people who may or may not exist may or may not prefer Warlords. If they exist, they should vote. If enough people are holding off on Warlords, that will be reflected in the results.

Sisiutil said:

Hi everyone,
So... decision time. I've already indicated that future ALCs will be on Monarch level. Should they also be on Warlords, or should I stick with Vanilla Civ IV?

Click to expand...

The easy answer: Warlords.

The more complex answer: If you're really, really set on going to Monarch next, stick with Vanilla. Warlords seems to add approximately one level of diffictulty to the base levels. If you don't mind a few more games on Prince, just to get used to the game changes, I'd say go for Warlords. Or, just jump in and hope the forum advice smooths out the equivalent two level jump.

So, count me as .75 votes for Warlords and .25 votes for staying on vanilla. Either way, this is an awesome series, and as a struggling Noble player, I appreciate it a lot.

Edit: And hey, you can always start over from the beginning with Warlords. I'm looking forward to Monty 2.0, myself.

Huh, Warlords adds difficulty? I've played both vanilla and WL on Prince and I didn't find much difference. I'll move to Monarch anyway as soon as I finish testing the Great Wall gambit, I hope I'm not going to play the vanilla Emperor equivalent.

Dr Elmer Jiggle said:

If enough people are holding off on Warlords, that will be reflected in the results.

Click to expand...

Not really. What will be reflected in the results is what the most vocal section of the ALC has/thinks. There is a larger section of people that read but don't post themselves. Once in a while one of these 'long time lurkers' will pop in with a comment as proof of their existence . Typically, these quieter folks are not the type to run out and buy an expansion right away (and I'm not just talking out of my butt here, I work in the games industry and have talked to the guys who find out these things). So Sisiutil has a choice of following the wishes of the 10-15 people who post the most frequently in his threads and would have voted in the poll or thinking about his larger audience. From things he's written in the past, I suspect that he frequently tries to think of the larger audience. I make no value judgements either way. The advantage of annoying the wider audience is that they aren't likely to post to complain about it .

I just found this amusing because I assume that everybody will cast a vote based solely on if they have Warlords or not, just like a vote along party lines in your legislative body of choice. It would be nice if once in a while people weren't quite so predictable. You might as well rename the poll 'How many ALC readers have Warlords?'

Eqqman said:

I just found this amusing because I assume that everybody will cast a vote based solely on if they have Warlords or not.

Click to expand...

I voted for Warlords (And I'm one of those Lurkers you talk about) because Warlords games / info / etc. will get more relevant as time goes on, but time spent strategizing on Original Civ4 can only diminish in usefulness.

Yes, some people will hold out. Some for a long while. But the numbers will dwindle over time.

ick, dont goto prince.

Todd Roy said:

The easy answer: Warlords.

The more complex answer: If you're really, really set on going to Monarch next, stick with Vanilla. Warlords seems to add approximately one level of diffictulty to the base levels. If you don't mind a few more games on Prince, just to get used to the game changes, I'd say go for Warlords. Or, just jump in and hope the forum advice smooths out the equivalent two level jump.

So, count me as .75 votes for Warlords and .25 votes for staying on vanilla. Either way, this is an awesome series, and as a struggling Noble player, I appreciate it a lot.

Edit: And hey, you can always start over from the beginning with Warlords. I'm looking forward to Monty 2.0, myself.

Click to expand...

??? warlords doesnt add anymore to difficulty lvl over vanilla.

Mind_worm said:

??? warlords doesnt add anymore to difficulty lvl over vanilla.

Click to expand...

they're claiming that the AI in warlords is so much better that u have to drop a level. which is iffy at best. I think its observable some things about the AI have changed, and perhaps they do less insanely dumb things, but its no giant leap. Especially if u consider that warlords has an uber unit that vanilla doesn't, the trebuchet. which comes at a perfect time, and is ridiculously strong.

I see that I won't be able to play shadow ALC games for quite some time... Oh well

I've been reading the ALCs for a long time, but I don't have any advice to offer, I just watch for education/entertainment. I have Civ 4 for the Macintosh, and I don't expect Warlords to ever come out for the Mac, just Civ 4 Complete, and by that time it will be a couple months to Civ 5 and I'll just hold over for that anyway. Despite this I voted for Warlords because of its relevancy to most Civ players and because I like watching Warlords games, it's fun to see Shaka, the Great Wall, Great Generals, etc. and see how people handle these few features no matter what version you play. I think that if you're watching the ALC threads to learn from scratch, the "basics" like cottage econ, specialist econ, how one wars, diplomacy, etc. -- these fundamental elements of the game -- haven't changed from vanilla to Warlords. Sure, you might get a Great General in the middle of a battle or encounter a new AI personality, but if you're looking for advice and have vanilla, you can just skip the five page discussion on Military Academy vs. instructor or whatever and pay attention to the connecting features of vanilla and Warlords. Just because you use a hybrid econ in Warlords with the University of Sankore (pulling this out of the air), doesn't mean you can't find a way to interpret this back into the vanilla game and do a hybrid econ there with similar results. Plus, you're about to have 8 games in vanilla wrapped up with a pretty little bow for vanilla players to look at, I think everything you could have taught has already been taught, vanilla is, for the most part, examined and exhausted, it's time to move on to unexplored territory! I'm not great at getting my point across in a setting like this but in summary I am a vanilla Civ player, and I for one fully support the transition to Warlords. I don't know if I'm alone or in sync with the feelings of other vanilla players, but that is my opinion.

napoleonbee said:

I think everything you could have taught has already been taught, vanilla is, for the most part, examined and exhausted, it's time to move on to unexplored territory!

Click to expand...

Yes, this is what I was thinking as well. After the Louis game, I had played an ALC with every one of the leader traits, and after Frederick, I had played with the one grand game strategy I hadn't tried yet, the specialist economy. Hence my decision to bow out of Prince with the Alexander game and move up to Monarch; I felt like everything from this point on would be refinement rather than new territory. And I can just about win a Prince game in my sleep now, thanks to all the wonderful things I've learned from everyone!

Warlords offers new territory, pure and simple. I'm not surprised to see the poll very much leaning in that direction.

Sisiutil,

definately move to warlords so you can show us your perspective on maximizing the use of great generals, the charismatic, imperialistic, protective traits. best use of UB's and how all 3 of these integrate with each other.

would like to see you run alc's through all of the new leaders systematically. then follow up with interesting leaders that had their main traits changed up to rebalance out the game.

NaZ