Discussion: Warlords or plain Civ4? Mods?

donsig

Low level intermediary
Joined
Mar 6, 2001
Messages
12,905
Location
Rochester, NY
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.
 
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.
 
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...

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?
 
Back
Top Bottom