Discussion: Warlords or plain Civ4? Mods?

[Methos]

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

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.

 

[dutchfire]

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.

 

[Macha]

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

 

[ChinaBlue]

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 alerts to make "life" easier.

 

[Methos]

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.

 

[ice2k4]

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.

 

[donsig]

It's against HoF Rules.

Source



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).

 

[Tullius]

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

If the majority thinks otherwise, I understand, though.

 

[Methos]

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.

 

[Methos]

Found it. The thread is Would an HoF attempt by SG be allowed?

Here's the game attempt thread just for curiosities sake.

 

[Furius]

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?

 

[ice2k4]

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

 

[ordinaryguy]

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

 

[TheAmerican]

Vanilla. Not everybody owns Warlords.

 

[donsig]

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

 

[Methos]

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.

 

[DaveShack]

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.

 

[ice2k4]

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.

 

[ChinaBlue]

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.

 

[Bacon King]

Staying on vanilla would be much preferred.