Future ALCs: Warlords?

[bassist2119]

Sisiutil,
If money's tight, stick to Vanilla. Chances are they'll come out with another upgrade and a complete package (as was the case before) which would have you kicking yourself in the arse for buying Warlords when you couldn't afford it. IMO, the short-term loss would be highly outweighed by the long term gain. (Plus you get to eat whatcha want! Very important element of the equation...)

 

[Gnarfflinger]

Not only should you move to Warlords, but perhaps revisit some of the leaders that you have used in the past who've had some major changes going to Warlords. I agree that the game is harder now with beefed up AI, and more likely resource screw. There are so many new things that need to be factored in strategically...

 

[Hans Lemurson]

I'd say move on to warlords. Terra incognito is your friend.

I wonder though...if each ALC takes about 2-3 weeks, and you have played with less than half of the now 36 leaders available (not to mention possible replays of changed leaders), if you don't somehow tap-out all the mysteries of CIV, you have almost a years worth of ALC ahead of you. On ALC 31, will we be contemplating a move up to deity?

 

[Judge Dee]

I recommended going for the warlords splurge. What you could do to get your feet wet, so to speak, is to do Cyrus (again) - he's got Chm/Imp, and so plays totally differently.

 

[Betafor]

While i think it would be fun to do civs over like persia, if we were to move to warlords(which i agree to), we should do the brand new civilizations, not the changed old ones first. You can't use the "well, such and such old civ was changed" tactic, because EVERY civ was changed, if only just the UB introduction.

Also, there are a lot more people looking to perfect strategies with the zulu than looking for the differance in inca strategy now he's Ind.

 

[Morelyn]

I vote Warlords, if it won't strain your budget too much, as Warlords is all I play and the leader traits have all pretty much changed, making advice about how to play vanilla less useful than it might otherwise be.

Sure, the general advice has been useful to me as a relative n00b (a win at Noble still isn't a forgone conclusion for me), but I'd love to see this series playing the same leaders I do.

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

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.

I'm assuming those people might delurk enough to at least vote in a poll, though it would probably be a good idea for Sisiutil to make mention in the primary ALC thread that this poll is here. I get email notifications of updates to the main thread, but I check the full Strategy and Tips forum less frequently.

Does anyone know if Civ IV supports map seeding like Civ 3 did after one of the updates? That is, can you post the random number seed that generated your map and have someone else enter the same seed to make the same map in their own game? I think the answer is no, but maybe I just missed it.

If the feature is there, that would be a fairly easy solution, since if someone really desperately wanted to follow along in a shadow game, they could at least use the same leader (might require some XML editing to adapt to changed traits) and the same map. It wouldn't be an exact duplicate, but it would be as close an approximation as possible.

 

[aelf]

Despite having started a play along thread on Warlords myself, I advise you against it for the moment. Warlords is still riddled with bugs and has (from what I've seen and read) a highly annoying vassal system. Until Firaxis has really fixed things, I suggest it's better to stick with vanilla. Anyway, people who have Warlords can play vanilla, but not vice versa. I'm thinking of going back to vanilla for the next Emperor Challenge game.

 

[Dr Elmer Jiggle]

Warlords is still riddled with bugs and has (from what I've seen and read) a highly annoying vassal system.

You think so? What problems are you having? There are definitely some significant glitches with vassal states, and I don't think the great general points are balanced properly at the slower game speeds, but I don't think I've noticed any other issues.

Oh, wait, that's not true. My single biggest complaint with Warlords is that they somehow messed up the graphics so the Ctrl-T grid lines don't draw properly on my machine when zoomed out. That makes dot maps really hard to draw.

Still, I haven't really noticed any problems that I consider a true obstacle to playing.

 

[aelf]

You think so? What problems are you having? There are definitely some significant glitches with vassal states, and I don't think the great general points are balanced properly at the slower game speeds, but I don't think I've noticed any other issues.

Oh, wait, that's not true. My single biggest complaint with Warlords is that they somehow messed up the graphics so the Ctrl-T grid lines don't draw properly on my machine when zoomed out. That makes dot maps really hard to draw.

Still, I haven't really noticed any problems that I consider a true obstacle to playing.

In my experience, there are no actual obstacles to playing, but there are a lot of bugs. There are bugs that I've fixed according to instructions posted on CivFanatics forums, such as the Mehmed leaderhead bug and the loud static noise that occurs with SAMs, but there are others. The most noticeable one I am experiencing is the disappearing mouse pointer problem, which forces me to either restart the game or reboot the computer.

More important than the bugs are the gameplay issues, vassal states being the most glaring example since it can really screw your game up. And yes, I've also noticed the gridlines problem when zooming out. Other issues I have are relatively minor and might be subjective (mostly about leader traits and UU/UBs). Still, I'd say wait for things to settle before moving on from vanilla.

 

[Todd Roy]

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

Mind you, I'm not a terrific (or very good, really) player, but I've found that the AI is quite a bit smarter in Warlords. It may boil down to just needing to make a different set of assumptions, but I've gone from winning consistently at Noble and doing alright at Prince to struggling a bit at Noble. I've read a number of other accounts that suggest the same thing. Obviously, this will be different for every player, but given how controversial the move up to Monarch in the ALC games is anyway, I'm just thinking that a few warmup games at Prince to ease the learning curve might not be a bad idea.

 

[carl corey]

Wow, 80 voters so far? This series is really popular! I expect there are even more people out there who either didn't vote (like me ) or don't know about the thread. This reminds me of Sisiutil's question if these threads could be archived and the saves removed from his total storing space; did anything come out of that or is the request still unanswered?

 

[GeneralGab]

I voted for Warlords. The Vassal States should add an interesting element to the strategies developed.

 

[cabert]

i voted vanilla because it's ALC, not S(ome)LC
(and i have warlords, eggman)

To be true, i think aelf is right. There are just a bit too much bugs in warlords to spend 30$ on it right now.

Another interesting option would be that every warlord voter gifts you 1$ for the purchase. You then could buy warlords easily and pay for the round trip to the store AND eat something good for lunch

 

[Betafor]

i voted vanilla because it's ALC, not S(ome)LC
(and i have warlords, eggman)

To be true, i think aelf is right. There are just a bit too much bugs in warlords to spend 30$ on it right now.

Another interesting option would be that every warlord voter gifts you 1$ for the purchase. You then could buy warlords easily and pay for the round trip to the store AND eat something good for lunch

Depending on his distance from teh store, he probably has to skip lunch due to gas prices.

EDIT- As to bugs, WHAT game when it comes out doesn't have bugs? Of all the time i've played warlords, i've only seen one "error"(tile lines being odd on zoomout), but that is hardly gamebreaking. Neither is anything else you all have mentioned(except maybe the disapearing mouse, but this is the first i've heard of it, and until i see proof i won't beleive it's real). Ok, so it might be a bit harder to do dotmaps, whoop de doo...

These "bugs" are begginning to sound like the vanilla fan's conglomeration of one time instances that probably have less to do with the coding and more to do with the circumstance at hand, making a normal game sound as buggy as Pirates of the Carribean!

Cmon, the real reason some people don't want Warlords is not that it's buggy, thats just their ends to the means, whether that's subconcious or not. I dare ANY of you to say that you refused to buy CivIV vanilla when it came out because "you were waiting for the final, bugless patch."

 

[voek]

I vote for Warlords for very selfish reasons. I have played it for a short time and I realy like the new features. The Vazal option gives many new strategic options. I always wanted a Civilization to surrender and kiss my feet

I still hope you will move up one level to Monarch. Then I will support your Warlords edition with €5,- Bribing is the way to go!

 

[cabert]

betafor, i'm not saying warlords is not playable.
It is.

And Voek, 5€ is like 10$, if i read right. We just need 2 other contributors, and warlords is free for sisiutil (who deserves it, right? all those threads, with good writing, lots of pictures, ...).

 

[voek]

Well I will put my money where my mouth is. Find the other two and I will sent the money Under the condition he moves up to Monarch like I said. I am not saying it's fair, in contrary, it's selfish.

 

[pax]

I have both selfish and altruistic reasons for suggesting that the ALCs remain at vanilla for one more game. Selfish: I don't have Warlords yet, and probably won't get it until a patch has come out. I'm really rather interested in the move up to Monarch on vanilla. Altruistic: I think the readers of the ALCs have learned much about Prince, and it would be a shame to miss out on the ALC version of Monarch on vanilla.

What about this as a possibility: Have the next round (Inca/Monarch) on vanilla, and then (possibly pending patch) move up to Warlords?

 

[uncarved block]

I'm voting for Warlords, because I think the options added make it a better, richer game-- especially Vassal states, because it has eliminated the "genocide is good" element that has bothered me before in the Civ series. The early game, which garners the most conversation in the ALCs, is also a bit different, with the race for early Wonders coming at a higher risk, especially if you don't build the Great Wall.

As far as performance issues go, I haven't had any trouble, and I had plenty with the first release of Civ4 (black terrain, bodyless leaderheads, and so on). The expansion has been out for, what, a month already? I'd imagine we're about due for a patch, though it may be the only one.

Sisiutil, I think you'd more than get your return back for a week of brown bagged lunches, especially since you seem to play a lot more Civ than the ALCs let on. Let's just say that I bought the game for the scenarios (because I loved the Civ3 Conquests so much), and have had so much fun with the main game I've barely touched them. That's my two cents . . .