Future ALCs: Warlords?

[Sisiutil]

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?

You know, I really like this idea a LOT. Moving up a level is big enough without a lot of extra complications thrown in. As I mentioned when I first said I'd be moving up to Monarch, (vanilla) Huayna and the Incas are in many ways the perfect civ for this, and since they were next on the list...

Warlords is very attractive, I have to say. (And thanks so much to those of you who offered to pitch in. Sniff!) I was just reading through the list of unique buildings and practically drooling over some of them. (Rome's Forum in particular; it always seemed unfair for Rome to NOT produce more GP, since historically, they had several!) And if the AI is even slightly smarter, so much the better. That was the only change I wanted in Civ II during the nearly 10 years (!) I played it: a smarter AI.

If there are a few glitches, it would be nice to have Firaxis release a patch soon, say, before I invest my $30 Canadian. I did not do so intentionally, but I bought Civ IV after the 1.52 patch was out and so I blithely avoided all the problems a lot of the earlier buyers encountered.

So it looks like after Alexander, one more ALC on vanilla Civ IV but on Monarch level, with Huayna. Then on to Warlords, going by the overwhelming poll numbers thus far.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

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."

Nope, can't say that I did. I DID wait for the promised memory leak patch, though, and picked it up the day I saw the bugfix list for v1.52. (A couple friends picked it up the first week of release and complained about the memory leak hitting their machines, so I backed off to wait for the patch.)

 

[Jet]

one more ALC on vanilla Civ IV but on Monarch level, with Huayna. Then on to Warlords

The only thing is that he's not a less-played leader, and his traits are pretty generic. The only good part would be a play-by-play Quecha rush. I don't know. Asoka? Roosevelt? ...Preferably someone who won't inspire 30-page specialist economy essays.

 

[Eqqman]

I'm not convinced that the Incas are the best choice either. Quechua rushes have already been done to death in other threads and for levels higher than Monarch. I'd vote for using one of the Americans myself or even Tokugawa, but Sisiutil seems pretty set on Mr. Capac.

 

[Betafor]

WE could always make a poll like this to determine the last non-warlords game

THOUGH I SAID THIS - I would like to say i still disagree with a jump to monarch AND a jump to warlords, no matter WHAT the order is, monarch first than warlords, or warlords than monarch(well, until sufficiant prince games have gone in warlords). I thought we had agreed on this, you can't dodge it by putting a game inbetween the transitions. Warlords is a differant game than vanilla.

But compromize is good. How about - Last game vanilla we play monarch, then back to prince until needed at warlords.

 

[yavoon]

WE could always make a poll like this to determine the last non-warlords game

THOUGH I SAID THIS - I would like to say i still disagree with a jump to monarch AND a jump to warlords, no matter WHAT the order is, monarch first than warlords, or warlords than monarch(well, until sufficiant prince games have gone in warlords). I thought we had agreed on this, you can't dodge it by putting a game inbetween the transitions. Warlords is a differant game than vanilla.

But compromize is good. How about - Last game vanilla we play monarch, then back to prince until needed at warlords.

what are we? a bunch of chickens?

 

[Betafor]

what are we? a bunch of chickens?

ummmmm... you can be anything you wanna be when you grow up, jonny!
/ithoughtwewerecuttinghissugarintake/

Seriously, what?

 

[carl corey]

I love chickens. Eating them, that is.

That said, I think Sisiutil's going to play a number of offline Warlords games anyway, maybe even during the last ALC in vanilla. As I've said before, I don't see that much of a difference between the two. Sure, there are a couple of things that weren't there before. Maybe a Great Wall gambit here and there. A superunit that you'll be afraid to use lest it dies. But the essence of the game stays the same. So going to Warlords & Monarch after another vanilla game is entirely feasible.

Notice that I've never played on Monarch. A lot of work lately meant I only played now and then and wasn't going to "work" even more going up a level. But if I have the chance, maybe this weekend, I'll try to go Warlords & Monarch. Expect me to come back crying. But that's just me. The ALCs team is surely above Prince level, be it Civ, Warlords, Minesweeper or Solitaire. Ok, maybe not the last two...

 

[Sisiutil]

what are we? a bunch of chickens?

This is one of the few times I find my self agreeing with my capitalization-challenged friend, here. (Don't get used to it, yavoon ) When I started the ALCs, I was already winning fairly often on Prince level by playing almost exclusively as Caesar, Catherine, and Elizabeth. I didn't drop down to Noble just to try out all these new, unfamiliar leaders, traits, and UUs. Once I make it to a new difficulty level, I like to stay there. Is Monarch so hard that you can't take advantage of your leader's unique characteristics? I should imagine that you have to leverage them even more.

As for Huayna versus anyone else--well, call me anal retentive, but I've been going through the civs alphabetically, and he's next. When I first started the ALCs I resolved that the only leaders I would exclude were the three extremely popular ones listed in the preceeding paragraph. And maybe several of you have already tried a Quechua rush, but I never have! Don't I get to have my fun with those befeathered Warriors-on-steroids?

 

[wioneo]

what are we? a bunch of chickens?

No, this reminds me more of the turkeys back home... Anyways, I suppose that I will have to buy Warlords... *random grumbling* i personally hate most of the trait changes. How could they take away Nappy's aggressive? I say he should have been Agg/Charismatic... but maybe that would be overpowered... and I geuss I could always switch to stalin. Everybody loves cossacks...

 

[Sisiutil]

No, this reminds me more of the turkeys back home... Anyways, I suppose that I will have to buy Warlords... *random grumbling* i personally hate most of the trait changes. How could they take away Nappy's aggressive? I say he should have been Agg/Charismatic... but maybe that would be overpowered... and I geuss I could always switch to stalin. Everybody loves cossacks...

It's probably the only thing that has made me hesitate too (besides being such a tightwad), after making such hay from the leader traits. Right after having one of my best games ever as Frederick, making the most of that Creative/Philosophical combo for a MC/Pyramids gambit and a specialist economy, and they went and nerfed him! Why? And to make matters worse, there isn't a leader with that trait combination now!

At least they left my girl Lizzie alone...

 

[carl corey]

Yeah, Creative/Philo would have been an interesting combo to leave in place for the new Great Wall/Pyramids gambit. I don't know, maybe when I'm really, really bored I'll look into the civ files and modify some of the traits to see how the combinations work out. Maybe add an Industrious/Philo one? Aggressive/Charismatic? Who cares if it's overpowered? It's all about fun, baby! (general "baby", don't any of you get your hopes up...)

 

[yavoon]

This is one of the few times I find my self agreeing with my capitalization-challenged friend, here. (Don't get used to it, yavoon ) When I started the ALCs, I was already winning fairly often on Prince level by playing almost exclusively as Caesar, Catherine, and Elizabeth. I didn't drop down to Noble just to try out all these new, unfamiliar leaders, traits, and UUs. Once I make it to a new difficulty level, I like to stay there. Is Monarch so hard that you can't take advantage of your leader's unique characteristics? I should imagine that you have to leverage them even more.

As for Huayna versus anyone else--well, call me anal retentive, but I've been going through the civs alphabetically, and he's next. When I first started the ALCs I resolved that the only leaders I would exclude were the three extremely popular ones listed in the preceeding paragraph. And maybe several of you have already tried a Quechua rush, but I never have! Don't I get to have my fun with those befeathered Warriors-on-steroids?

yah but huayana is the uber leader, so why do that? do roosevelt.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

yah but huayana is the uber leader, so why do that? do roosevelt.

Because he hasn't. Part of the reasons the ALC threads exist is for Sis's education, not just ours. If he hasn't played HC, then he should play HC. Besides, there's the "saying" about the Incan that he isn't very good on higher difficulties, which I bet isn't true....

 

[yavoon]

Because he hasn't. Part of the reasons the ALC threads exist is for Sis's education, not just ours. If he hasn't played HC, then he should play HC. Besides, there's the "saying" about the Incan that he isn't very good on higher difficulties, which I bet isn't true....

thats the dumbest saying I've ever heard. huayana gets better the higher the difficulty.

 

[Betafor]

thats the dumbest saying I've ever heard. huayana gets better the higher the difficulty.

Due to one thing- quechas.

I beleive he is refering to the longwinded post earlier about how inca is a good "all around civ" that can go for religions, attack(agg), build(fin) and so if you miss anything, you can put and go wherever.

However, on higher difficulties, it supposedly becomes increasingly harder because he becomes jack of all trades, master of none. Supposedly, you should focus on specializing your strategy and focusing on SYNERGY how things complement each other not how they make up for the other's weaknesses.

EDIT- well, i guess you guys are right about doing both, i do have an alterior motive because i like to be able to play a shadow game(but im not quite at monarch yet ). We can do monarch game, and see how it goes, then decide after that. I'm not giving up hope, but lets take it one game at a time.

 

[yavoon]

Due to one thing- quechas.

I beleive he is refering to the longwinded post earlier about how inca is a good "all around civ" that can go for religions, attack(agg), build(fin) and so if you miss anything, you can put and go wherever.

However, on higher difficulties, it supposedly becomes increasingly harder because he becomes jack of all trades, master of none. Supposedly, you should focus on specializing your strategy and focusing on SYNERGY how things complement each other not how they make up for the other's weaknesses.

EDIT- well, i guess you guys are right about doing both, i do have an alterior motive because i like to be able to play a shadow game(but im not quite at monarch yet ). We can do monarch game, and see how it goes, then decide after that. I'm not giving up hope, but lets take it one game at a time.

haha, master of none. hahahahahahah.

 

[Lance of Llanwy]

haha, master of none. hahahahahahah.

And that's a good reason to do him. To dispel that. Besides, the traits are interesting, vanilla or warlords...

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I'd say oner more (Inca) and Then go to Warlords
Two reasons
1. By then the first basic patch with a number of Rebalancings will be out.
2. A chance to Quecha Rush.

And I'd say on Warlords Start Alphabetically again Only doing Leaders with Trait Changes. (you could make it really interesting and go Alphabetically by Leader name rather than Civ name... that way we might see a civ twice but not one after the other like Qin/Mao)

But if you do it by civ, that would make the First Warlord leader Washington (a chance to look at Charismatic) then Saladin (for Protective)

 

[Killroyan]

Voted for warlords but that is because I don't have warlords either (shortage of time, only get to play a max of 1 game per week) and really like to see the well laid out stories on the new part but I am also in favor of 1 or 2 games on monarch level since I got stuck there. Keep it up Sisiutil.