Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by kristopherb, Sep 5, 2006.
how vital is warlords on a scale of 1 to 10 (10 is highest)
It goes to 11.
Aside from a recent GotM, I have not played regular version at all since Warlords came out.
If you are a true fanatic like me, then it is at least an 9
It adds things without detrating anything, and it's pretty cheap, so I'd say a 7 or 8.
I go with Alcosta. It seems pretty good and is fun enough, so I would consider it quite important but far from vital, until that is, modders stop using vanilla civ.
Same for me.
Didn´t touch Vanilla since I got Warlords
It still needs some work on the additions to the main game, namely the Great General unit and the Vassal States. Since I haven't played the scenarios I'd say not that vital for now if you're not interested in those, but it sure has potential. Just wait for the next patch and maybe it will also be cheaper until then.
And I still play some vanilla games mainly for the Strategy Challenges on this forum. (see Strategy and Tips)
As much as I'd like to expand my Civ IV gaming goodness I don't buy anything until the first patch is out.
It is the same for me Warlords has brought renewed interest in civ4, and I have since played civ4 Warlords every chance I get
I played through a barbarian scenario and wiped out all the civs, it was fun. I found a simple strategy was to keep your 'camp' unit on the move with your forces, have several horse archers running around pillaging improvements, and always spending pillage money as soon as you get it as you have a constant drain on your gold reserves.
I'm surprised at the high scores. Unless you play the scenarios (I don't), Warlords adds very, very little to vanilla Civ4 for anyone, even less to a builder like me. And almost nothing at all to the the late game, which could use the most work. I voted 2. (BTW, this is not really a complaint since I was very aware of all this when I purchased Warlords, but I am a Civ completist )
I give it a 4. While its fun getting great generals its not vital. More civs are also fun, but not vital. I don't like the scenarios to be frank. I think many others feel the same, and it will be no problem finding people playing vanilla in the future too. This - not vital - a 4.
8 here. I also havent loaded up vanlla since it I got my hands on it.
my feelings exactly.
I remember the first time I got NO new leaders in a Warlords game.
I quitted immidiately.
So I rate it 10!
I voted 5. I don't play vanilla at all since I got warlords, but it doesn't actually add a huge amount to the main game. It just kinda feels like more of the same. Already being hopelessly addicted to civ, I'm extremely happy with more of the same, but it's not like it's warlords has really furthered my addiction.
Sure, the extra features and civs are a nice addition, but they're far from essential. Vanilla still feels like a "complete" game.
If you don't regard it as vital, why are you on Civfanatics?
Any true fanatic will of course regard it as vital. 10 for me
If my Warlords disc disappeared, I would not play Civ 4. So I'd rate that a 10 for vitalness.
Separate names with a comma.