is warlords really great?

[Horizons]

IMHO vassals are a great concept and well-implemented. Permanent alliance is for special situations like scenario-building, they aren't very useful or realistic for general games. I don't understand why anyone would switch on permanent alliance and switch off vasals - that's crazy logic.

 

[mrt144]

Thats really far off. "PtW" screwed up MP true, but Warlords did the same with its touted vassel add-on. MP was a add on play mode and was seprate from the essence of Civ's great Epic game that thrived on deep campaigns. It never distracted from the core 1 player expeirence, it supported it. What makes PtW win this comparison is that it actually enhanced the performace of the core game with dramatic turn speed improvements, while letting you go 'real world' size and selection for once.
Vannila 3 was a mess, much like Civ4 when it came to the 'go large' possibilties. If you read the PtW change log it cleary states performance upgrades. It ws more annoying in-game lag instead of between turn, that was CIV's worse problem and it was never addressed when they bulked it up with Warlords. This is worse IMO.
Play the World made it actaul feel like an expansion in every sence if you know what I mean.

The new victory conditions were especially cool. The king units was a big step in replay value. but its the fact You needed it ("PtW) to maximize your game enjoyment, thats what really can't be said the same for Warlords

do you even play Civ IV anymore or do you just search the Civ IV forum for instances of Civ 3 daily?

 

[T.A JONES]

do you even play Civ IV anymore or do you just search the Civ IV forum for instances of Civ 3 daily?

Do you ever have anything real to say besides real proof your nothing but flame bait

 

[KMadCandy]

Part of the criticism about vassals stems from the fact that people have a different idea of what a vassal is than the game designers.

In any case you can turn off vassals and enjoy all the other features of Warlords.

that to me is the key. the first paragraph is exactly what i admitted, that i'd have liked to seen it designed differently (things like, vassals not handled in the same way as teams are as far as other AI attitudes toward you for UN and tech trade purposes, etc) but those are design decisions and they are the designers.

and to their credit, they made vassal states an option, which is a key reason why i still play it more than vanilla. hooray for checkboxes! since you can turn it off, it's not a reason to not buy the expansion.

to the OP: i do hope that you like it and find it worth your money

 

[mrt144]

Do you ever have anything real to say besides real proof your nothing but flame bait

you proivide ample opportunity to do it. i cant fathom why you come in here, talk smack about civ iv, and wait for the next civ iv vs civ 3 topic comes up. it seems like thats your sole purpose of coming to the forum, and its tiresome. and really the only people i have called out on this are you and mirc.

 

[T.A JONES]

you proivide ample opportunity to do it. i cant fathom why you come in here, talk smack about civ iv, and wait for the next civ iv vs civ 3 topic comes up. it seems like thats your sole purpose of coming to the forum, and its tiresome. and really the only people i have called out on this are you and mirc.

Ya you must hate me . Ive turned you into nothing more but flame bait. You stand for nothing clever in contrast regarding the facts or ideas anyone presents.
Your sence of reason is but a twisted notion that asks whether persons have the right to multiple opinions of dislike on various aspects of the same game.

How does it look when the face of opposition to anything not gloriying Civ4 is the same "two guys" who ignore what critism is presented for acts of admitted flamage to the messenger?

Edit: Actually Im surprised so many people have the courage to continually speak up in threads where there asked, and actually defend their opinons. So many sad attempts of OT defamation are used to silence these critics Its a wonder anyone still has the courage to tell the truth from an unbaised standpoint.

Ive seen more who could have lasted the abuse much longer but didn't see the point when the realized the maturity level of some of their audience members.

 

[Smidlee]

Thats really far off. "PtW" screwed up MP true,

PTW was all about multiplayer even the king unit which the AI had no idea what to do with it. I got PTW the very week it came out and remember how many fans including me here was disappointed. It was nice of Firaxis to including most of PTW content to C3C since IMHO it wasn't worth getting.

 

[mrt144]

Ya you must hate me . Ive turned you into nothing more but flame bait. You stand for nothing clever in contrast regarding the facts or ideas anyone presents.
Your sence of reason is but a twisted notion that asks whether persons have the right to multiple opinions of dislike on various aspects of the same game.

How does it look when the face of opposition to anything not gloriying Civ4 is the same "two guys" who ignore what critism is presented for acts of admitted flamage to the messenger?

Edit: Actually Im surprised so many people have the courage to continually speak up in threads where there asked, and actually defend their opinons. So many sad attempts of OT defamation are used to silence these critics Its a wonder anyone still has the courage to tell the truth from an unbaised standpoint.

Ive seen more who could have lasted the abuse much longer but didn't see the point when the realized the maturity level of some of their audience members.

self flattery is your fortay. also, youre taking a route of debate where you present yourself as THE unbiased opinion on everything. I dont think you're fooling many people though.

Its not the fact that you criticize Civ IV, its that you dont even play it anymore, and still feel obligated to let everyone know how Civ 3 is better. You don't address questions in the realm of Civ IV alone, rather, you persue questions as direct comparisons to Civ 3. Youre answering questions that werent asked.

I fully support the freedom to voice or opinion, but by the same token I take the liberty to point out when youre answering questions that all point to the same conclusion you reached ages ago. Civ 3 is better than Civ 4.

and was that the original question here?

 

[T.A JONES]

self flattery is your fortay. also, youre taking a route of debate where you present yourself as THE unbiased opinion on everything. I dont think you're fooling many people though.

Im painting you as one who can't stand others opinions here, not me as unbaised, you as very Biased you lil 'admitted' flamer!
Its all there, you must of made up what works best for you again.

was that the original question here?

This was what I was resonded to what were you doing?

Warlords is better than Play the World was when it came out for Civ3. I have to say though, even though Warlords has more content than Conquests, I enjoyed Conquests more when it was new

did you have something to add ?mybe hand out warnings for OT again lol

 

[Xanikk999]

Its really not that great.

Sure it adds some stuff but not nearly enough to be an adequete expansion pack.

It was rushed like you dont know what. It came out barely 9 months after vanilla was released.

 

[T.A JONES]

Its really not that great.

Sure it adds some stuff but not nearly enough to be an adequete expansion pack.

It was rushed like you dont know what. It came out barely 9 months after vanilla was released.

THis stated, please make sure to refrain from anwerin any critics thread here with any more unflattering response. You must at least wait till people forgot this one. Failure to comply many attract a rare member sorry, wannabe mod lol named

mrn 144

who believes persons have no right to multiple opinions of dislike on various aspects of the same game

Thanks and on with the show

Moderator Action: Warned - flaming.
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889

 

[mrt144]

Im painting you as one who can't stand others opinions not me as unbaised, you as very Biased and a just admitted flame thrower
its all there you pulled out whats lie works best for you.


This was what I was resonded to what were you doing?

did you have something to add ?mybe hand out warnings for OT again lol

did i claim I was unbiased? I havent played Civ III. I have nothing against Civ III. Im sure its a fun and entertaining game but I havent played it and the comparisons people make, nay, the obvious fanboyism of one game over the other is what I detest of. The hijacking of any Civ IV game criticism into a Civ game vs. Civ game criticism is what I detest of.

You arent evaluating the game on its own terms, you are evaluating it based on what it isnt, what it will never be, and on what already exsists.

Here's an analogy. Its like you hate Fords (Civ IV) and drive a Chevy (Civ III), and go to a Ford website to tell people why Fords are inferior to Chevy.

Let's take it one step further. You're on a general purpose car website that has subsections for different brands of cars. You patronize the Ford forum despite not driving one anymore, you answer Ford questions with the answer "Chevy" and you think anyone who tells you to beat it because of this is somehow "flame bait" or "trolling" or what have you.

And hate is an awful strong word to use for someone on the internet.

 

[T.A JONES]

did i claim I was unbiased? I havent played Civ III. I have nothing against Civ III. Im sure its a fun and entertaining game but I havent played it and the comparisons people make, nay, the obvious fanboyism of one game over the other is what I detest of. The hijacking of any Civ IV game criticism into a Civ game vs. Civ game criticism is what I detest of.

You arent evaluating the game on its own terms, you are evaluating it based on what it isnt, what it will never be, and on what already exsists.

Here's an analogy. Its like you hate Fords (Civ IV) and drive a Chevy (Civ III), and go to a Ford website to tell people why Fords are inferior to Chevy.

Let's take it one step further. You're on a general purpose car website that has subsections for different brands of cars. You patronize the Ford forum despite not driving one anymore, you answer Ford questions with the answer "Chevy" and you think anyone who tells you to beat it because of this is somehow "flame bait" or "trolling" or what have you.

And hate is an awful strong word to use for someone on the internet.

"Your off the message again mrt144" This is a Warlords thread! Yes! thats what I was talking about and again, What where you? My comments reflect why I don't use it. You say I don't like cuz its not Civ3? You say cuz one game had charteristics I wish Warlords adopted, that being faster game play, its starting a Civ3 vs Civ4 debate?
Your the one going there. I gave my opinion in contrastto what another already stated so Why arn't you giving him a warning for enticing the Civ3 vs Civ4 debate? It woudn't happen unless the traits that make the better game are discussed and whats wrong with that? Why are you so scared anyway? Its funny you try to make this your responsabilty (preventing comparisons)

EDIT:Stay ontopic flamebait and for your own good never admit to flaming lol usualy mods have a problem with that

 

[mrt144]

I dont give people warnings. Why would I?

 

[T.A JONES]

I dont give people warnings. Why would I?

"Your off the message again mrt144" This is a Warlords thread! yep, thats what I was talking about, What where you btw?

My comments reflect why I don't use it. You say cuz its not Civ3? You say cuz one game had charteristics I wish Warlords adopted, that being faster game play, im tring to start a Civ3 vs Civ4 debate?
Your the one going there no?. I gave my opinion in contrast to what another already stated so Why arn't you crying to him to stop enticing the Civ3 vs Civ4 debate?

It woudn't happen( civ3 vs Civ4) unless the traits that make the better game are discussed and whats wrong with that? Why are you so scared anyway? Its funny you try to make out like its your responsabilty in preventing comparisons but your always the one causing the most attention to it Why is that? Its not me who made you look like just another hypocrite, you brought yourself here.

 

[mrt144]

im not particularly attached to civ as a game or this forum. i simply find your inability to contribute anything useful in the civ 4 forum that doesnt include a comparison or constrast to civ 3 lacking in dimension. perhaps its my lack of time spent here but when have you tackled a civ iv question that wasnt laced with criticism?

its well and fine to dislike a game but being one dimensional in your approach is boring and unhelpful. its easy to predict what your going to say in your posts when i see your name on the threads.

and thats all i will say about the matter present and future

 

[T.A JONES]

im not particularly attached to civ as a game or this forum.

What? thats why your here all day posting and seem to recall everything I say!? Not so convincing friend. Why be so anal on anothers posting practices if you wern't a lil attached to this place.( notice you and all your 'friend' (no grammer mistake) are the only ones so frustrated you feel the need to rip into OT so determindly for nothing.

i simply find your inability to contribute anything useful in the civ 4 forum that doesnt include a comparison or constrast to civ 3

Well thats a lil selective when all your lookin in are CIv3 vs CIv4 threads, jeez man what do you expect to find. You love those threads, like the last one, you were there for blood but drew instead the only warning from a moderator the entire debate.
Im sure when repeat guests like Smidlee lays smack praises on Civ4 soundin much like one before you dig it right, (don't cry atleast) but when one hits home with argument to Civ4's supiority you moan n groan sayin, its inappropriate for the same person to bring his points to the various issues

perhaps its my lack of time spent here but when have you tackled a civ iv question that wasnt laced with criticism?

Lack of time here? have you ever signed off? I coudn't care less but ya seem to be around posting all the time. Your post average is higher then mine and Im sure its chalked full of insightful informative responses right? Heres some exapmles of the last 2 days like this and better this!!(that one was pritty deep lol)

To the question: You can check the tech forums (that where people need real help) but what would make you happy? We all make up fake compliments to post in critque threads. You prefer to see others talk favorite religion and best Civ Instead? fine, but its awesome how you can't see the way your coming across tryin to tell others whats acceptable opinion and how many your entitled to. (this is historic low in botched OT Character denouncement here at Civfan )It was fun to string it along but I wish you never brought this on the others.(who me kiddin they enjoyed more then I did, otherwise we'd been cutoff a while go lol)

Its well and fine to dislike a game but being one dimensional in your approach is boring and unhelpful. its easy to predict what your going to say in your posts when i see your name on the threads.

Tell me how Im one dimensial? oh thats right you ran away I though your nagging was what you call one dimensional. I back up everything and bring many angles to my points for proper illustaration. Why can't you show us anything but accusations and petty insults
You don't realize that nobody takes one with many claims but no creditable support very serious here. You have been dismissed

 

[Lone Wolf]

Really, I was reading "Civ2 vs Civ3" threads just right now... and I found out that the complaints about Civ3 are exactly the same as complaints about Civ4. History Repeats Itself...

Disclaimer: I do not agree with most of these arguments.

But Civ3 is pathetic. It is unbelievable annoying being limited in how many cities you can have with Civ3 because of stupid corruption
Id have empires with over 100million people in Civ2 and theres no way in hell i could do that in Civ3 its just too fustrating
your forced to use military tactics and just destroy cities, its boring and lame

The corruption in Civ III destroys the game. With over a dozen cities in Civ III, the outlying cities are producing one production and one science. Whatever I Road or Mine, the extra goes to corruption. I don't get it. Why would anyone like that?

Now we are complaining about City Maitenance.

Civ3 is the most giant pile of crap on earth. Even CtP was less stunningly bad.

Once, in Civ2, I attacked a warrior with a tank, and a funny thing happened: the tank won!

How can u call a game superior that you have to sit around during, for two minutes between three hundred and seventy-turns

Now about the lack of different strategic choices:

For example, now, when a player's capital is captured, it automatically moves to another usually nearby city. In civ2, the only way you could do this is if you had at least 1000 gold - it cost to relocate after your capital was captured. I have devastated many a civ and won many games by capturing my opponent's capital. It gives an important city to go for in an attack, one that can cripple the opponent if they lose it and thus a lot of strategic planning can go into taking and holding an opponents capital city and/or his wonder city. In civ3, it'll just relocate, so the only strategically important cities are the wonder cities. To make matters worse, cities culturally swap so easily that there will be no point trying to hold the city, it is far better just razing the city instead, thus the strategy involved in holding the city is removed too.

Second, wonders have been limited too. In civ2, a lot of planning went into making sure you have enough caravans to build a wonder when you get the tech for it. In civ3, now there is no such choice. The only way to plan for a wonder is to prebuild some shields towards the wonder. Even doing this it just means the person who got to work on the wonder first is going to finish it, unless you get really lucky and get a great leader. So basically it means the person who is in the lead in tech is going to finish wonders first, and a lot of that can go down to luck in start position. Not good.

The AI isn't actually that much smarter. If you look closely you will see THE RULES WERE DESIGNED TO MAKE THE AI HARDER! For example now you can stack units which the AI did in Civ2 all the time and it does it in 3 all the time. It's a shock some of you people haven't noticed this.

What I said was that the rules have been designed around the AIs limitations, not playability, creativity, or anything else. Of course the AI cheated in Civ2, but the game rules were not designed around what the AI could do.

And, finally, the graphic:

The graphics are much less clear than the civ2 ones.

Tell me, what animated units contribute to strategy?

etc.

 

[T.A JONES]

Really, I was reading "Civ2 vs Civ3" threads just right now... and I found out that the complaints about Civ3 are exactly the same as complaints about Civ4. History Repeats Itself...

Hmm Intresting to bad CIv4 dosn't have an editer that allows anyone to correct so easily as Civ3 does. When you took those quotes the Civ3 editer was crap. Will Civ4 add an easy to use editer in next X pak? I hope so! after all, history repeats itself

Corruption: Add Interpol or Summer Palace sm wonders. Charge high mantence for prison improvement. The wonders make continent exploration feasable and taking the boat across the sea very rewarding. The high per turn cost makes improvements like a jail great balancers like a cross between CIv4's and Civ3's maintence/corruption expansion scheme
Also Raise the optimal city number.

Graphics:​

nuff said

Ok one more!​

Pollution: third reducer like Park or edit down building pollution to 0.

blah blah blah to much for one sittin, I just got bored. I'll leave the rest to others unless or when I feel more motivated later.

Hey besides this is OT

 

[weasel77066]

hey there, why dont you two go on a date. Or flirt somewheres else/