is warlords really great?

[feldmarshall]

I've been playing vanilla and now considering warlords. does it really add more great things? i read about vassal, great generals etc but i want to hear from you guys

thanks

and one thing, does it run in your computer slower than vanilla?

 

[KMadCandy]

i like it a lot!

good things IMO:
-adds more options--more leaders, more traits, UBs
-vassal states can sometimes be cool, if you get a useful vassal or if you want a conquest win to go faster
-great generals rock hardcore and i miss them when i go back to vanilla

things i don't like about it:
-too many choices! i'm indecisive, i have a hard enough time deciding who to be in vanilla, that's my own personal issue tho *giggle*
-the vassal state concept is very cool but IMO they did not fully test it and it isn't implemented as well as it should be. i usually play with that option turned off. even tho i now understand the mechanics of how it is implemented, it leads to headaches and isn't the way i'd do it if i were queen of the world
-the opening movie and the game music. some folks prefer that stuff warlords a lot more than vanilla, i like vanilla. no biggie, you can change the music to whichever you like anyway

it does not run any slower for me than vanilla does. it also does not take away the option to play vanilla. they show up as two separate installs, so at any time you can play the one you're in the mood for. the only risk you're taking is the money if you don't end up liking warlords. i don't know your budget so that's a decision you'll have to make for yourself.

the great generals are really awesome. some of the UBs are way cool. the new traits are fun, but in rearranging the existing leaders and adding some new ones, they actually took away some combos that used to exist. for example, there's no creative/philo or fin/org leader in warlords, quite a few combos like that have gone away. so sometimes i do still go back to vanilla.

 

[baboon]

I played Vanilla before, and recently got Warlords. What I like most is the reshuffled Leader traits. And some balancing stuff, but I guess you get that with a patch as well.

So, I guess if the money doesn't matter too much, just get it, but if you have to go on a budget for it, don't.

 

[Vladesch]

I like the extra nations and civics etc., but I consider vassal states to be broken and turn them off in my games.
As to whether its worth it, that would depend on your income and how much you play. It doesnt add much.

 

[doronron]

Several of the extra civs are critical, and the addition of certain old favorites as national leaders ramp up gameplay fun (can't have a proper war unless you've got Shaka, Ghengis, and Stalin all gunning for you). The great general was also a useful addition. Unique buildings are a nice twist and help further differentiate the various nations. The only flaw was the fact that Firaxis' stock release only allows for 18 civs at one time instead of a full 24. However, there are several quick mods that remove this cap.

 

[Codeman]

since purchasing warlords i seldom play vanilla. i miss the extra content. i actually loaned vanilla to a friend. he had it a month before he could buy it. i didn't miss it...

 

[magicalsushi]

and one thing, does it run in your computer slower than vanilla?

My system was pretty marginal for Vanilla, but I'm happy to report that Warlords actually seems to run *faster*. This surprised me, but I'm certainly not complaining! The game now runs at a decent speed with most of the graphics options turned on, whereas it used to be pretty slow with all of them turned off.

The only flaw was the fact that Firaxis' stock release only allows for 18 civs at one time instead of a full 24. However, there are several quick mods that remove this cap.

Ooh, I must hunt that one down...I can't understand why anyone would want to play with fewer than 18 civs; having 24 would be totally awesome.

 

[Rince]

I bought Warlords on day 1 and would never go back to Vanilla. Great Generals, more civs, unique buildings and new traits all add a lot of value to the game IMHO.

Rince

 

[jeremiahrounds]

Is the AI the same? I cant put my finger on if its better cause my vanila days were precurrent patch so maybe the AI is just better all around. I kind of get the feeling the AI is better?

 

[manu-fan]

Just to add one thing. For me, on a Mac, the graphics on Warlords were much better than vanilla.

Cheers.

 

[KMadCandy]

Is the AI the same? I cant put my finger on if its better cause my vanila days were precurrent patch so maybe the AI is just better all around. I kind of get the feeling the AI is better?

the AI incorporated some parts of what Blake was doing at the time, i know in particular better city placement logic. i don't know what else, but yes they seem a bit smarter.

part of the reason that gameplay (other than new features) and the AI in general are better: vanilla still has bugs that were fixed in the warlords and the warlords patch. it's a common syndrome, once a company releases a new version of a product, they focus on it and those that have only old version get ignored so even the current patch for vanilla doesn't match the warlords patch.

note that i don't mean just design changes (as opposed to bug fixes) such as having to skip masonry to use a great prophet to pop CS or whatever that beeline is. one example is that warlords fixes the beaker overflow. in vanilla there is still and always has an issue that causes you to lose beakers due to rounding between turns; you're better off micro-managing your research at 0% until you can finish your research by running 100% for however many turns it takes in a row. i was never good at that. in warlords that was (almost entirely) fixed, since the game now rounds that stuff to two decimal places.

 

[ollj]

Vassals and great generals are fun to play with, but they are rather underdeveloped features.
New wonders, leaders and buildings are worth it.
When you see the great wall appearing on the map you know someones ass is being kicked soon.

 

[feldmarshall]

decided. i'll buy one

 

[baboon]

Is the AI the same? I cant put my finger on if its better cause my vanila days were precurrent patch so maybe the AI is just better all around. I kind of get the feeling the AI is better?

I was under the impression the AI is better at City building and progressing now. Their war tactics are still the same, hide in the city and wait for you.

 

[Disgustipated]

no reason not to buy it. Get it cheap if you can (goes without saying). I wouldn't spend gobs of money on it, but unique buildings are nice.

 

[cuchulain]

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.

 

[potatokiosk]

I've heard stories of people crushing some civ underfoot, only to have that civ vassalize to a third party and therefore giving the invader a war with the third party. Sounds very stupid and is the only reason I haven't bothered to get Warlords.

 

[Rince]

I've heard stories of people crushing some civ underfoot, only to have that civ vassalize to a third party and therefore giving the invader a war with the third party. Sounds very stupid and is the only reason I haven't bothered to get Warlords.

Why is that stupid? I've heard other stories about situations with vassals but yours doesn't seem stupid to me.

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.

Rince

 

[weasel77066]

Oh I don't know.... Warlords is pretty good. I always open vassals and permanent alliances, because it adds the unexpected... and more often than nought- the dreaded.
I only recently picked the game back up ( after 208 patch) and it is really cool. Im having a blast on this end.
Civs will vassalize to "avoid" war... Now what do I do with this costly invasion force?
Diplomacy seems to be better and planning ahead is a mite more important.... where building relations is the key and military force is futile unless properly negotiated beforehand.
Of course when it come to Isabelly nobody really cares about the repurcussions of whiping your butt with her face. Just that when youre playing for a UN win or want a stable environment for a space race, its hard to do so without the other buddists pulling apart their bums and aiming for yours,
I have had some gaming problems with permanent alliances... mostly with my ally selling OUR tech dirt cheap across the board,, which almost always dribbles down to the "enemy" in a matter of turns. That ticks me off. But when Perms are being signed, the points of a team go up and unless youve setup someone to be a permanent ally a long time ago, then youll never win. There again it comes down to diplo.
All in all I think that this one is a winner. I just dont like it about -----they limited the PA down to two. In vanilla I wwould have a perm alliance with 2 other civs ad go against a super power with a perm alliance. Three little guys against a giant bastard. That was fun.
Other than that, I absolutely LOVE the warlord part. You gain XP overall and when you get enpugh points you spawn a warlord. I think thats a great idea and I couldnt play without that (now)
As a bonus- you get the zulu back and ole shaka is well done if I may say so. I love his animations and his music... purely professional job they did. However, he's every bit a jack*** like in civ3
If you like civ games and have vanilla....... I wouls recommend Warlords

 

[T.A JONES]

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.

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