Is Warlords worth it for builders?

[Underseer]

I'm a builder, not a warmonger, and it seems to me that most of what's in the Warlords expansion is for the benefit of warmongers. Is there any compelling reason for a builder like me to buy Warlords?

 

[gettingfat]

To start with, you can't be a "pure builder" in the vanilla anyway. To be a builder in Civ 4, regardless of the version, you must make sure your power rating is in the top three. Even so if your next door neighbour is the insane Alexander or Montzy, you will get into a war most of the time.

In fact, as a builder first player myself, I find the Warlords have a number of new features that help you be a builder (just not a "pure" builder):

- The protective trait allows you to build fewer units because your defensive units are much stronger (I just noticed that Drill promotion series have been beefed up so your units are less vulnerable to collateral damages)
- There are additonal choices of great wonders. You have the Great Wall and Temple of Artemis. The Great Wall in particular opens up some interesting options. In Vanilla if your find your neighbours are located far away, you still can't build less military units because in those situations the barbarians will be running wild like crazy and force you to build tons of fog busters. Now you can simply chop rush the Great Wall. Leave only a single warrior in each city to keep your people happy, and focus on your infrastructure and/or more great wonders.
- Great wall generates only 1 Great Engineer point per turn. If you purely rely on it that will take 100 turns to give you a great Engineer. I usually build a library in that city (or temple if I can found a religion, which is tough since I usually play Monarch), and add 1 or 2 scientist specialists. By doing so I usually have roughly 70% chance of getting a Great Engineer first (higher if you have philosophical trait). Then you can use it to rush a Pyramid, and further add another 2 G.E. points per turn to get another G.E.
- A typical Warlords map provides you way more resources than in Vanilla. Stones and Marbles are everywhere (I just had a starting location with 2 marbles, that never happened to me in Vanilla). The coast start is even more ridiculous. You frequently run into multiple seafood resources. Yesterday I had a start location with 2 fishes, 1 crab, 1 clam, 1 stone, 1 corn and 1 cow, and after AH research my city was actually located at a horse tile. The computer later gave me a bonus gem at my mine tile. It got to a point I initially didn't know what to do with so much food (I kept whipping and whipping, rush a pyramid, switch to hierachy and build the city till all the green faces popped up).
- The creative trait has been beefed up as well. The half-priced library is far too useful if you're the builder type.
- Many UB are amazing for the builders. I've just won a cultural victory with Qin by building pavillons in my three major cities early, build tons of wonders playing as an industrious leader and used my beefed up archery units to stop the aggressors. I got my victory playing Monarch in 1930.

In short, yes, you can still be a builder in Warlords.

 

[Harrier]

I'm a builder, not a warmonger, and it seems to me that most of what's in the Warlords expansion is for the benefit of warmongers. Is there any compelling reason for a builder like me to buy Warlords?

I am more of a builder also but I do like the Warlords changes. How much more aggressive you need to be, really depends on the level you play. I think that only Noble (on some map settings) and above do you need to be more warlike.

Also it is a more stable build and with the new patch (208) the AI ecconomics have been improved (thanks to Blake). Also some human exploits have been tamed (CS slingshot for example).

So overall it is a more challenging game to play.
Even more so if you download Blakes (Beta) "Bleeding edge" AI changes. Which are being improved all the time.

 

[zyphyr]

Another primarily builder type here... Warlords is definitely worth it for all the reasons already mentioned.

 

[Julian Delphiki]

I think warlords is even more fun to play than vanilla; its just more of everything. But, within the newest patch and/or Blakes newer AI versions it is also much more challenging (like +1/2 levels up from v.). On prince and above early aggression is usually needed (if there were no nice chokepoints to seal your expansion... and those are rare unless you tinker with map settings).

 

[flamingzaroc121]

if you are a builder, buy Warlords, and get the patch, try out the Exp trait, you will get those precious workers even faster

 

[Charles 22]

Before the AI change I would say warlords was the same game with a few more trinkets, but with the AI change it's nothing but a warmonger's game, and that's if you're not playing the diplomatic and space race victories off as I am. I can't imagine in the slightest way playing the new AI on noble or higher -and- have those victory conditions and not warmongering. I am a builder primarily myself, so, yes, the new AI has definitely shot being a builder into the nether reaches.

 

[Powerslave]

Before the AI change I would say warlords was the same game with a few more trinkets, but with the AI change it's nothing but a warmonger's game, and that's if you're not playing the diplomatic and space race victories off as I am. I can't imagine in the slightest way playing the new AI on noble or higher -and- have those victory conditions and not warmongering. I am a builder primarily myself, so, yes, the new AI has definitely shot being a builder into the nether reaches.

Maybe you should read the War Academy articles here at CFC. I play with the absolute latest AI patches by Blake, and I have all the victory conditions turned on. In general, I find Noble and Prince to be a cakewalk, still. Monarch remains a problem for me. I guess I need to be more aggressive.

I've had great success as both a builder and a warmonger, with Blake's AI improvements. The AI finally can muster up a challenge to me now.

 

[Charles 22]

Maybe you should read the War Academy articles here at CFC. I play with the absolute latest AI patches by Blake, and I have all the victory conditions turned on. In general, I find Noble and Prince to be a cakewalk, still. Monarch remains a problem for me. I guess I need to be more aggressive.

I've had great success as both a builder and a warmonger, with Blake's AI improvements. The AI finally can muster up a challenge to me now.

To listen to you it would appear as though there hasn't been a rude change in how this game operates, such that you kept playing the same way you were always playing and that there was not any adjustments needed. I'm not saying that adjustments can't be made, only that they are the wrong adjustments, since it's so warmonger-centered now. It seems to defeat the whole notion of a more balanced game to me, and puts it back in the days of Civ3 where dumb things like constant violation of your territory with friendly civs was the norm.

I've read a great deal of what is on this forum, and I've seen a great many strategies, but I believe more in the concept of achieving victory through the means of alternate strategy that civ4 just happens, or should I say happened to promote. I'm sure any number of people can rote out a path to victory, but I don't play this game or any game to simply play like some rote robot and a heavy emphasis on necessary warmongering is making that so. Oh well, another ruined game....

 

[crunch]

You can always set the Always Peace option...

 

[Charles 22]

You can always set the Always Peace option...

I wouldn't bet on that. I bet it doesn't work like it sounds like, besides absolutely no combat would be worse. Take the no tech trading option for example. I tried it for a couple of games, and from the looks of it either every AI nation is being severely compensated since the AI change at noble level, or the tech trading is just keeping "me" from trading while the others keep on doing it. If it works that way, you would say that's a useless feature? Yes, that's what I think as well. It's the same with the "always war" option, as I know for a fact that it doesn't mean all the civs are at war with each other, but that they are all at war with YOU. It seems a good many of the options aren't there for what appears to be the common sense meaning of the options, but instead to make uberplayers a little less bored.

 

[Rod]

Hello,

just one small hint, play

Archipelago, Tiny World Size, Archipelago, Balanced Resources, 7 or 8 civilizations, No Goody Huts.

I assure you, even a bad player like me can constantly win on monarch and with reloading in critical phases also on emperor, even after Blakes changes.

I know it is unfair, but i like to build most of the time and i do not like early warfare , so ..

The AI does not know how to do combine land-, sea-, airborne invasion.
The AI does not know how to optimize cities on small landmasses like on archipelago. (but it became already muuuch better)
The AI does not know how to maximize production in coastal cities and in small landmasses. (unfortunately blake didnt took care for that, but now he is focussing on the combat engine)
THe AI does not know that the best start in an archipelago world is settler, settler, stonehenge - (there are no barbarians on starting islands, because you can easily overlook the whole land. What happens one coast away is not our problem ..)
The AI is not learning from its mistakes and is always doing the same strategy.

The AI does not know all this
But we do

...

 

[onedreamer]

I'm a builder, not a warmonger, and it seems to me that most of what's in the Warlords expansion is for the benefit of warmongers. Is there any compelling reason for a builder like me to buy Warlords?

Well, you've got extensive answers, I don't know Warlords very well yet, but from an expansion with such a name, I wouldn't expect it to be compelling for pacifists...

 

[Charles 22]

Hello,

just one small hint, play

Archipelago, Tiny World Size, Archipelago, Balanced Resources, 7 or 8 civilizations, No Goody Huts.

I assure you, even a bad player like me can constantly win on monarch and with reloading in critical phases also on emperor, even after Blakes changes.

I know it is unfair, but i like to build most of the time and i do not like early warfare , so ..

The AI does not know how to do combine land-, sea-, airborne invasion.
The AI does not know how to optimize cities on small landmasses like on archipelago. (but it became already muuuch better)
The AI does not know how to maximize production in coastal cities and in small landmasses. (unfortunately blake didnt took care for that, but now he is focussing on the combat engine)
THe AI does not know that the best start in an archipelago world is settler, settler, stonehenge - (there are no barbarians on starting islands, because you can easily overlook the whole land. What happens one coast away is not our problem ..)
The AI is not learning from its mistakes and is always doing the same strategy.

The AI does not know all this
But we do

...

Nice idea there, but if I wanted to play tiny anything, I would go to my backyard and get the black ants to attack the fire ants.

 

[HardCoder]

...The coast start is even more ridiculous. You frequently run into multiple seafood resources. Yesterday I had a start location with 2 fishes, 1 crab, 1 clam, 1 stone, 1 corn and 1 cow, and after AH research my city was actually located at a horse tile. The computer later gave me a bonus gem at my mine tile. It got to a point I initially didn't know what to do with so much food (I kept whipping and whipping, rush a pyramid, switch to hierachy and build the city till all the green faces popped up).

You should sell that starting save file.

You can always set the Always Peace option...

Maybe there should be a "Mostly Peace" option where the aggressiveness of the AI civs is tweaked back to Vanilla settings, or a little lower.

 

[Charles 22]

Well, you've got extensive answers, I don't know Warlords very well yet, but from an expansion with such a name, I wouldn't expect it to be compelling for pacifists...

The name of the expasion has proven to be meaningless. That is if you think the Great General addition isn't that significant. The original release of warlords, excepting the GG, wasn't the least bit different in terms of warmongering. It is the 2.08 patch which is causing this. I guess it's possible that Firaxis wanted the 2.08 AI in the original warlords and it just slipped to several months later, but judging by the surface level it looks to me as though the AI adjustment was an afterthought of a bunch of people playing and seeing what they considered to be singular flaws in the AI, and then incorporating them all through Blake's (or he seeing them himself), unfortunately without apparently considering how much that would destroy the original thesis to how many ways one can win in civ4.

To make matters even worse on this point, I understand the Blake is even going to make AI adjustments for the vanilla, so it doesn't appear it's a matter of this neo-militarism having much if anything to do with a warlords title prompting it.

 

[Stolen Rutters]

Warlords adds some nice buildings to give the builder in all of us more choices (unique buildings for civs, and extra wonders). It actually made me want to build more.

However, the 2.08 patch helps the AI develop its economy (commerce) a bit better. This makes it harder to totally dominate tech throughout the game. I found that I can still be the builder I wanted to be, but the AI moves through the tech tree so fast compared to Vanilla that it's harder to win without directly trying to interfere with AI progress. You can use diplomacy and get them to attack each other (rather than fight them yourselves), but you can't just leave them alone and expect them to stay down. The higher the level, the more you have to hold them down. This was the same as Vanilla. They are just better at developing their Civ than before.

The patch helped the AI with combat a little but it doesn't seem that signifigant. You don't get as many free attacks as you used to. They will more likely walk right on by and pillage your undefended copper resource instead, forcing you to attack with the terrain penalties. They won't suicide individual units into a well fortified unit that you put in their way unless you are defending on the resource they want to pillage.

 

[Harrier]

it looks to me as though the AI adjustment was an afterthought of a bunch of people playing and seeing what they considered to be singular flaws in the AI, and then incorporating them all through Blake's (or he seeing them himself), unfortunately without apparently considering how much that would destroy the original thesis to how many ways one can win in civ4.

To make matters even worse on this point, I understand the Blake is even going to make AI adjustments for the vanilla, so it doesn't appear it's a matter of this neo-militarism having much if anything to do with a warlords title prompting it.

You should read Blakes posts in Blakes AI thread before making general innaccurate statements like the above.

He is improving the AI to make it more balanced in many areas: City placement, worker actions, Governers etc. as well as a few adjustments to war declarations and actions.

He has also made some improvements so that the AI will if feasable try to get a Cultural Victory. So that the Spacerace is not the only real victory the AI will go for as it was originally.

Infact I could mention many many more things he is doing. So why not go and read it yourself.

 

[Landmonitor]

Warlords is just better, period. There are more Civs and more traits... not to mention unique buildings.

 

[Charles 22]

You should read Blakes posts in Blakes AI thread before making general innaccurate statements like the above.

He is improving the AI to make it more balanced in many areas: City placement, worker actions, Governers etc. as well as a few adjustments to war declarations and actions.

He has also made some improvements so that the AI will if feasable try to get a Cultural Victory. So that the Spacerace is not the only real victory the AI will go for as it was originally.

Infact I could mention many many more things he is doing. So why not go and read it yourself.

As humongous as it is, I think I will pass. So tell me, and I'm quite sure I know the answer to this already, but do you think that his plan involved considering what his changes would do to turtling? I doubt much of anyone on this board, Blake most particularly, knows the slightest thing about how one could play noble very well turtling, and how these changes affect it. For the majority of posters on this board, it's readily apparent that putting a good deal of their effort towards earning money wasn't through fighting multiple wars and turtling, and with that being so, you can see the consideration for it would be slight if any. The plain fact of the matter is if you wanted to leave turtling as a viable strategy, then it wouldn't be as impossible as it currently is. I don't think it's a matter of Blake or much of anyone rejecting turtling, because most have no idea that it's a workable strategy, but it has worked for me. It's often what the late-developing civs would be wise to pursue (Germany in particular) should they be playing the timeless games I am playing. It used to work so well too, because your attacking doesn't have a lot of corruption to hinder taking many enemy cities.

I must add that my current game is going pretty well, and is the best post-2.08 effort I have had. Somehow or other I am possibly the leader in techs, however my score is like 6th out of 10. Since I have now discovered I can at least expect that the civs are perhaps just as eager for peace as before, but that I have to do the asking instead, I may be able to get around the large disappointment in the reparations portion of the game that's been destroyed by massively cottaging or some such garbage that the AI cooks up.