New DLC on December 16
- Thread starter Supr49er
- Start date
Greenlocke
Northern Hermit
I think Bob would prefer less contextual discourse about the DLC. I came here looking for the same thing as him and have found little more than a troll-war similar to many youtube dialogues concerning politics, abortion, and evolution.
Having played the scenario 3 times, I'll weigh in on the DLC.
------------------------------------------------------------
General Information
The scenario pits the Old World (Spain, England, France) against the New World (Iroquois, Inca, Aztecs). The scenario uses a dynamic map with a different version of the new world each spawn. The geography of the New World is not historically accurate. A nation wins the scenario by having the highest score after 100 turns. Custom rules give bonus points to certain events, such as finding China or returning New World treasure to the Old World.
Game #1: Spain
After unsuccessfully finding info about the scenario in this thread, I started a game unprepared as Spain. My caravel made a beeline for the southern tip of America in hopes of finding China first. The geography seemed a bit incorrect, but I assumed that it was different to balance certain historical islands. Soon enough I found my caravel blocked by ice and killed by scurvy (a unit promotion that slowly kills your unit while out of friendly waters). Realizing my error I decided to quit the game and try again.
Game #2: Iroquois
Playing as Hiawatha, I quickly expanded and developed techs. During this game I realized that the New World continent was random, and that either the north or south passage would be open to China. I did not build a caravel. When France settled near me I immediately declared war (too soon). With too few soldiers to take the French city (2 archers, several spearmen) France had time to build walls and defending units. Despite this, my tech rush and quick expansion yielded catapults and horsemen, allowing me to defeat the french city. They sued for peace and I agreed, noting a second french city south of my territory. I used the 10 peaceful turns to move my army south and declare war again. I took this second city and declared peace. With 10 cities and a large army I was the undisputed master of the continent and no Old World cities were present. Meanwhile, the English settled on some northern islands while the Spanish settled Aztecs lands on the southern continent and fought a protracted war. The Incans sailed for China. In the end, The Incans beat me by a score of 705 to 698. Their 3 China boats yielded too many points (IMO). I think it was 150-100-50, but I can't remember exactly.
Game #3: France
This time I played as France and determined to use the French city-state bonus (and my social policies) to secure and keep allies. I sent one caravel north and one south. Finding the north route open, I immediately built 2 more caravels and sailed to China. I won all China points. (England had a boat ahead of my 3rd caravel, but they died of scurvy near China's borders). Meanwhile, I settled 2 cities on the nearest portion of the New World. I made allies with 2 militaristic city states, who supplied me with the bulk of my army. One city's borders included one of the special 'treasure landmarks' which periodically spawned a treasure unit. I finished the research tree in this game, (obtaining piracy) and eventually fought a war with Spain. I captured all of their colonies. I won by a large margin in this game, being the 2nd or 3rd strongest world nation and having won most of the china/treasure points.
Overall Evaluation
Pros: I had fun playing this scenario. It presented me with very different games each time that I played it. It was error-free and as historically accurate as possible. While purists might argue that without a proper map it cannot be accurate, I argue that exploration was a crucial part of the era - making a known map an incredible advantage for the player. This scenario should work very well as a fun and quick multiplayer game (although I have not yet played multiplayer ciV).
Cons: I feel that it was overpriced; 2-5$ would have been more acceptable. The idea of the scenario was well-conceived, but lacked specific features that would make it worthy of purchase. For example, the tech tree should have been expanded to provide more historical units and techs (ie: early firearms). In addition, the European powers were too similar. They had no unique units or buildings, but they shared several units like the musketeer, tercio, and conquistador. I would have liked to see religion included in some way. I was surprised that the Dutch were not included (as they were instrumental in early American trade).
Final Thought: If you have been waiting for a high-quality, historical scenario, but have found most of the community-created scenarios lacking, then I recommend you purchase this DLC. I received my money's worth. If you don't want to pay for any additional content - do not buy this DLC. While I preferred the Mongolian scenario in many ways, I don't feel that it had much replay value. Having played this scenario 3 times, I will still play it twice more (to test the Incan and Spanish civs). This is the best scenario for CiV that I have played thus far.
My Rating:
(6/10)Right, but you might have already spent $75 on a mediocre version of Civ (V) with zero expansions. Think about it --some Civ fans could already be more than 60% of the way there: $50 for the base game $25 in fairly marginal DLC content. See how ridiculous it is to applaud 2K for releasing Ghengis Kahn "free of charge?"
Bob1475
Prince
I think Bob would prefer less contextual discourse about the DLC. I came here looking for the same thing as him and have found little more than a troll-war similar to many youtube dialogues concerning politics, abortion, and evolution.
Having played the scenario 3 times, I'll weigh in on the DLC.
------------------------------------------------------------
General Information
The scenario pits the Old World (Spain, England, France) against the New World (Iroquois, Inca, Aztecs). The scenario uses a dynamic map with a different version of the new world each spawn. The geography of the New World is not historically accurate. A nation wins the scenario by having the highest score after 100 turns. Custom rules give bonus points to certain events, such as finding China or returning New World treasure to the Old World.
Game #1: Spain
After unsuccessfully finding info about the scenario in this thread, I started a game unprepared as Spain. My caravel made a beeline for the southern tip of America in hopes of finding China first. The geography seemed a bit incorrect, but I assumed that it was different to balance certain historical islands. Soon enough I found my caravel blocked by ice and killed by scurvy (a unit promotion that slowly kills your unit while out of friendly waters). Realizing my error I decided to quit the game and try again.
Game #2: Iroquois
Playing as Hiawatha, I quickly expanded and developed techs. During this game I realized that the New World continent was random, and that either the north or south passage would be open to China. I did not build a caravel. When France settled near me I immediately declared war (too soon). With too few soldiers to take the French city (2 archers, several spearmen) France had time to build walls and defending units. Despite this, my tech rush and quick expansion yielded catapults and horsemen, allowing me to defeat the french city. They sued for peace and I agreed, noting a second french city south of my territory. I used the 10 peaceful turns to move my army south and declare war again. I took this second city and declared peace. With 10 cities and a large army I was the undisputed master of the continent and no Old World cities were present. Meanwhile, the English settled on some northern islands while the Spanish settled Aztecs lands on the southern continent and fought a protracted war. The Incans sailed for China. In the end, The Incans beat me by a score of 705 to 698. Their 3 China boats yielded too many points (IMO). I think it was 150-100-50, but I can't remember exactly.
Game #3: France
This time I played as France and determined to use the French city-state bonus (and my social policies) to secure and keep allies. I sent one caravel north and one south. Finding the north route open, I immediately built 2 more caravels and sailed to China. I won all China points. (England had a boat ahead of my 3rd caravel, but they died of scurvy near China's borders). Meanwhile, I settled 2 cities on the nearest portion of the New World. I made allies with 2 militaristic city states, who supplied me with the bulk of my army. One city's borders included one of the special 'treasure landmarks' which periodically spawned a treasure unit. I finished the research tree in this game, (obtaining piracy) and eventually fought a war with Spain. I captured all of their colonies. I won by a large margin in this game, being the 2nd or 3rd strongest world nation and having won most of the china/treasure points.
Overall Evaluation
Pros: I had fun playing this scenario. It presented me with very different games each time that I played it. It was error-free and as historically accurate as possible. While purists might argue that without a proper map it cannot be accurate, I argue that exploration was a crucial part of the era - making a known map an incredible advantage for the player. This scenario should work very well as a fun and quick multiplayer game (although I have not yet played multiplayer ciV).
Cons: I feel that it was overpriced; 2-5$ would have been more acceptable. The idea of the scenario was well-conceived, but lacked specific features that would make it worthy of purchase. For example, the tech tree should have been expanded to provide more historical units and techs (ie: early firearms). In addition, the European powers were too similar. They had no unique units or buildings, but they shared several units like the musketeer, tercio, and conquistador. I would have liked to see religion included in some way. I was surprised that the Dutch were not included (as they were instrumental in early American trade).
Final Thought: If you have been waiting for a high-quality, historical scenario, but have found most of the community-created scenarios lacking, then I recommend you purchase this DLC. I received my money's worth. If you don't want to pay for any additional content - do not buy this DLC. While I preferred the Mongolian scenario in many ways, I don't feel that it had much replay value. Having played this scenario 3 times, I will still play it twice more (to test the Incan and Spanish civs). This is the best scenario for CiV that I have played thus far.
My Rating:
At last! A nice review of the scenario! Many thanks zxe! Anyone else care to chime in with some constructive info on the scenario? I was concerned about replay and geography advantage but apparently they have taken care of that. Sounds interesting as do the two new civs. I would like to see some other opinions but I am leanging towards a possible purchase.
Bob1475
Prince
Ischnarch - I would be fine with a thread that was entitled "Why DLCs are unfair" or something like that. But this thread was supposed to be about the DLC itself. I can skip through a few protests but I had to go thorugh 10 pages to find that there was no reveiw of the scenario. As you can see someone actually wrote about it which is what I wanted.
Protests, anti-capitalist statements, rants, whatever are fine but some of us want to also get some good information to allow us to make a decision on whether or not to buy. A purchase of a DLC is not a philosophical decison to me. It is simply one of whether or not I get my money's worth. That is my judgement, no one elses.
This other thread seems to be more on track.
If a thread is wanted discussing the actual scenario, can I suggest starting a new thread with that as its topic? To be fair, this thread was pretty open ended.
EDIT
Well there you go. A thread has been created for that purpose.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
This. Exactly this.
I don't mind people disliking it. It's those who act entitled, or are blindly anti-DLC, that aggravate me.
Yeah, I'm not blindly anti-DLC. I don't mind the odd DLC Civilization or scenario (though I do share PieceOfMind's concerns about price pressures), but I am very concerned about what happens if/when they start releasing game features as DLC. As a keen Multiplayer, I'm deeply concerned about its impacts on compatibility. I really think that major game features are best reserved for patches &/or expansions.
Aussie.
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
Which is a valid concern. It's not one I share, though, as I really don't see that happening.
With civs, you can distribute partial DLCs to allow player A, who lacks the DLC, to play with player B, who has the DLC. With entire new features and mechanics, though, it becomes more difficult; The player gains access to features that other players simply cannot have (civs don't count that way to me, honestly; all are unique and carry special features. They get to use things you don't, but in return you gain things they don't; No more unbalanced than the difference between vanilla civs), and gains a significant advantage. I really don't think they will do that.
I think the DLC approach is a wise one for this type of game. Adding scenarios, extra civs, and maps are all interesting ways to expand the game without somehow placing at disadvantage those that do not purchase. This actually reminds me in many ways of the game City of Heroes. They offered extra bits of content that added visual aesthetics and small bonuses and "prestige" powers which were fully disallowed in any sort of competitive pvp environment. Those with the finances to do it would quickly scoop up all of the micropurchases, often to have a "complete game." However, the game makers would still release consistent patches and game updates for free for everyone, and every other year or so a major game expansion. The mircopurchases were a great way for the company to keep a solid revenue stream while working on larger updates.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
That's why I said IF/WHEN, rather than WHEN. I'm not suggesting that they will go down that path, & I'm seriously hoping they don't. Common sense suggests that they will avoid going down that path. In the meantime, if they want to keep releasing DLC Scenarios & Civs-at a reasonable price-then I probably will buy them, even if I'm not a fan of DLC
.
Thank'a'yo'very'much for the excellent summary!!
I had already taken a "purchasing" stance a few days ago but now that i got a few more winky details about the real thing, the evidence justifies the cost.
At 7.49$US only... two new civs (will show up by choice in any random games too) + such a scenario (*and* a quick peek from you!) seems like a fair enough deal.
agoodfella
Prince
DLC is the way of the future unfortunately. My prediction:
- Civ VI will likely have about 8-10 Civs and then about 8-10 Civs via DLC.
- Civ VII will likely have about 5-7 Civs, the rest via DLC.
- Civ VIII will likely have a starter Civ or two and then the rest via DLC.
- Civ VI will likely have about 8-10 Civs and then about 8-10 Civs via DLC.
- Civ VII will likely have about 5-7 Civs, the rest via DLC.
- Civ VIII will likely have a starter Civ or two and then the rest via DLC.
CivIX+++ No civs. No DLCs. Barbarians and/or a few CS included, mostly randomized online D/L -- if you get lucky, you earn the privilege to contact some www_no_strings_attached_Modders directly via http_super_ssss to sell you whatever you want, for a whopping price - paypal accepted.
How's that for a boring game?!?![[party]](/images/smilies/partytime.gif "Party [party]")
How's that for a boring game?!?
sadsquid
Warlord
- Joined
- Jul 9, 2010
- Messages
- 105
I do like the look of the scenario and new civs, but what happens if I buy this dlc and any other dlc they release, and then later they bring out an expansion with all of it included as part of it? Will I have wasted my money? Thats the only thing thats holding me back to be honest.
Valkrionn
The Hamster King
That's not something anyone can answer as noone knows. Noone even knows for sure if they'll release an expansion.
At the very least, you're paying for early access to the civs; Otherwise you could wait a year or more, and that's IF they release an expansion, and IF that expansion contains all the DLC.
At the very least, you're paying for early access to the civs; Otherwise you could wait a year or more, and that's IF they release an expansion, and IF that expansion contains all the DLC.
Kopernikus1979
Warlord
Are there any plans to integrate Inca and Co-DLCs to multiplayer. I have to say I was really surprised that I could not play them in MP.
JLoZeppeli
Prince
- Joined
- May 11, 2009
- Messages
- 598
Civ DLCs are useless crap: you can't use them in multi, that's enough to call them unworthy....
Kopernikus1979
Warlord
It seems to be a creeping habit not to answer a direct question but instead criticize again and again. That's annoying. There are enogh threads to complain in.
Similar threads
- Sticky
