New Warlords Civ Info from Ign.com - 7/6

[Instant_Cereal]

The Celts got ripped off, in my opinion. Their UU is probably the new worst UU in the game, or at least tying with the jags.

 

[winddbourne]

I think they are trying to ADD that synergy to everyone. I can hardly wait to see a philosophical/industrial leader, or a protective/agressive one, or someone with expansive/charismatic . . . the list goes on. Yes there are some poor combos, who's civilizations should have great UU and UB's, but there are at least seven combos with massive synergy that I've managed to figure out, and I'm betting the UB's will be balanced to be realistic AND compensate for those combo's that don't have synergy.

Perhaps those "weak" civilizations will be more versatile. The vikings are amazing for water maps, but what if you play them on pangea? The Celts can do well if they get a lot of hills to put cities on, but what if they are stuck on the great plains map? Same things go for the ottoman, put them alone on an empty continent and they will dominate, put them on a small island with agressive neighbors nearby . . . well does anyone want to buy a slightly used footstool?

All those "weak" Jack of All trades Civs might just turn out to be your best bet for multiplayer too. After all if your playing a civilization geared to one strategy and I have free play on what I can do . . . well I'd hate to be YOU.

Any good human player can figure out a way to counter a given strategy, IF he knows it's coming ahead of time. Simple rules, like say . . . keep the vikings away from water. Use fast land units to destroy their coastal cities, or even avoid the coast yourself so they can't attack amphibiously . . . Attack the ottomans early and hard or make them your good buddy and out culture them. If I can think like that without ever seeing the civ in action what are we going to make of the poor AI once we see it in play?

As for the trebuchet replacing the catapault soon . . . maybe the koreans are meant for marathon play?

 

[Evie]

Go ahead and call it worse. Jags are cheaper to build and don't require iron, at least.

I think someone at Firaxis got annoyed after the sixth (or so) "Change the Jag!" thread, and elected to demonstrate that it's quite possible to be actually worse than said Jags.

Also, whooo for Korea. Seems like their UU has been catapulted from bottom tier (pre-C3C) to top-tier in Warlord. Good for them!

(And as for their UB, I wouldn'T be too quick to spit on it...with financial already in the picture, an extra 10% research should be pretty useful).

 

[ahab_in_rehab]

I can't remember if this issue has been adressed before but has anyone any clue as to what will happen if you capture an enemy centre with one of their UBs in, will the UB be destroyed, replaced with the generic equivalent or retained complete with bonuses? Could be pretty interesting if its the latter!

 

[ChrTh]

My guess is that the UB won't survive the conquest.

 

[ahab_in_rehab]

Yeah thats the gut feeling I get as well, but it would an interesting element if they could be captured

"Men we go to war to for gold, glory and exquisite Turkish baths!"

 

[monkspider]

Good question, I actually have a hunch that they will be retained in conquered cities. After all, you are allowed to gift UUs to other civs. I think allowing UBs to be kept would add an interesting dynamic.

 

[night_f3]

I am pretty sure that if you capture an enemy city with UB, it will revert to the generic characterestics. Similarly, the generic equivalent of your UB in a city you capture would get the unique characterstics of your civ upon capture.

Basing this on current worker capture behavior, the captured Fast worker turns into a generic worker and if you are playing the Indians, then the captured generic worker becomes a Fast Worker.

 

[IrishDragon]

i cant wait for this to come out, especially carthage

 

[MisterBarca]

Carthage may become the new "most powerful civ." Korea also looks very strong. I am not too enamored with Protective, but it creates a nice synergy when combined with the very powerful hwacha. And Financial is always a winner.

Are there new none UU units?

 

[Hans Lemurson]

Ottomans: Their Janissaries will actually make musketman useful. They have 25% bonus against just about everything that counts in their era.

Janissaries vs. Longbow (fortified in city with CG1):
9 vs. 6*(1.45) = 9 vs. 8.7

Yes, that's right folks, Janissaries are capable of city-assaults.
Not only that, but there's really nothing that can counter them.
It's a pity they don't get city-raider promotions, but I guess this will be good enough.

Expansive/Organized will give the ottomans the ability for rapid expansion in the beginning, followed by their bath-houses which makes them part Charismatic, and then an un-counterable gunpowder unit and you have a very nice game layed out for you.

Zulu: The Impi might actually take the cake for most useless UU, even when faced with Jaguars, Gallic Swordsmen and Phalanxes.

Strength 4, Movement 2, -1 terrain cost; the power of a Spearman with the abilities of a Keshik. Personally, if I want a 2-Move Strength-4 unit, I BUILD A CHARIOT. The Impi's only saving grace is the possibility that it could be built without metal, but extremely doubtful, since that would give the Zulu insane early-rushing abilities.

The Zulu will however excell in maintaining large empires, since when their UB is combined with courthouses, that results in a net 70% decrease in city-maintainance. That means that developed Zulu cities will have maintinance costs that are 60% that of any other Civ. That's almost equal in power to the Organized trait's Civic cost reduction.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

On the subject of Traits, I REALLY think they need to take a new look at what Expansive and Imperialist should actually do.

All of the great Imperialist nations conquered and held onto large empires-and I stress the word CONQUERED. For this reason, Imperialist should not grant a bonus to Settler building, but should reduce the maintainance cost of your nation-making it cheaper for them to have more far-flung empires.
Epxansive civs, OTOH, should be the ones with the bonus to settler construction, as it better represents a civ with a 'Manifest Destiny' kind of outlook.

So, perhaps it should look like this:

Imperialist: -25% to no. of cities Maintainance cost. Greater Chance of Generating a Great General. Lower cost Colloseums and Prisons.

Expansive: drop the +2 health (IMO) and instead give +25% faster settler building AND -25% to Distance from Capital Maintainance cost. Lower cost Granaries and Aqueducts.

As I said, this is just my opinion, but I do believe it more accurately represents how these traits would have looked historically.

Aussie_Lurker.

 

[MisterBarca]

Ottomans: Their Janissaries will actually make musketman useful. They have 25% bonus against just about everything that counts in their era.

Janissaries vs. Longbow (fortified in city with CG1):
9 vs. 6*(1.45) = 9 vs. 8.7

Yes, that's right folks, Janissaries are capable of city-assaults.
Not only that, but there's really nothing that can counter them.
It's a pity they don't get city-raider promotions, but I guess this will be good enough.

Expansive/Organized will give the ottomans the ability for rapid expansion in the beginning, followed by their bath-houses which makes them part Charismatic, and then an un-counterable gunpowder unit and you have a very nice game layed out for you.

Zulu: The Impi might actually take the cake for most useless UU, even when faced with Jaguars, Gallic Swordsmen and Phalanxes.

Strength 4, Movement 2, -1 terrain cost; the power of a Spearman with the abilities of a Keshik. Personally, if I want a 2-Move Strength-4 unit, I BUILD A CHARIOT. The Impi's only saving grace is the possibility that it could be built without metal, but extremely doubtful, since that would give the Zulu insane early-rushing abilities.

The Zulu will however excell in maintaining large empires, since when their UB is combined with courthouses, that results in a net 70% decrease in city-maintainance. That means that developed Zulu cities will have maintinance costs that are 60% that of any other Civ. That's almost equal in power to the Organized trait's Civic cost reduction.

We will have to play them to be sure, but I am still unpersuaded that the janissaries will be that useful when it matters. Musketmen become obsolete way too fast, and the janissaries can't do much about that.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Zulu: The Impi might actually take the cake for most useless UU, even when faced with Jaguars, Gallic Swordsmen and Phalanxes.

Strength 4, Movement 2, -1 terrain cost; the power of a Spearman with the abilities of a Keshik. Personally, if I want a 2-Move Strength-4 unit, I BUILD A CHARIOT. The Impi's only saving grace is the possibility that it could be built without metal, but extremely doubtful, since that would give the Zulu insane early-rushing abilities.

Useful for defeating Horses, though (can keep up with them and take them down).

 

[benjamin28]

I cannot wait to see the effects of the UB!!!
As someone said, in the beginning they seemed to be just a decoration, but I can see now they would be a decisive part of the civ's character.

For example, the Sacrifice Altar surely will give you extra culture when killing workers on it. Why not give the never-loved Aztec Jag the ability of converting defeated units into workers? Aztlan would rise and shine.

Wikipedia mentions Bazaar as UB of the Arabs. Since the information in that site is not official, is not a bad idea. But Bazaar should go for Persians and the Arabs could get Madrasah instead of Universities.

 

[turquoiseninja]

What building do your think the sacrificial altar will replace? It can't really replace the temples accurately cause the temples are specific to different religouns.

I don't think the Imperialistic trait was a very good trait idea, scientific seems like a better choice. Agressive and Imperialistic are historicaly so interchangeable, agressive means to me to be a leader who attacked his/her neighbors a lot, and imperialistic means they built a large empire. So does imperialistic mean succesful, and agressive means not nessicarily succesful? Just my opinion.

 

[playshogi]

The Ottomans UB does not offer 2 health AND 2 happiness, just 2 happiness instead of 2 health. Read the info carefully. That nerfs somewhat their expansive trait, since they can't build aqueducts. Question is, can they still build Hanging Gardens?

 

[Watiggi]

The Ottomans UB does not offer 2 health AND 2 happiness, just 2 happiness instead of 2 health. Read the info carefully. That nerfs somewhat their expansive trait, since they can't build aqueducts. Question is, can they still build Hanging Gardens?

No. The UB benefits are in addition to the improvement it replaces. The benefits don't replace the old benefits.

If what you say were true, then the Celts wouldn't be able to build wall defenses, Shaka wouldn't be able to get 4 experience per each unit built in that city for the entire game because it couldn't build the barracks. That would just make Shaka's UB an early courthouse AT the expense of building an army. That just doesn't make sense.

Ohh, and btw, I did re-read it again. It says: "Rather than building Aqueducts, the Ottomans create Hammams. These steam baths generate an additional 2 happiness for the cities in which they're built."

 

[Louis XXIV]

Replacing it wouldn't make sense. Unless they specifically say it does (like the Zulu barracks at least mentioning the increased cost), I doubt it will.

 

[ChrTh]

What building do your think the sacrificial altar will replace? It can't really replace the temples accurately cause the temples are specific to different religouns.

My guess is that it replaces the obelisk. I don't think it'll have a sacrifice effect like in C3C, more likely it gives additional experience to units built in the same city or a happiness bonus.

If it does replace the obelisk, I wonder what effect Stonehenge will have?