PC.IGN's Warlords preview (4/28)
- Thread starter Thunderfall
- Start date
diablodelmar
no comment
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 945
I'm definitly looking forward to this...
btw there is another interview on gamespot:
http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/civilizationivwarlords/news.html?sid=6148499&mode=previews
btw there is another interview on gamespot:
http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/strategy/civilizationivwarlords/news.html?sid=6148499&mode=previews
diablodelmar
no comment
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 945
There is always expansion no. 2Vietcong said:
diablodelmar
no comment
- Joined
- Jan 11, 2006
- Messages
- 945
They do! The Berserker is as much an Axeman as you're going to get! If you're refering to the fact that it should be in the ancient era, then you're terribly wrong. The Vikings were dominant in the Medieval Era.Gumbolt said:
I think there is bound to be a follow up to warlords in terms of expansion packs. Its far too early for civ 5. If carthage dont get the elephant i think a tweak to the indian leaders could be the answer. The fast worker for me does nothing. I cant attack with him grrrrrrrrrr. It would be fun if a civ had a worker that had an attack rating of 1 or 2. Make worker stealing at start fun.
I am actually rather a little disapointed overall about it. Is it my imagination or do the new features seem to not be 'complete'? It feels like it gives you bonuses but only in dribs and drabs and when it does, it doesn't seem like it is worth it. Maybe it's just the limited information that has come out about the new features.
First of all, I don't want people to think that I am complaining or what not. I am interested in the Warlords expansion (alot). I am just rather suprised by their decisions, based on what I have read.
Being a big Mongols fan (Genghis Kahn in particular) I'm looking forward to the Warlord unit, the unique building (what it is/what it does) and the scenario for Genghis Khan. I noticed that the scenario has the 'special scenario feature' called the 'Settler Camp unit' which I think goes well with the Mongols (especially Genghis Khan). They needed something that allows them to incorporate their nomadic lifestyle with their warfare strategies that also allows them to raze cities instead of having to hold onto them (for the increased production). I love the 'Settler Camp' unit idea - *absolutely* love it. But it appears to only be in the scenario. What about the normal game? I had it predicted that the unique building for the Mongols would be the Yurt and that it could have been a portable barracks or something performing a function that is exactly the way the settler camp unit seems to work. Maybe it still is, I don't know. Off course I never expected it to happen as it wasn't typical of the civ theme/style so I am rather impressed that it is in there. But now that this settler camp unit exists, who knows? I think the 'Settler Camp unit' idea should be apart of the normal game for the Mongols (assuming it was made to be balanced that is - which wouldn't be hard). This just means that I will end up playing the scenario over and over again instead of playing the Mongols on a normal map. If it is based on reality, I would imagine you could build catapults from this Settler Camp unit. It's going to be interesting whatever it turns out to be.
Vassal States. What is the point of letting the civ survive if all you really get is gold in tribute and war support? The war support wont be worth it if the AI is still the same as the AI attacks in its own time and with generally poor strategy anyway. What worth is a gold tribute to a warmonger when military units, research and production is what matters. Especially in civ4, gold is really worth nothing unless you have Universal Suffrage. The only value a gold tribute is to a warmonger is to fund expansion (ie, deficit spending) and / or a larger military - the former of which you wont need if you make them a Vassal State anyway. Based on what I have read, if this is all the Vassal State option is, I would rather take over the extra cities myself. Hmm, maybe the gold tribute is a gold per turn rather than a lump sum every so many turns. That would be better. One could expand and/or build a larger army with that
Don't get me wrong, I am not having a gripe - I can't wait for the Warlords expansion. I am just quite surprised about it. I would have made the Mongols have that settler camp unit function as part of the normal game rather than only in the scenario and then allow the master nation to actually rule through the Vassal State, essentially letting you guide/control the direction of the Vassal nations research, having them be able to build/gift units, etc. Again, maybe this is the case and that information hasn't been released yet. Having said that, what has been stated in the expansion is what I have come to expect from the Civ series (except for the Settler Camp unit).
No matter how it turns out however, I will be looking forward to the Warlords expansion.
EDIT: One thing I love about civ4 is how fantasic the screenshots are. I love just looking at the screenshots of the upcomming expansion.
Watiggi
First of all, I don't want people to think that I am complaining or what not. I am interested in the Warlords expansion (alot). I am just rather suprised by their decisions, based on what I have read.
Being a big Mongols fan (Genghis Kahn in particular) I'm looking forward to the Warlord unit, the unique building (what it is/what it does) and the scenario for Genghis Khan. I noticed that the scenario has the 'special scenario feature' called the 'Settler Camp unit' which I think goes well with the Mongols (especially Genghis Khan). They needed something that allows them to incorporate their nomadic lifestyle with their warfare strategies that also allows them to raze cities instead of having to hold onto them (for the increased production). I love the 'Settler Camp' unit idea - *absolutely* love it. But it appears to only be in the scenario. What about the normal game? I had it predicted that the unique building for the Mongols would be the Yurt and that it could have been a portable barracks or something performing a function that is exactly the way the settler camp unit seems to work. Maybe it still is, I don't know. Off course I never expected it to happen as it wasn't typical of the civ theme/style so I am rather impressed that it is in there. But now that this settler camp unit exists, who knows? I think the 'Settler Camp unit' idea should be apart of the normal game for the Mongols (assuming it was made to be balanced that is - which wouldn't be hard). This just means that I will end up playing the scenario over and over again instead of playing the Mongols on a normal map. If it is based on reality, I would imagine you could build catapults from this Settler Camp unit. It's going to be interesting whatever it turns out to be.
Vassal States. What is the point of letting the civ survive if all you really get is gold in tribute and war support? The war support wont be worth it if the AI is still the same as the AI attacks in its own time and with generally poor strategy anyway. What worth is a gold tribute to a warmonger when military units, research and production is what matters. Especially in civ4, gold is really worth nothing unless you have Universal Suffrage. The only value a gold tribute is to a warmonger is to fund expansion (ie, deficit spending) and / or a larger military - the former of which you wont need if you make them a Vassal State anyway. Based on what I have read, if this is all the Vassal State option is, I would rather take over the extra cities myself. Hmm, maybe the gold tribute is a gold per turn rather than a lump sum every so many turns. That would be better. One could expand and/or build a larger army with that
Don't get me wrong, I am not having a gripe - I can't wait for the Warlords expansion. I am just quite surprised about it. I would have made the Mongols have that settler camp unit function as part of the normal game rather than only in the scenario and then allow the master nation to actually rule through the Vassal State, essentially letting you guide/control the direction of the Vassal nations research, having them be able to build/gift units, etc. Again, maybe this is the case and that information hasn't been released yet. Having said that, what has been stated in the expansion is what I have come to expect from the Civ series (except for the Settler Camp unit).
No matter how it turns out however, I will be looking forward to the Warlords expansion.
EDIT: One thing I love about civ4 is how fantasic the screenshots are. I love just looking at the screenshots of the upcomming expansion.
Watiggi
I am not interested in an inbalanced game. As I said in my post, it should be a part of the normal game assuming it is balanced - which shouldn't be hard.
I originally thought that the Mongol unique building was going to be the Yurt and its functionality was going to be exactly like the settler camp unit. But it looks like it's not.
I originally thought that the Mongol unique building was going to be the Yurt and its functionality was going to be exactly like the settler camp unit. But it looks like it's not.
Grohan
Bug-hunter
Why Zulus? Babylonia/Khmer/Mayas would have been better or Abyssania if you want to include an African civ.
Otherwise expansion pack seems fine
Otherwise expansion pack seems fine
I'm kind of disappointed at this "expansion" that doesn't expand much. I was waiting for a lot of new civics, civs and units (don't they get that most people like having many unit options?). I do hope there's more to it. If it weren't for the mods, I'd have stopped playing civ ages ago.
Bushface
Deity
Expansion for the game, fine. But can anybody suggest a way for me to amass the necessary gold to expand my computer ???
armchairknight
Warlord
atreas said:
I agree with you. I think it was addressed in one of the articles on Warlords as feedback from fans. In other words, the squeeky wheel got the grease.
You have to admit that pleasing your fanbase is a good thing for all concerned and as long as they are trying to do that good things will come.
Corvex
Emperor of Canada
I'm also a bit disappointed that they made Brennus the leader of the Celts again; why not Bouddicca? In so many cases, they bend over backwards to find some female leader (not so much in Civ IV, mind you, but in Civ III this was especially common-- Remember Joan d'Arc and Theodora?), but when there actually is a real female leader of historical signifigance, they simply ignore her. And also, I think that a "Woad Archer," or some kind of powerful chariot would make a better UU for the Celts.
Maybe they just wanted to make the Celtic civ more "continental."
Or maybe they just felt Brennos would work better for the ancient Mediterranean scenario.
Maybe they just wanted to make the Celtic civ more "continental."
Or maybe they just felt Brennos would work better for the ancient Mediterranean scenario.
Bongo-Bongo
The Master
- Joined
- Nov 11, 2005
- Messages
- 621
atreas said:
This is the thing that is annoying me the most about the expansion pack. Sadly though, I think in most cases, the public would prefer to see Churchill added instead of some Incan guy they have never heard.
mitsho
Deity
@Corvex, but I'm sorry, Boudiccea more important than Brennus? One burnt Rome, the other got burnt by Rome. One lead a revolution, the other an army. historical signifance? How long did Boudiccea rule? How many people? She is certainly an interesting person, but it just doesn't cut it for me enough . Some more "islandish" leader would have been ok, someone from Wales, Ireland or Scotland for me, but they seem to want to keep the Celtic leader ancient.
On the expansion pack itself, i am VERY dissapointed that they ignored again the loud call for a Mesopotamian Civ. We were much louder than the Zulu's. If they wanted a war leader for the hell of it (As all of the new leaders are with the exception of Emperor Augustus), they could have taken the Assyrians. But meh, ...
@bongo bongo, I agree to you to a point, it certainly is better to feed the public first. But there still are the glaring greek and Arabian omissions who certainly deserve a second leader, or Persia for the hell of it. But ok, the Incans can wait
mitsho
. Some more "islandish" leader would have been ok, someone from Wales, Ireland or Scotland for me, but they seem to want to keep the Celtic leader ancient.On the expansion pack itself, i am VERY dissapointed that they ignored again the loud call for a Mesopotamian Civ. We were much louder than the Zulu's. If they wanted a war leader for the hell of it (As all of the new leaders are with the exception of Emperor Augustus), they could have taken the Assyrians. But meh, ...
@bongo bongo, I agree to you to a point, it certainly is better to feed the public first. But there still are the glaring greek and Arabian omissions who certainly deserve a second leader, or Persia for the hell of it. But ok, the Incans can wait
mitsho
