1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

PC.IGN's Warlords preview (4/28)

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Thunderfall, Apr 28, 2006.

  1. The Q-Meister

    The Q-Meister King

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2005
    Messages:
    774
    In every poll on civfanatics that I have seen, the Babylonians were #1 and the Zulus were not even in the top 5. On the Firaxis poll they did not let us see the results, but I seriously doubt how the results of the Firaxis poll would be radically different than the polls we had here.

    I agree that the Firaxis poll had some impact, but I know from reading numerous threads and poll on this website that the Babylonians had a lot of support, in fact, I'd say the most support. Keep in mind, I'm not a big Babs fan, I rarely play them, but since we are talking about what the fans want, one would think they would choose at least the one civ that I thought was the most highly demanded.

    My personal take is that Firaxis is making another expansion in the near-future which will include the Babylonians and most of the leaders/civs the community wants. I'm sure they wanted at least one high-profile/highly anticipated civ to feature for the next expansion and it also works out nicely for them because they can always say "Well, Warlords was more geared towards militaristic civs and typically the Babylonains aren't known for that."

    I am actually looking forward to the expansion, particularly interested in the Vassal States, an excellent idea I must say and curious to see the other traits that will be included. However there are other leaders I wish to see and since I feel that another expansion is forthcoming, I want those names to have some exposure so they're (ie Firaxis and the civ community) is aware that there are a number of us who want them.
     
  2. scottin

    scottin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    Greenville, SC
    I really don’t care what they are named. After all, as has been pointed out any number of times in the forum, history is just sort of a guideline for the game, not the end-all, be-all.

    The real point is the added dimension of playability. The most disappointing thing about the new civs is that there are only 10 new ones added. Adding 2 new traits to the game should result in 17 new trait combinations. (19 if you count the 2 that already haven’t been addressed. It has been stated by Firaxis that they will not add a Ind/Phil leader, as they feel this is unbalanced, but they also left out Cre/Org. Never heard a reason for this )

    Here are the 18 trait combinations that have not been used in the game, if you include the 2 new traits from Warlords (NewTrait1, NewTrait2)

    Aggressive/NewTrait1
    Aggressive/NewTrait2
    Creative/NewTrait1
    Creative/NewTrait2
    Creative/Organized
    Expansive/NewTrait1
    Expansive/NewTrait2
    Financial/NewTrait1
    Financial/NewTrait2
    Industrious/NewTrait1
    Industrious/NewTrait2
    NewTrait1/NewTrait2
    Organized/NewTrait1
    Organized/NewTrait2
    Philosophical/NewTrait1
    Philosophical/NewTrait2
    Spiritual/NewTrait1
    Spiritual/NewTrait2

    Now, not knowing what the new traits are, it would be difficult to say which of the above combinations would be unbalanced. I figure, based on what they have told us so far about the expansion, and the name (Warlords) that one of the new traits will be war-related, so that might not mix well with Aggressive. Still I find it hard to believe that 8 of these combinations will be unbalanced :dubious: . Therefore, the only reason that I can think of (granted I have only been thinking on it for a few minutes, but still...) would be testing to ensure the balance is okay. It seems to me that there should be at least 16 additional leaders in the expansion, not 10 :sad: . So I find the addition of 10 new civs to be the most disappointing part :gripe: , not which ones they choose.

    Tho most of the other new content sounds like great fun. :cooool: :dance: :clap:

    Edit: edited for readability
     
  3. Elhoim

    Elhoim Iron Tower Studio Dev

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2004
    Messages:
    2,539
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    San Isidro, Argentina.
    I think you will find more dissapointng that there are not 10 new civs, but 6... The six new civilizations and their leaders are the Zulus (Shaka), the Celts (Brennus), the Carthaginians (Hannibal), the Vikings (Ragnar), the Ottomans (Mehmed II), and the Koreans (Wang Kon).
    10 is the number of new leaders, including the six above plus Rameses II, Augustus, Churchill and Stalin.
     
  4. m15a

    m15a Emperor

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2005
    Messages:
    1,471
    with babylonians, you might have a good point. it's odd that it's not in the supposed top 6. my guess is either what you said or that they didn't want to add too many civs in the same geographic area. besides the lack babylonians, the list of new civs isn't really surprising at all. there isn't a new civ in the exansion that hasn't gotten, say, "top 10" support. looking at the poll here:

    http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=131326

    zulus is in the top 6 (i think). so really, having the zulus isn't surprising.
     
  5. CiverDan

    CiverDan Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 28, 2004
    Messages:
    256
    I was trying to guess what the traits of the new UU's were going to be. I had already read the article.
     
  6. pholkhero

    pholkhero Deviant Mind

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2006
    Messages:
    5,646
    Location:
    Philadelphia
    anyone notice in the scores display:

    Emperor Xian Zing
    Emperor Li
    King B

    Do you think those titles are the gov't civic they're in??
     
  7. Jason Fliegel

    Jason Fliegel Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    281
    With absolutely nothing to back me up save sheer speculation, I'm going to "predict" that one of the new traits will be Defensive -- free city defense promotion to all archery and gunpowder units and double production speed for walls and castles.
     
  8. Jason Fliegel

    Jason Fliegel Warlord

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2003
    Messages:
    281
    I would guess that those are simply different leaders from the Genghis Khan scenario.
     
  9. diablodelmar

    diablodelmar no comment

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    945
    There is also no Philosophical/Industrious combination either.
     
  10. scottin

    scottin Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2006
    Messages:
    22
    Location:
    Greenville, SC
    Yes. I stated that Firaxis has already said they will not create a leader with this trait combination, so I didn't include it in the list. That is why there are 18 in the list, not 19 that I mentioned in the previous paragraph.
     
  11. Greek Stud

    Greek Stud Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 14, 2003
    Messages:
    489
    Location:
    Westlake Village, CA
    Actually the addition of Winston Churchill is a fantastic one. And dont let it bother you that England got a third leader, because Churchill in effect was a nation builder while Stalin was a master at absorbing Vassal States.

    Churchill is basically a second leader for Greece. His persona may have been founding President Elefterios Venezelos, but the momentum in the United Kingdom for a restored Greece and Churchill's acting upon it are what led to a self-governing Greek State. Roosevelt and others could have supported Greece (And Russia tried funding a Greek revolt in Macedonia which ended in Turkish reprisals), but Churchill was the only one to roll the ball on it.
     
  12. Splaaat

    Splaaat Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2006
    Messages:
    8
    How about MacArthur?

    Sorry, I couldn't resist.

    The concept of Vassal states reminds me of when Civs would surrender in Alpha Centauri. I liked it because I would get tired of the tedium of long wars. Once I got one faction to surrender, I could resume my builder ways or turn on the next faction instead of finishing off the first...
     
  13. The Sleepy Vike

    The Sleepy Vike Norse Agent 007

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2005
    Messages:
    45
    Location:
    St. Paul, MN
    I like "Warlords" for one main reason: the Vikings (Ragnar) are in it. The days of my CivIII raiding have returned! (Granting that the Vikings UU is still the Berzerker.) I also like that Carthage (Hannibal) is in it as well. I'm not sure how I feal about the Koreans (Dislike from CivIII), but the others are fine with me.
     
  14. atreas

    atreas King

    Joined:
    Jan 10, 2006
    Messages:
    799
    Location:
    Greece
    Sorry, but what are you talking about? I have the feeling that you have mixed (at least) 2-3 historical periods and also some other of your statements can be interpreted (to use a mild expression) in various ways. Let's just say that this sentence would turn half of Greece's population furious, the way it is now. It's very dangerous to play with things like civil war.

    We can continue this discussion via PM, because I don't want to start a flaming and off-topic conversation; but I am really curious to understand what you have in your mind.
     
  15. Red Door

    Red Door Man of Mayhem

    Joined:
    May 29, 2005
    Messages:
    12,665
    Location:
    USA #1
    Yes, the Berzerker is still in.
     
  16. Azkonus

    Azkonus Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 2, 2005
    Messages:
    364
    Location:
    Istanbul
    Are you OK with move from Sipahi to Janissary?

    In Civ3 Sipahi is so cool, it has a lot of funs because of its animation and winning combination of power & pace. I am wondering if they can repeat this again with janissaries?
     
  17. HourlyDaily

    HourlyDaily Man-o-Mercy

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2004
    Messages:
    507
    Location:
    Melbourne, Australia
    Sipahi vs Janissary.

    Well both are iconic elite units of the Ottoman army. I guess on balance Firaxis might have felt that there were enough mounted UU's already.
     
  18. Zurai

    Zurai King

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2004
    Messages:
    726
    The SMAC Surrender option was actually the way to the quickest possible Scientific wins. The goal was to make short, overwhelming wars to get 2-3 vassals as soon as you could (generally with mindworms) and then gift back all their cities and have all of you research. It was much more efficient than conquering them completely and trying to do all the research yourself.
     
  19. Xenophonos

    Xenophonos Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2005
    Messages:
    39
    Location:
    Queens, NY
    About not including the Babylonians in this expansion, blame it on marketing strategy.

    It was ranked number one on many polls, clearly a popular civ to include in an upcoming expansion, but for one so popular, why put them in now...

    To make sure you have a better demand from consumers on future products, why not wait until the second expansion to put in the much desired Babylonians. Marketing strategy.
     
  20. diablodelmar

    diablodelmar no comment

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2006
    Messages:
    945
    Where did firaxis say this? Can I see a link?
     

Share This Page