the best official scenarios

[NKVD]

What scenario did you find the best.

I played Alexander...ok but a bit dull. not enough things to do except push for the East and build units...

Rise of Rome (I played as Carthage) is the best scenario i've played so far since civ 2 ww2 scenario

and Vikings was actually a piece of crap I didnt even finish...no diplo....cant capture cities to win...awfull

 

[Bongo-Bongo]

I find them all boring.

Civ 2's WW2 was quality, and some of C3C's were good fun, but since that, I've found the scenarios rather boring and uninteresting.

 

[Xanikk999]

I think the civ4 scenarios are lackluster.

They arent all bad.. But alot of improvement could of been made.

But the best one id say is Genghis Khan. Thats the only scenario i liked.

 

[NKVD]

I think the civ4 scenarios are lackluster.

They arent all bad.. But alot of improvement could of been made.

But the best one id say is Genghis Khan. Thats the only scenario i liked.

I was planning to play it but I guessed it must look like the vikings scenario...which is horrible

 

[Powerslave]

I find them all boring.

Civ 2's WW2 was quality, and some of C3C's were good fun, but since that, I've found the scenarios rather boring and uninteresting.

I totally agree. Maybe Firaxis should get Breakaway Games to design some scenarios for them.

 

[Technocactus]

Barbarians was god. The rest were crap.

 

[Arlborn]

Barbarians is funny when you are bored...Rise of Rome is humm..Its OK I think. Khan is funny for a while and Viking I didnt like much. That is all I played and I vote for the Barbarian.

There is plenty of WW2 scenarios in the Mods section btw..

 

[bovinespy]

I find them all boring.

Civ 2's WW2 was quality, and some of C3C's were good fun, but since that, I've found the scenarios rather boring and uninteresting.

Ah, you've reminded me of something - that AWESOME Middle Ages scenario they had with C3C. I think I played more than all other scenarios combined, always trying different civs, different tricks. I found it challenging and well-balanced after dozens of games. The only thing that sucked was the stupid AI settling crappy cities all over Siberia. I haven't played C3C in over a year, but now you've got me thinking about digging up the old CD....

But, I digress. I haven't really got into any of the scenarios in Warlords. The Alexander one was a little repetitive, but did have kind of an 'epic' feel to it. I liked the Chinese one and found the Mongol one frustrating. Haven't tried the others yet - I'm having too much fun with the base game (2.08).

 

[bru]

Barbarians was fun for me because of it's uniqueness.

 

[Tiberias]

Ah, you've reminded me of something - that AWESOME Middle Ages scenario they had with C3C.

I thought the Middle Ages scenario was a great one as well, notwithstanding the "zillions of invisible Assassins" syndrome. Overall, I thought that Warlords was rather weak on the scenario side, especially compared to Conquests. If there's another expansion for Civ4, I would definitely be looking for stronger scenarios than what shipped with the game.

What I have found, however, is that the default scenarios that shipped with Civ4 "vanilla" aren't that bad. The "18 Civs" one is reasonably good, and the "Greek" one is interesting, but the "1000 AD" is surprisingly good, very interesting to play from the different civs that are available. It's the closest thing I've found to the Civ3 Middle Ages scenario, even though it doesn't use custom units or technologies.

 

[Red Door]

Genghis Khan!!!!

 

[Amenmesse]

I like the Rise of Rome, Chinese Reunification and Genghis Khan campaigns.

The Alexander one is a bit boring and the Viking one seems more or less in 'how to move units across a map in a boat' than anything else, possibly because the idea of raiding doesn't translate very well into a turn-based game and they've disabled diplomacy in the scenario.

The Pelopennesian war map is very ...odd.. because of the way naval warfare isn't such a big part of Civ and the scenario reflects that the war involved the Athenians sailing about whilst the Spartans stood around on land. Perhaps it is my playing style, but the campaign didn't draw me in.

 

[Laurier]

Where do I find the best Warlords add-on scenarios?

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

I think that the chinese unification and genghis khan scenarios were the best, they were pretty well done, especially since they were the only ones with good tech system. All the others(not counting barbarians) were just crap. I was disappointed with these scenarios, it seems the scenarios were half assed, not well thought out. They were definitely not as good as c3c's scenarios. I've logged in 100's of hours playing those, on these some of them I just looked at them and never turned back.

 

[NKVD]

Played Genghis Khan...I dont really like capturing cities which take 50 turns to produce a horseman...

Where do I find the best Warlords add-on scenarios?

there are none yet...but when there will there will be in the custom forum...under scenarios..

 

[Civfan333]

The best one is the Chinese Unification. It's the best by FAR.

 

[mech654]

chinese unification, than Barbarians one. The other ones are meh.

 

[GarethBeaumains]

I liked Chinese Unification. I had fun playing from the different "seats" around the table, to see what the strengths and weaknesses of the different powers were. I mourned in my Alexander the Great game as some of my best units died on the way to India, much as the historical Alexander asked -- "Why am I doing this?" So, showing a bit more wisdom than ole Alex, I quit before Bucephalas gave out on me.

The Peloponnesian War was about as convoluted and quixotic as the original enterprise. Likely true-to-life. Then again, I put Thucydides down in real life because I found it tedious. I also stopped playing this scenario early.

Vikings was feeble. I did the city raids, and handed back the cities, but it just did not feel much like "Yarrrr!" as I expected.

The best Civ IV Warlords scenario I have played, which did have a "Yarrrr!" feel to it was Pirates -- Pirates!. it is somewhat easy for you Prince+ folks to play it. I am usually playing Warlord/Noble-level games myself, but I found this very fun. Taking Cuba is definitely a hoot. Now this was a scenario you can sink your daggers into! It was more of what I was expecting from the Firaxis scenarios.

What I was hoping for were more scenarios like Civ's Desert War. That was far more "Warlords" than any of the Warlords scenarios.

 

[Antilogic]

It was a tough choice between the two I have played more than once, all the way through: Barbarians! and the Chinese Unification. I ended up picking Barbarians for the sheer joy of destroying civilizations and rampaging around with a horde of troops, plus the unit customization was really cool.

The Chinese Unification, I think I played through it 3 times, was really well-polished. Good scenario, overall. The others, like Rise of Rome and Alexander, I enjoyed, but only played once.

And that Peloponnesian War was an abomination. Although I like the time pressure element, they could have done so much more, and they excluded several Greek poleis. Where the hell was Argos? Helots? The Spartans should have had a vassal in the west that could rebel against them. Where the hell was the diplomacy? Greece, at this point, was a crowd of small, independent poleis, but only a handful are in the scenario. I was very dissappointed, so much that I believe a new version might be on my "to-do" list after the AMM.

 

[ohcrapitsnico]

It was a tough choice between the two I have played more than once, all the way through: Barbarians! and the Chinese Unification. I ended up picking Barbarians for the sheer joy of destroying civilizations and rampaging around with a horde of troops, plus the unit customization was really cool.

The Chinese Unification, I think I played through it 3 times, was really well-polished. Good scenario, overall. The others, like Rise of Rome and Alexander, I enjoyed, but only played once.

And that Peloponnesian War was an abomination. Although I like the time pressure element, they could have done so much more, and they excluded several Greek poleis. Where the hell was Argos? Helots? The Spartans should have had a vassal in the west that could rebel against them. Where the hell was the diplomacy? Greece, at this point, was a crowd of small, independent poleis, but only a handful are in the scenario. I was very dissappointed, so much that I believe a new version might be on my "to-do" list after the AMM.

Yeah and the fact that Sparta was ridiculously more easy than Athens IMO.