Warlords- What is it good for, absolutely nothing ugh!

[Eternalsteelfan]

The highlighted part is so much a plain lie that I can only assume that you are working for Firaxis.

Wow, that's a brilliant presumption. Surely since you and others have experienced difficulties, we ALL have. Not only do you blatantly insult me you also have the nerve to generalize every single person's experience with the game. Your arrogant demeanor and hostilies towards those of different opinions only paint you more the fool.

 

[GIR]

Thanks Shqype! I'm actually thinking about getting my 3.0 out since there's literally almost nothing left to do--part of the reason I was so crushed to lose my HDD--and because there's still a fair bit of work to do on Gold2.0. Once we finish 2.0 I'll post a final version of Sevomod-3 with Gold incorporated; probably the last pre-Warlords release.

Once warlords is released I'm going to have to play with it (obviously), but I suspect as many others have conjectured that it'll be hard to go back to many of the vanilla game features, so the next thing will be upgrading all of our mods to be compatible with Warlords to the extent that we like.

(I have a feeling we can't go the other way--i.e., take the pieces we like from Warlords and roll them back into our current mods--that seems to violate some sort of copyright-type-thing.)

So we're doomed as with previous version of Civ to support multiple possible user bases (like CivIII, PTW, and Conquests). I haven't decided yet how I'm going to approach this in Sevomod, as I'm not too keen on having to make changes in three different file trees for everything...

Anyway, I've got a few leaderheads to do yet for our CivGold, but on the plus side I'm getting much better at the 3D work as I go...

well, that's the reason i will buy the expansion sooner or later.

 

[Asake]

lol, i was one of the first who bought civ4 (first release was in germany --> post #4; post #343) i was soo happy at this time but the game wasn't stable and sometimes i had CTD!! jeha, that really pisses me of... i hope they don't make the same mistakes again!

What pisses me off the most is that the translations are rubbish. They translated "power" (clearly military power, otherwise I wouldn't have power in 4000BC ^^" As "electricity" in French, Italian, Spanish, and German.

 

[Asake]

not a chance England all the way

I'm for:
Paraguay, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago

 

[naterator]

They translated "power" (clearly military power, otherwise I wouldn't have power in 4000BC ^^" As "electricity" in French, Italian, Spanish, and German.

maybe they just babel fished it? that's a pretty funny mistake, in my book. although i don't have to check the electricity graph, maybe if i did, it would be annoying.

 

[Commander Bello]

I can only assume you have rocks in your head.

He said he hasn't had any problems with Civ4. How can you think you know better than him whether he has any problems?

Because I am running the game on two completely different machines (both miles above the recommended specs) and I am experiencing a lot of issues which would qualify for "bad quality".
These issues are reported over and over by others in this and other forums as well.
I am not only talking about bad balancing. I am not talking about strange decisions like walls, castles and forts being almost meaningless. I am also not talking about the exploits being possible.

I am talking about issues like the mouse-over popups being missing from time to time, or the game ending in bad memory allocations if you start a second game without exiting completely.
I am talking about the game not accepting keyboard inputs when renaming or adjusting amounts in diplomacy, which happens at almost every second indication.
I am talking about the air warfare routines and a lot of other things.
I am talking about animations being sluggish, and units "sliding" instead of "walking".
I am talking about moving a stack and one or two units coming a little bit late.
I am talking about messages about the inter-turn coming 45 seconds later, when you are already maintaining your cities or units.

And I am talking about the history of this sequel.

And then, somebody tells me that there aren't any indications of bad quality?

Well, this is something, which I regard to be a plain lie. Being a fan is fine. Telling that the world is a disc is a lie. It is just that easy.

As these things happen on 100% of my computer equipment AND are reported by other members as well, I am pretty sure one must have rocks in his head to not take notice of them.
Thanks for the audience.

 

[Gladi]

Bright day
How come nobody mentioned Mongol moving settlements? That is pretty intersting I think.

 

[BothofUs]

The thing that makes Warlords buyable is that it has those really cool unique buildings.

 

[GIR]

not a chance England all the way

I'm for:
Paraguay, Sweden, Trinidad and Tobago

edit:
I CANT BELIEVE what a game! Sweden - Trinidad and Tobago 0:0

 

[Codeman]

well, i think civ is great, civ 4 had a bumpy start but it seems okay now. the expansion is a must to me. i would like to see more civ growth down the road and if the company does not make thier money back they will beleive there isn't enough interest to grow any more. my thoughts.

 

[DaviddesJ]

And then, somebody tells me that there aren't any indications of bad quality?

That's not what he said. He said he hasn't seen any such indications.

I am pretty sure one must have rocks in his head to not take notice of them.

Well, you're wrong.

Most of what you mention is too trivial for most people to notice. You might as well complain about individual pixels being slightly wrong in color. It could be true but it's still also true that most people don't notice such things, or consider them to be problems, or indications of "bad quality". They consider the quality of the game to be important, not the quality of the pixels.

 

[Commander Bello]

[...]
Well, you're wrong.

Most of what you mention is too trivial for most people to notice. [...]

What a most desperate attempt to "goodmouth" something.

First of all, quite some people had,have and still do notice it. Second, declaring bad quality to be something which most people wouldn't notify doesn't make the quality better.
It is very strange that the supporters shy away from discussing facts as soon as they have been presented. Not to mention the fact that we have been confronted with loads of unfulfilled or at best partially fulfilled promises and announcements prior to release day.

Nevertheless, I learn from your statements that you like the game, yet you don't like any obvious weaknesses to be mentioned. Well, this is your approach.

I, for my person, am not satisfied with the mediocre quality (based on patch 1.61) of the game. It has been rushed, it has been partially patched and still the quality is far from what one could expect as service in return for an assumed overall income of appr. 40 million US$.

If you are (for what reason ever) satisfied by being virtually slapped into your face by the developers, this will be your cup of tea.
Others expect some quality for their money.

Back to the original question of the OP. What would make "Warlords" being different from anything we cen get for free from our eager modders?
obviously this is only one thing: the vassal state.
Everything else is eye-candy like the Great Wall, which again will consume some computing power for display with low impact to the game.
Unique buildings? Wow... I am pretty sure that they could be added already, like a second set of unique units.
Then we get some third leaders, but will stay with only one for other nations. Great idea, hm?

Ok, back to the vassal state thing. We already know how to confuse the AI in many aspects. Is there any indication, why we should assume that the algorithms for vassal state should be any better?
Once again, I am pretty sure that we will learn in the first two weeks to make vassal states work for the human player, and only for the human player. It is quite probably, thouhg, that we will learn that this concept doesn't work correctly, as the whole air warfare in the current way.

Remember my words. We are talking about a Firaxis product, so we will very quickly read the first reports about unlogical decisions of the AI to accept or refuse vassal state agreements....

 

[Commander Bello]

So Bello this is what you are saying.

1) They have not added enough things

2) There is no point in adding anything because the AI doesn't understand it.


Am I the only which sees a conflict here?

If you put it this way, you would be right

To 1): Yes, they didn't add (will not add) enough things
To 2): I have to admit that I indeed expect the vassal state thing to not work properly. In principle I am fine with that idea, yet I don't expect too much from it, implementation-wise.
If the future will prove me to be wrong, the better.

But let's be honest: currently peace negotiations are a crap. Very often the AI will refuse to hand over that one town somewhere deep in your territory, to gain peace. So you will move on destroying them.
Even to get that one ressource currently is not possible, regardless of the fact that you got 4 enemy cities already and outnumber them by any measure.

Can we really expect these problems to be solved with vassal states? I severly doubt that.
If we could, I would say: "By all means, go for it!"

And I would like to have some other new concepts implemented or existing concepts being repaired, like more logical trading, ressources and a million of other things.
But, as I said, looking at the current concepts and the way of implementing them, I don't have much hope.

 

[naterator]

currently peace negotiations are a crap. Very often the AI will refuse to hand over that one town somewhere deep in your territory, to gain peace.

how about my current game... roosevelt, who holds no cities, no military, and is riding around on a caravel, desparate not to be sunk and eliminated completely, steadfastly refuses to give me astronomy, despite me having several of my ovn caravels positioned to kill him next turn. seems they'd rather go down with the ship than give techs.
edit:
the funny part is that he'd had astronomy for quite some time. he used the free liberalism tech to get it. if he'd simply sailed his galleons out of boston as my riflemen approached, he'd be unsinkable for a few hundred years... sigh...
again, i'm buying the expansion pack, even expecting it to work, but the commander's cynicism seems justified. personally, i think that since these are concepts that have been worked on since before the original release, and that the pressure from above to get the product out immediatly may be a bit less with the expansion than the original game (especially since the 1.00 fiasco), they're alot more likely to refine the product more this time.

2nd edit--commander, did you change your sig just for this discussion?

 

[The Great Apple]

how about my current game... roosevelt, who holds no cities, no military, and is riding around on a caravel, desparate not to be sunk and eliminated completely, steadfastly refuses to give me astronomy, despite me having several of my ovn caravels positioned to kill him next turn. seems they'd rather go down with the ship than give techs.

Let's reverse the position here.

If you only had one Caravel, would you give him astronomy? He's not going to win the game, so there would be little point in trying to please you. AIs have some pride too!

@ CB - if you don't like it, why not have a bash at fixing it?

 

[naterator]

If you only had one Caravel, would you give him astronomy?

well, given that the AI doesn't take thefact that it's only a video game into account, then i won't either. so yes. yes please, sir, please allow me to teach you all i know of astronomy, just spare my life and allow me to spend my days harmlessly sailing the earth... just don't kill me!!!

 

[The Great Apple]

Maybe he didn't think you were cruel enough to mercilessly kill him for no good reason. Maybe he was hoping he could sell it to somebody, so he could buy himself a nice little patch of land somewhere and settle down.

Out of interest, did you kill him?

 

[naterator]

of course i killed him... i had like 10 cities that were yearning to join him on that caravel, causing massive unhappiness!! require complete kills is not an option for those who are prone to mercy.

 

[The Great Apple]

... i had like 10 cities that were yearning to join him on that caravel...

I think one of the issues here is that they didn't want it to become too easy to milk a defeated AI. I do agree (despite my arguements) that they really should be slightly more complient when faced with certain death.

 

[naterator]

you're right. the old declare peace, get what you can, regroup and declare war... repeat as necessary. it bugs me that people push it to the point where to maintain balance, options are removed... oh well. that's the way it is. that's also why all my victories have like 22000 points and some people get like half a million. speed is overvalued in victory to prevent milking for high score.