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

[cymru_man]

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.

I find this hard to believe. To my memory, the world for power (as in the powergraph) used in the French version of the game, is puissance, meaning power as we understand the word. Maybe this was added in a patch. I do find it hard to believe they would have used the French word électricité to translate power, since it does resemble slightly the English word electricity . But meh, if you say so.. I was just impressed at the translated versions of the game being available, but when translateing there are always errors made.

PS a babelfish for "power" in French returns "puissance", it really is the first translation of the word.

Now, to the whiny guy:

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.

Ok, so a few units move slightly out of sync with the stack. Perhaps it is an issue on certain machines but it is purely graphical and doesn't affect game play in any way. Have you ever considered how complex it is to design a game that works perfectly graphically on every machine, no matter how hybrid the set up or archaic the graphics drivers, without a few weird effects?

I think the main cause for complaint was the failure to get the game working with ATI graphics drivers, and the late game memory leaks. That was shambolic. It has been fixed, and hopefully Firaxis will have learnt from their lesson. However, I doubt we will see these problems in Warlords - they are not rebuilding the game engine, just adding stuff on top.

It is very strange that the supporters shy away from discussing facts as soon as they have been presented.

To point out that something is minor and doesn't detract from gameplay seems to me fair. I also take issue with your polarisation of the forum. "Supporters of Firaxis vs Haters of Firaxis". Can it be that some people are of course upset and angry by the way the game was rushed onto the shelf but in light of the work done by the firm to fix the errors they made through several patches and also the great experience that the game gives do not feel the need to slate the firm at every opportunity?

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.

No game can be perfect. What I wish to say is that while it is perhaps lacking in some areas, I feel the game itself is smooth and lacking few serious faults/bugs/errors. It's certainly a step up from Civ3. Of course there are weaknesses, but there always are. Firaxis simply don't have the time money or in some case ability to make the game exactly how you would like it. Remember - what you expect from the game is perhaps different to others. I can understand why the made it so an almost-extinct AI won't give you Astronomy, and I approve of the decision - it's not stupid AI but infact quite good AI.

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$.

Income in real terms represents nothing. You would be surprised how quickly 40million US$ disappears when you have to pay programmers, managers, other assorted staff, utility bills, rent, advertising, supplies for a long period of time while the game is being made. I would not describe the game as being of mediocre quality. As I said before, it is all about expectations. Yours were clearly very high, but perhaps with regard to certain aspects of the game, where infact its performance was less than perfect. It is clear the developers are not putting emphasis on developing the areas of the game that you personally expect them to. At the end of the day, I would expect a little gratitude or appreciation for the game. I think it's great, and it has been keeping me busy ever since it came out, at least 6 months now.

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.

See above.

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.

Some people are naturally shy or wary of mods, not because of security reasons or whatever but simply because they like to play the vanilla game. This way they can compare their achievements to those of other players, read strategy articles on the forum that actually apply to their games, etc etc. For them, the only way to get these things modders so avidly create is through an expansion - so that everyone would be playing the same vanilla expansion.

Everything else is eye-candy like the Great Wall, which again will consume some computing power for display with low impact to the game.

Once again, you are clearly expecting from this modpack vast improvements/changes to AI etc whilst Firaxis would prefer to add some new shiny leaders etc. You cannot sell a mod with the title "Includes better AI!"

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?

So what if one nation gets 3 and others 1...it seems a touch illogical but hardly important. As for UBs, yes they could be done by modders but now they are being done by Firaxis.

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....

The AIs are based on random numbers and set "personalities". Maybe it is the personalities they represent that are illogical

Overall I think you focus very much on the negative aspects or flaws in the game instead of looking at the positive things that the game has achieved when you talk about quality. Warlords will not contain much we could not have added ourselves, but that is only thanks to the fact that Firaxis gave us the SDK and the XML etc in such a moddable form. However, the very fact it is Firaxis-made and sanctioned by Firaxis, and represents a step forward in Civ that everyone will be playing the same game (unlike when player X has mods A B and C, but player B has mods D & E and everything is uncomprable). I will buy Warlords. After all, it is only 20£GDP.

 

[Commander Bello]

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

Because of a very primitve reason: I lack the skills in python and C++ to do so.

Yet, I work in the software industry, and I know how to maintain a project. Give ME the 24 months which have been reported for development, give me the budget and make sure that noone from the past team has any chance to interfere, and I will give YOU a much better game. Is this a deal?

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

no, I changed it some weeks ago, being tired of all those praising from fanboys who post the most blatant nonsense because they cannot stand the truth.
Do you remember some genius' approach to declare Civ4 being the best ever piece of software?
If somebody likes the game, it is absolutely fine with me. If he likes it although there are problems with it, it still is fine with me.
If he starts telling me (and other people) that there aren't any problems, or that they just don't count, then I get a little bit angry.

I've just played this game for almost 10 hours as an demonstration game. Since this requirese some more details, I felt I had to give my units some names. Guess what? In almost 7 out of 10 indications, I had to manually readjust the keyboard input. I mean, come on! This is 2006, this is the third patch, and they didn't get the keyboard algorithms to work properly?
Not to mention the delays in the notifications, the display of animations which are staggering on a 3.6 GHz P4 with 2 GB of RAM and so on and so on...

This shall be quality? In no way it is.
If my company would deliver the same quality in our projects (which are of less budget as a project) we would be kicked out sooner as we could say "But Firaxis does the same!"

Unfortunately, there are so many fanboys (to avoid a more fitting expression) who are willing to put their money down the drain that this company just can move on the way they have done all the past years.

Don't we remember the fiascos of the patching of C3C? And the story just continues....

And do we really think that Firaxis will learn and try to submit better products, if we as a community go on and tell them "Wow, you are soooo great, guys. Ok, you lied at us regarding the specs. Ok, what you call videos , we have seen better already 5 years ago. Ok, a member of the community did fix your problems, which you weren't able to do for months. Ok, you announced a wonderful 3D engine which still doesn't work properly. Ok, you managed to hold back an allegedly finalized patch for 6 weeks. But hey, you are great! May I kiss your .... once again?"
Do we really think, this will make them learn programming and maintaining projects?

I do believe that we should drop their noses into those piles over and over again, until they either stop ripping us of or leave the market.
It is just that easy.

It has been reported that a million of copies has been sold. That makes for an estimated income of appr. 40 million US$. And now, tell me somebody, that this release is worth this money?

 

[Commander Bello]

First of all, thanks for taking your time to comment my statements in a meaningful, educated and adult manner.

I will try to do so as well and hope my english skills will allow me to do so.

Now, to your comments:

[...]
Now, to the whiny guy:

Under the assumption that you did adress me by this, I would like to put your attention to the fact that from the perspective of a critic, the complainers about critics could very well be called "whiny guys" as well.

Ok, so a few units move slightly out of sync with the stack. Perhaps it is an issue on certain machines but it is purely graphical and doesn't affect game play in any way. Have you ever considered how complex it is to design a game that works perfectly graphically on every machine, no matter how hybrid the set up or archaic the graphics drivers, without a few weird effects?

Neither a ATI Radeon 9600 nor a NVidia GS6600 are rare graphic cards, are they? I can tell you that I had set up both machines from the scratch, including a full new Windows installation with all patches (even the ones you get from the user-defined search). All other necessary drivers and patches had been installed as well. That much to the technical aspects of my two different machines.
Nevertheless, the indications are the same on both machines, making it implausible that it should be a problem based on my hardware.

And then, I may just ask what would be so complicated to make a stack move as a stack? There are only so many units displayed if you look at a stack. Where is the problem in moving them simultaneously?

Please remember that Firaxis didn't invent the graphics engine by themselves, they licensed it. And they used the same engine in Pirates! already. So we may assume that they should have had some knowledge about it, no?

I think the main cause for complaint was the failure to get the game working with ATI graphics drivers, and the late game memory leaks. That was shambolic. It has been fixed, and hopefully Firaxis will have learnt from their lesson. However, I doubt we will see these problems in Warlords - they are not rebuilding the game engine, just adding stuff on top.

Well, the ATI thing just stands for itself, and I am not going to comment it anymore.
The memory issues are still available as after some hours of gaming it will considerably speed up the game to save, exit (no rebooting necessary), reload and continue playing. I am talking about patch 1.61.

To point out that something is minor and doesn't detract from gameplay seems to me fair. I also take issue with your polarisation of the forum. "Supporters of Firaxis vs Haters of Firaxis". Can it be that some people are of course upset and angry by the way the game was rushed onto the shelf but in light of the work done by the firm to fix the errors they made through several patches and also the great experience that the game gives do not feel the need to slate the firm at every opportunity?

I don't face any problems if somebody states that a certain issue does not distract him from the game. I do face some problems, if this persons tries telling me that these issues are not existing.
I think the difference is obvious?
Please have a look at my posting above regarding the patching history of Firaxis. I won't repeat it here.

No game can be perfect. What I wish to say is that while it is perhaps lacking in some areas, I feel the game itself is smooth and lacking few serious faults/bugs/errors. It's certainly a step up from Civ3. Of course there are weaknesses, but there always are. Firaxis simply don't have the time money or in some case ability to make the game exactly how you would like it. [...]

I agree that no game can be perfect. I agree that no developer can look into my head and make exactly the game I have dreamed of.
I do not agree that things like keyboard input, sliding animations, missing roads, sailing boats looking almost like capsizing, battleships rotating like an insane minute hand are something which is "smooth". These things are obvious to anybody who plays the game and has a look to the screen. It is nothing which would qualify for "only my expectation".
Fixing these things shouldn't be by any measure beyond Firaxis' capabilities.
If it were, I would say that noone should spend any money anymore for their products.

Income in real terms represents nothing. You would be surprised how quickly 40million US$ disappears when you have to pay programmers, managers, other assorted staff, utility bills, rent, advertising, supplies for a long period of time while the game is being made.

Income in real terms means a lot. And I would not be surprised, since this is part of MY job, to handle my projects within a given budget and timeframe.
What I do is to absolutely agree that Civ4 seems to have run out of time and budget. Does this make things better? No.
They told us big fat lies about how the game were almost finished and only "some polishing needed" months and weeks prior to release. If we look at the game we see that this was just not true. Did you ever have a look at the spaceship sub-screen? Well, this is something which is so poor that I am lacking any proper term to describe it.
Have you ever thought about why for a whole section of units there aren't any promotions? I am talking about the air units. Promotions have been one the things which have been advertised so proudly. For air units they are missing? If this wouldn't be an indication for rushing out an unfinished product, then I don't know. And it is still unfinished, even with patch 1.61.

I would not describe the game as being of mediocre quality. As I said before, it is all about expectations. Yours were clearly very high, but perhaps with regard to certain aspects of the game, where infact its performance was less than perfect. It is clear the developers are not putting emphasis on developing the areas of the game that you personally expect them to. At the end of the day, I would expect a little gratitude or appreciation for the game. I think it's great, and it has been keeping me busy ever since it came out, at least 6 months now.

Well, in my eyes the quality of the vanilla game is mediocre. You may have another estimation and this your good right.
Nevertheless, the fact that the developers obviously didn't put their focus on the things I have mentioned above once again seems to speak for itself.
And finally, I don't owe them any gratitude or thankfulness. I owed them some money, and they got it. What I didn't get, was a game working (technically) in a way one could it expect to work at the beginning of the 21st century.

Some people are naturally shy or wary of mods, not because of security reasons or whatever but simply because they like to play the vanilla game. This way they can compare their achievements to those of other players, read strategy articles on the forum that actually apply to their games, etc etc. For them, the only way to get these things modders so avidly create is through an expansion - so that everyone would be playing the same vanilla expansion.

This is something I understand, yet it doesn't disprove my statement that almost anything we can expect from the expansion either is already available from "amateurs" (and in this context, "amateurs" just is a commendation, since those people achieve at least the same quality as a paid crew obviously is having severe difficulties to achieve) or it will be available.
What I - and as I learn from countless postings in this and other forums - and others would have expected was that the expansion would extend the game play by new options and possibilities.
Yet, the only real new option is one which I have discussed in my previous postings in this thread already. Therefore, I will not repeat that.

Once again, you are clearly expecting from this modpack vast improvements/changes to AI etc whilst Firaxis would prefer to add some new shiny leaders etc. You cannot sell a mod with the title "Includes better AI!"

I don't have any problem with new leaders per se. I do have a problem with the decision to give a third leader to some nations, whilst other nations still are stuck with only one leader. This is - once again - a clear indication about how Firaxis has been and still is working: "Ok guys, let's put something together for the sheep. They will pay for it, so no need to put some consideration into it."

Overall I think you focus very much on the negative aspects or flaws in the game instead of looking at the positive things that the game has achieved when you talk about quality. Warlords will not contain much we could not have added ourselves, but that is only thanks to the fact that Firaxis gave us the SDK and the XML etc in such a moddable form. However, the very fact it is Firaxis-made and sanctioned by Firaxis, and represents a step forward in Civ that everyone will be playing the same game (unlike when player X has mods A B and C, but player B has mods D & E and everything is uncomprable). I will buy Warlords. After all, it is only 20£GDP.

I would like to take the chance to strongly advise you to wait with this purchase for let's say, a week. Read the forums during that week and pay attention to what will be written.
If, after that time, you still think it will be worth the money, go and get it.

And, if you do this, and do the reading, do it carefully. I promise you, there will be postings like "OMG, it is sooooo coooooool!" - "Why?" - "Well, ahm... have a look at that Great Wall! Isn't it sweet?" - "Did you get it at a level above Prince?" - "Ahm... no.. but it looks so cool!" - "So you are still being invaded by Barbs?" - guy loving coooool graphics leaves the thread, most probably the forum as well.....

 

[Kryptyk]

I was planning to do as Bello said, I will wait at least a week, before buying exp, if i even do. Right now I see no point in buying warlords, 30$ so I can get a few leader & a few wonders? no thank you. The vassle state concept seems really cool however. But that alone is not worth 30$. For me to really plan on buying the exp it would need to have,several new units, new UUs for each civ, more than 3 new leaders or whatever the number is, several new map types, several new promotions + air promotions, and more than 3 new wonders. This exp looks to be just a money grabber IMO, but i will see if it really is a couple weeks after release. BTW are there even gonna be new civs? all i hear about are leaders and wonders.

 

[JuanM]

I don't feel this "expansion" is worth much. At the very, very least, they should have doubled the number of civs. How can you play history without key peoples like the Jews?

But as long as there is a steady supply of undiscriminating people to milk, we'll continue to see half-baked and downright pointless products cluttering store shelves.

 

[BG_Zero]

Without resolving to bashing Firaxis, but seriously: What is Warlords good for except wasting money? The mods that are available right now are amazing and give you infinitely more of everything you want for cIV than the warlords expansion, for free.

I mean come on, 30 bucks for (compared to Sevomod, chosen bc that's the one I play not bc I want to advertise it):

# 6 new civs - Sevomod gives you 23
# 10 new leaders - Sevomod gives you 37
# 3 new traits - Sevomod gives you 4
# 10 new units - Sevomod gives you a ton and more
# 3 wonders - Sevomod gives you 11
# 3 new recs - Sevomod gives you 3 or more coming up
# 1 new GP, the warlord - Sevomod included it ages ago with very similar features

So what I pay 30 bucks for is:

- 6 scenarios ( I won't play one bc I don't like scenarios )
- the Vassal State concept (the only truly interesting thing)
- civ-unique buildings (that sounds not really difficult to mod)

Sevomod gives me so many more features that I haven't even experienced them all yet.

Fall from Heaven gives you a whole new game, Total Realism is similar in the number of new features just polarized in another direction, The Ancient Mediterranean Mod is a whole world of scenario for you.

So why would anyone want to buy Warlords? I will stick with Sevomod that achieved the thing I was missing in the vanilla version: It brought back my OMTS. I will not buy Warlords, not unless Firaxis is going full throttle and giving us a ton of exiting new balanced features, requested by the community or so cunning that we did not even conceive them yet. I know some call it insolent and insatiable, but that's the way it is sry!

Warlords aside, thank you Firaxis for making a great game with great potential and for pusuing the policy with mods that you do, releasing the SDK etc.!

Well you are right about this.I will get the game only if it has a bulgarian civ. in the game.By the way do eny one knows if there is going to be Bulgaria in the game?

 

[Truronian]

Well you are right about this.I will get the game only if it has a bulgarian civ. in the game.By the way do eny one knows if there is going to be Bulgaria in the game?

No

The new civs are:

Celts
Ottamans
Zulu
Koreans
Vikings
Carthaginians

 

[Mrdie]

Well you are right about this.I will get the game only if it has a bulgarian civ. in the game.By the way do eny one knows if there is going to be Bulgaria in the game?

Over 6000 years of history, and the greatest civ you can come up with is.............Bulgaria?

 

[Sahkuhnder]

Well you are right about this.I will get the game only if it has a bulgarian civ. in the game.By the way do eny one knows if there is going to be Bulgaria in the game?

You're in luck then. Bulgaria was part of Rome which is included as a civ.

 

[darkangel1778]

What is this going to do to online play?

Are non warlords going to be able to play with others?

I tend to agree with the op, some nice stuff, but not enough for an expansion. Give us a good, stable platform for playing online games and I would have no problem buyin an expansion.

 

[The Great Apple]

Because of a very primitve reason: I lack the skills in python and C++ to do so.

If you have enough time to write posts of this length with such well thought out arguements, I'd say you have enough time to learn them to a sufficiency.

Of course, you could use the arguement that it should have been like this in the first place, and you may even have a point. However, we have what we have, it has been done like it has been done. I think the only thing left to do is to leave it to modders.

As an aside - we are working on the AI, but it takes time. A whole lot of time.

 

[King Flevance]

Unfortunately, there are so many fanboys (to avoid a more fitting expression) who are willing to put their money down the drain that this company just can move on the way they have done all the past years.

Don't we remember the fiascos of the patching of C3C? And the story just continues....

And do we really think that Firaxis will learn and try to submit better products, if we as a community go on and tell them "Wow, you are soooo great, guys. Ok, you lied at us regarding the specs. Ok, what you call videos , we have seen better already 5 years ago. Ok, a member of the community did fix your problems, which you weren't able to do for months. Ok, you announced a wonderful 3D engine which still doesn't work properly. Ok, you managed to hold back an allegedly finalized patch for 6 weeks. But hey, you are great! May I kiss your .... once again?"
Do we really think, this will make them learn programming and maintaining projects?

I do believe that we should drop their noses into those piles over and over again, until they either stop ripping us of or leave the market.
It is just that easy.

Bello, I love you man. This is seriously fantastic. It is that easy. Too bad alot of people have no idea what you're talking about. "Customers define business? That's madness!"

I don't have any problem with new leaders per se. I do have a problem with the decision to give a third leader to some nations, whilst other nations still are stuck with only one leader. This is - once again - a clear indication about how Firaxis has been and still is working: "Ok guys, let's put something together for the sheep. They will pay for it, so no need to put some consideration into it."

CAN I GET AN AMENAH!?!?

 

[Aquilius]

Warlords was created and will be released by professionals. Sevomod was created by an amateur modder.

Nope I can't agree at all. Thinking about the original german translation I think it was made by HUGE amateurs. The guys on civforum.de made a community translation which seems much more professional than the original one. Also the community translation will be granted as one of a very very few mods by Firaxis to work also in multiplayer games. I would also not call Sevo an amateur, same for Kael. Forums like this one are things were many 'professionals' grew up from. The volunteered project leader of '7th Serpent' (Max Payne 2 Mod) has been offered a professional Lead Level Designer job in Sweden after creating this mod. Just a work contract is not a legislation for beeing a professional in his sector, the products and their quality are making someone a professional.
IMO companies should work closer together with fan communities to improve their products. I would love to see Kael receiving some money for Firaxis integrating his FFH mod in an official expansion pack. Also mod contests by Firaxis would be very helpful. The price: Some money and integration in an official expansion. What do you think about that?

 

[GIR]

[...]
As an aside - we are working on the AI, but it takes time. A whole lot of time.
(Civilization 4 Community Core Project - First Release)

wow, i love the idea. thx to all modders in this team!!

 

[Armorydave]

I intend to get Warlords the day it releases. Civ 4 has worked great for me out of the box and with the exception of a weak AI, I have absolutely no complaints. Fortunately, I have never had a bad experience with an official Civ game or expansion and have purchased everything released since Civ 1. I would be less enthusiastic about Warlords if I had problems with the vanilla version or was obsessed with trivial graphic issues.

BTW, if the people that generally enjoy the game and are happy with Firaxis can be referred to as "fanboys" (or worse) can we start referring to the Bello's and Flevance's of the world as "inveterate whiners"?

 

[The Great Apple]

wow, i love the idea. thx to all modders in this team!!

We've still got a long way to go. The only really that that concerns the normal player so far is a few small bug fixes. We're only just starting work on the AI.

 

[King Flevance]

BTW, if the people that generally enjoy the game and are happy with Firaxis can be referred to as "fanboys" (or worse) can we start referring to the Bello's and Flevance's of the world as "inveterate whiners"?

Lets be honest here, as Bello already suggested. Don't you already see us that way?

BTW: Great Apple and the many other modders that are going to try and tackle that monster, you are well appreciated. I don't have any real C/C++ knowledge to even go at that aspect of the game. Python sometimes confuses me.

 

[Zombie69]

I agree, the expansion is worthless, and i don't plan on getting it. Just my $0.02.

 

[GIR]

[...]
BTW, if the people that generally enjoy the game and are happy with Firaxis can be referred to as "fanboys" (or worse) can we start referring to the Bello's and Flevance's of the world as "inveterate whiners"?

-->

[...]...I would like to put your attention to the fact that from the perspective of a critic, the complainers about critics could very well be called "whiny guys" as well.[...]

we are all whiny guys in some way

We've still got a long way to go. The only really that that concerns the normal player so far is a few small bug fixes. We're only just starting work on the AI.

i can't play with vanilla civ4, i need a mod and even i play a mod i have to "mod" the mod. that's may way to play civ so i'm happy to hear that you and your team will include a lot of new XML tags and python methods.

 

[Zhahz]

I happen to like Civ IV as is. That is, I like the Firaxis vision for the game. I'll be buying the expansion when it comes out. I prefer official expansions of high quality over mods that vary in quality and vision.

I'm thinking that only a minority of players visit forums and the like, and only a minority of players will ever use mods - so an official expansion will definitely have an audience.