Your Civ4 Warlords Review

[Thunderfall]

If you have the Warlords expansion pack and have played it for a while, feel free to post your review here.

 

[CarpeDiem]

so far totally loving all the new features and the tweaks in sound combat visuals etc, more gun fire what have you.....

generals- only had a small experience but they seemed around 75% more important than other great people--------fantastic....

maybe working on the other great people would be an add on idea, just expanding on their capabilities.....the general attached to unit gives a more close connection to your civ i think that just 'joining city' to do whatever.... i think once my phophet built my unique rel building the next one i build i want to be more envolved SOMEHOW!

other than that i would say i'd of liked more flavour added to the early units especially...more uniques

also a new civic option surrounding war or favouritiatism to so called "warlords" would of been appropriate, even better a whole new specific civic set...

scenarios---------------always totaly rule-though raging barb ones just kill me maaaan

new wonders- so so great wall .....we'll see....

i played the game all day and enjoyed it loads, though it makes me worse at football...

Ottomans...well i played it earlier and i thought i had no problems now i see that i play huge24civ earth map and when ottoman contact my roman civ a i get CTD, this seems strange, i will see what its like on my brothers pc. if not i hope to get a fix as seeing them shake their rumps in the big face screen is all good

overall i'd buy it anyway im loving it, i know more could be put in but the Sims wouldnt be where it is without a little teasing 1st

 

[Truronian]

I'd say its OK... its missing lots of things that could have returned soul back to the civ series (palace view, city view, advisors).

The new civs are ok... I'm a bit annoyed at the Celts being just a renamed Gaul civ and the assymetrical trait arrangements (heavily shifted to military play styles, too many Spirituals civs). The leader heads are looking nice though (with the exception of Augustus).

The scenarios had been a bit underwhelming. I've seen no inovative ideas that were present in the C3C scenarios (such as the Shoguns or the sacrificing), but they work as a distraction.

The rebalancing has been done well. I'm finding much more variety in my early military building, although missing a resource can be deadly. The AI seems to have improved aswell. Stacks of chariots and Praets are very difficult to deal with.

On the whole, I'd give it a 6. I'm hoping the next Xp addresses some of Civ4 aestetical problems and makes it more of a simulation than a strategy game.

 

[Asterothe]

I liked it very much. Vassal state feature is alone enough to make
it very good. I enjoyed it very much when AI begged me to
give me caputulation. Being able to advance and making
them obey one by one is awesome and something new.


Ottamans are one of the reasons I wante dthis expansion and
the bug is very bothersome but I'm sure it will be fixed.

 

[asabahi]

Overall, very happy with it. One my favorite civs from civ3 has become very playable, the persians. I have played 2 full games, one as cyrus and the other Napoleon. There is a lot more flexiblilty with Napolean now. You can play an aggressive game or be a builder. The persians, with there UU now being more powerfull due to the overall increase in chariots strength versus axmen, and the combo of imperilisitic and charsmatic is a pure warmongers dream. And there unique building confers back the health bonus they recieved in vanilla civ, well 2 health points not the full 3. Overall I think these 2 so far are the coolest leaders to play. I like the great general, it adds a new dimension, do I attach him to a unit, or to the city? Do I make a military academy or trigger a GA? Vassal states is great because not only does it give you more choices it also gives the AI more choices. If you go to war with a small state they might become a vassal of bigger civ and now you are at war with 2 civs. This happened to me twice. But it leaves room for bigger wars. By the way the French Salon is a good UB. Overall, 2 thumbs up so far. Some bugs in the game but nothing that effected my play, and should be fixed by a patch.

 

[Thor's Hammer]

I have to say that it's lived up to my expectations so far with all the cool new features and whatnot. But of course, there has to be something wrong with it and that something is that they didn't try to bring back more older Civ stuff that was really awesome.

All in all, it's a very good effort on Firaxis's part. Love the new scenarios and the fact that you can ransom cities in the Viking one Many of the unit alterations have proved...interesting...some nerfs, some improvements, it all sort of balances out. New leader traits make some civs completely different to control, especially ones like France with Napoleon, etc.

It deserves at least two thumbs up, and if I had more than two thumbs, I would give it those as well.

 

[ulsterman88]

overall its a great expansion, with some great ideas like vassal states and
warlords etc.... But the game needs more modern/industrial units such as crusiers, paratroopers and self propelled artillery as well some modern scenarios preferably WW2 in Europe.

Hopefully they will focus on the modern aspect of the game in the next xp

 

[Beam]

Disappointing and not worth the money. Played a full game and only had to do minor changes to tactics with all new AI in the game. The scenario's look uninspired, mostly renaming & rearranging. Technically it works ok so I'll keep on trying it for a while but $30 bucks is better spent somewhere else.

 

[Elrohir]

I just got it earlier today, so I've only played it for a couple of hours so far. But it seems great, I'd rate it 8/10.

 

[Looshi]

Well, I'm about half way into my first full game of Warlords. I am feeling a bit... underwhelmed. I enjoy all the changes made, the new wonders, units, buildings, and civs. I just wish there was more.

I'm sure the scenarios will be good, but I'm not exactly into scenarios in a major way. They're fun distractions, but I am about working on my single player game. And I ask myself, did I pay $30 for this?

Don't get me wrong, I love what was added. But where are the new technologies? Where are the new modern units? It is perfectly balanced, but it could be so much more.

I know I can have all that and more with mods, but I like playing the core game. That is what it is about.

In the end, it is probably going to be like PTW all over again. This will eventually be bundled into a gold edition and be practically free. These are just my first impressions, so we shall see how they change.

 

[johnnnybrauvo]

I have to say after I installed it I had some weird graphical issues that I 'think' I traced to some kind of over heating problem my video card had .

256 mb BFG OC 6800 GT .

The first two times I played it after about 20 minutes I got crazy graphical glitches and a weird 'smearing' effect that caused me to stop playing . I saved . Played again , after 20 minutes the same thing .

I lowered my settings to 'Medium' and changed the units to 'Single' , loaded up the game and I can play my usual marathon matches with out a hitch .

The difference from setting the graphics from hight to medium was the difference between my video GPU going from 109 Celcius to a comfortable 85 Celcius !

Yay .

I've never ventured past 'settler' in any Civ game so far . Even though I must have logged hundreds and hundreds of hours ( as most of you probably have ) in the previous itterations , I just cant seem to take that extra step .

Anyways , so far I have to say I love Warlords . I've started 3 games ( didnt finish the first 2 on a count of barbarians- I freaking HATE barbarians !!! ) and it seems just fine . I chose the Russians for the first time after usually playing primarily Germans for the longest time . I like the Aggressive , Industrious traits .

I'm a war monger , I know .

Lol , when I bomb countries now I ( half heartedly ) exclaim ' I'm spreading freedom ! '

Anyways , its hard to give a biased review of an expansion of a game I love ! Any kind of new material added to the base game is just a bonus . Tho , I have to say I like seeing the Zulu's around again !

 

[JesusOnEez]

I've played two full games and think it's great.

I played a Settler game just so I could build all the new wonders, and the movies are great (and all played OK). The Great Wall especially is a brilliant movie, but the aesthetics of the in game wall are a little bothersome...it just doesn't look right to me...too "chunky".

Playing was great...I don't know exactly what it is, but militarily my game improved from the off in this game (I'm talking about my second, Noble game now). I've always found Conquest a grind to get, but with Vassal states, I managed a Conquest when everyone Surrendered or voluntarily joined...I got this in 1422AD...my earliest win ever.

The Settler game was won by similar means, only I went for Diplomatic...everyone was in my religion through force.

The Great General seems a bit of a non plus to me. The Military Academy is obviously a plus, but joining him to a group of units didn't really seem worth it...he wasn't any stronger than the Maceman I joined him to, and other units on the same tile didn't seem to get any benefit...in fact, a weakened Longbowman killed him without too many problems, despite the fact he had City Raider III, Combat I and Cover I. I'm still sitting on the fence with Great Generals.

All in all, I seem to play a better game with this expansion...can't tell you why, I just do. The AI doesn't seem changed to me. I've not witnessed AI's capitulating with AI's, but both my games were won early.

Maybe I'll try a large/huge map filled with Civ's to see if there's any difference and promote wars...

I've tried the Barbarian scenario and got my bottom spanked severely...this is going to take some work!

The Alexander campaign looks like it could be a good challenge as well, as the land is utter plop.

I've not tried the other scenarios yet.

All in all, a good expansion that I give 7.5/10

 

[dvandyke]

The new stuff is good but there is just not enough of it. Warlords simply lacks of value for money.

 

[G Julius Caesar]

I really only like to play world or Europe maps, so was looking forward to playing the celts and/or vikings (my fav from Civ 2) but there does not seem to be a way I have found for using the world/Europe maps from Civ 4. That is disappointing, although I do like the Barbarian, Viking and Rise of Rome scenarios. The addition of a General Great Person also looks cool.

 

[Mozza]

I've played through 3 games and a couple of scenarios. I love it, well worth the 20 quid I paid.

The Great Wall's movie clip is fantastic, I grinned like a child when I first saw it

 

[Thalatta]

I've only played one full game, but I think I've gotten a good feel for it - it's not that much different, just some new stuff to adjust to. Anyhow, I think it's fun. The main game additions and changes are good, but not great. I haven't played any scenarios yet.

I found the Great Generals to be decent, but they didn't seem any better or worse than other great people. I really like the fact that they can combine with a Barracks to give you access to two promotions without needing Theocracy. Getting an early one wasn't too hard or easy - though it did encourage me to make some unnecessary attacks while in war in order to get the meter up another point or two.

The new civs, leaders and traits seem very solid. Wang Kon stands out the most to me so far - not as a leader I'd like to play, but as an extremely tough opponent, both in AI and multiplayer. Financial seems the best pair to Protective, not just due to the strength of Financial, but the fact that Protective, as a reactive trait, needs to maintain tech parity to be relevant. While the other Protective leaders may fall behind a tech-minded warmonger, Wang Kon creates a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" dilemma for aggressive neighbors.

The new units - including the UUs for the new civs - seem alright. Berserkers seem like a clear best, as they don't even need islands to be relevant. Amphibious isn't a trait I'd bother using a promotion on, but it's great for free. Hwachas and Trebuchets should be solid, but the rest of the units don't impress me much.

I really like the new wonders and UBs. I played as Egypt and, with The Oracle, Stonehenge, The Temple of Artemis and two priests off of the Obelisk, really enjoyed making my first Great Prophet at a rate comparable to what I would as a Philosophical civ. I'll get a better feel for the UBs as I play more civs, but I definitely am a fan of the new wonders.

So, in all, a solid expanison, which I imagine I'll like more the more I play it.


Edit: (Instead of making a new post.) Regarding resource sites...I both did and didn't notice this. On a continent that started with 5 civs, there were only 2 copper sites, 1 of which was in ice, and on the whole standard size map, there were only 2 marble and 1 stone, so that seemed problematic. However, there were 4 horses, 8 irons and 5 coals, with only 2 of the irons in ice, just on the large continent, not to mention plenty of other resources. I'll keep an eye out for this - if it really is changed, even if it is just more random, it will throw a very interesting wrench into the game...

 

[Darwin420]

I haven't played it much, but I like what I've seen. Granted, there isn't TOO much that came with the XP, but I don't feel cheated out of $30(US). I really think they should have added some backwards compatibility to the Vanilla games, though. That would've been nice.

I'm still waiting for an easy-to-use, independent world-builder/scenario-creater, though. It was so easy to create my own maps in C3C, but it's a nightmare in cIV. A pity, too, because that was one of my favorite aspects of the game.

All in all, though, a better buy than PtW, but not as good as Conquests.

 

[Yashed To]

To admit it, "Warlods" just doesn't turn me on.

What really bugs me are the ressource sites. I played some games since I got the add-on, and I got an uneasy kind of "Civ 3 deja-vu", where I had to hunt around for any little iron or horse ressource on a vast continent.

In Vanilla Civ 4 I had the feeling, the fate of my Civ wasn't decided within the first 100 rounds to play. If I didn't reach this copper site, okay I built a city near the the one in the north. Or on this island reachable with a trireme. This totally changed with "Warlords".
I just stopped a game with three other Civs on a rather large continent, and one(!) iron site, one(!) copper site and two horses. Suffice to say you already know in the year 1000 B.C. how the game would develop. This is even worse when you reach modern ages and you definitely need coal or oil to survive!
I hope this will be changed in an upcoming patch, or I'll stop playing "Warlords" and return to Vanilla.

Next, the General units add some nice city improvements, but for combat I find them rather useless. Before I get a General my units collected so much experience that the ones added by the Generel unit don't make that much of a difference.

The unique building for a civ is something which rather complicates the game. Nice if you get a better harbour as a viking. Lousy if you're stuck in the middle of a vast continent with not a coast in sight for some years to come (as in my last game). As for the Egyptians, it still makes more sense to build one Stonehenge than many Obelisks.

Right now, "Warlords" has this "ebay, here I come"-sign on it's cover. But I'll give it some tries before I finally decide. Sorry, Firaxis, not even close to a cigar, for my taste.

 

[DigitalBoy]

*copy and paste GameSpy review here*

Warlords is fun and all, but it hardly seems like enough content for $30.

 

[feydras]

I'm enjoying it quite a bit. All three of the new traits are something interesting and different while seemingly balanced. The new unique buildings are nice and add more flavor to individual civs. All of the additions further encourage a variety of playstyles depending on the combinations and this keeps the game fresh.

Firaxis's philosophy for Warlords seems to be a focus on adding new features and a few, carefully considered additions to the game rather than dumping a slew of new techs, units, and scenarios on us. The later can easily be found on these forums and is really not necessary IMO. I am happy with the quantity and quality of the expansion. $30 seems fairly reasonable to me.

- feydras