Your Civ4 Warlords Review

I have attacked the Genghis Khan scenario now and like to give a little review.
First Genghis Khan comes quite close to Barbarians, but is different in a number of ways, for example you do not buy units with gold, but get the camp unit that produces new units every couple of turns. These camps are extremely important units and need protection. In the beginning I let them rest some tiles away from my borders to produce a lot of units, but at the end I raided towards europe with one big stack of doom and I had my camps within this stack all the time. This is also one of those things where the scenario falls a little bit short: tactics. In fact, Stack of Doom is probably the best option to win this as I have seen very little siege weaponry in the AI's arsenals and I only remember to have killed 2 chinese cannons throughout the whole scenario. So the AI should build/have some catapults, especially on higher levels (I played Monarch as usual), which would make you a little more vulnerable. Basically you've got three unit types: Horse Archers (or Horseman can't remember) (11 str, 3 movement), Mounted Swordsman (9 str, 3 movement, +50% against meele) and light Javelin Throwers (8 str, 2 movement, first strikes, hill defense, city defense, 50% retreat). I found Javelin Throwers to be very good city raiders, because your enemies all have spearman and more of them. With a couple of javelin throwers you can soften a city and you'll lose only use some of them, because of their high retreat chance. After you take two cities of the red chinese faction you'll get the possibility for your camps to produce trebuchets. They also have a movement of two, but are quite losers when it comes to attacking cities. I found Javelin Throwers better to use and only used the trebuchets bombard ability to take down the defense. Let your camps rest on wood for some time to get a couple of them.

Overall I had a lot of fun, because when you've finished off China and Korea and heading towards the west you're followed by a massive army of barbarians emerging everywhere where you've killed civilization and the only barbarian unit I have seen were horseman. Rest a view turns with your stack and you get attacked by 3-4 horseman with more on the horizon, so you're constantly pushed west west west to escape the barbarian madness that you've created by razing all cities. Very cool!
Needless to say that you've got to keep an eye on your points (though that wasn't so much of a problem) and your money for which you need to do a lot of pillaging. In the end every turn was around -50 gold and draining cash quickly. And when you leave some horseman back to pillage the barbarians will get them, even when they're highly promoted, they cannot withstand the numbers. You need to be quick.

You can of course keep cities, instead of razing them, but I did not felt like this and as Barbarians wanted to play a scenario where I wouldn't need to care about empire management. It's however great that you've got this choice.

I won a score victory by 1327AD, after playing about 2.5 hours with still a lot of civilized cities left on the map. I got past India and into Turkmenistan / Afghanistan / Iran, where I won. In the end I was glad, because all the fun ends after you've razed the 25th city (I did raze 32 cities) and it repeats itself, although the later civilizations had the nasty camel archers which would destroy all your trebuchets. They weren't protected in a stack as the camel archers pick them out and attack them first.

All in all I can recommend following scenarios:
Genghis Khan, Chinese Unification, Barbarians and Rise Of Rome

If you want Civ to play different or you are up for a different challenge, then give them a try. They're certainly worth the time. Rise of Rome may seem a little bit dull at first, but if you try Brennus, I think you'll see how challenging this can be.
 
I have played Warlords a bit more now and have to say I really like the changes as a whole (haven't got much interest in the scenarios though). My current game as Churchill (Large, Epic, Continents) serves as a case in point.

My starting position was in the southern end of a roughly oval continent, stretching north to south. To my south, with not much space, was Genghis and to my north east Ragnar. The southern end of the continent was Mao and Brennus's for the taking.

After my first couple of games of Warlords I had learned the lesson that the AI is much more aggressive and that an early military build up is a must. Also, knowing that Ragnar and Genghis are generally untrustworthy and prone to aggressive expansion and considering that Genghis was somewhat penned in by myself and Ragnar, it was clear that Genghis would have to be dealt with. London is pretty well placed to be a troop builder and York, my second city, a center of commerce, so this is how I set them up. London focussed on building up my forces. Luckily I had iron close by, and secured copper quite early.

While continuing normal expansion, mainly to the north, my territory ended up like a nice chubby oval stretching along the southern end of the continent. Ragnar expanded along the east coast - a bit like Norway next to Sweden, except with Norway to the east. Genghis simply didn't have much space, and was mostly on arctic ground.

So, feeling secure, I started my conquest of the Mongolians with a two pronged attack. I was lucky that most of our border was mountains, so there were no incursions by Genghis into my fair English lands. Genghis was promptly crushed - but not before he managed to vassalise himself to Brennus! Without any warning I found my self in a two front war, Gritting my teeth, I conquered the Mongolians' southern territories while stoutly defending my northern border. After a while Brennus agreed to a simple peace treaty. The Mongolians are left with a couple of cities in the north.

Quite happy with my work I proceeded to build up the Mongolian lands and plan my conquest of the Vikings. Let's face it, it's just not natural for someone retain their independence with such long, slim territory alongside mine. That southern half of the continent is mine, simple.

My plans were, however, disrupted by a surprise Chinese declaration of war. After sending in ONE night, who was promptly destroyed, there was not much more activity from the Chinese. I took one of their cities - a small under developed little runt of a town, with great prospects for development and several resources - and pillaged a bit. Then sued for, and got, a peace treaty with restorations to me. So my plans advanced, I researched rifling and started building up my Redcoat army. Of course, Mao declares war again. He sends a few more troops this time, but with the same results. I take one further town, and proceed to teach him a lesson by destroying another and pillaging his lands for a few turns. Lesson learned, he accepts peace with some restorations to me.

Now, I had founded Judaism, which Genghis and Ragnar adopted early on. However, by now the pagan religion of the Hindus had taken over the entire content, bar my areas. I had not had a chance to build prophet wonders nor had I had the sense to allocate some priests - so no temple of Solomon. But not much lost since my religion was in the minority.

Anyway, after a few turns of peace, and building an army of Redcoats and cannon, mostly in London where the Heroic Epic was written and two great generals taught the troops, I attacked Ragnar on several fronts - basically half his cities. The cities fall like a house of cards - although his riflemen and cavalry try their best. I'm primarily after his horses, by Nidaros, but I also want to consolidate my territory. The war goes well for a few turns, but after losing four cities Ragnar goes running to that goody-two-shoes Brennus and swears allegiance to him. I'm now fighting against three out of four civs on the continent. Of course that little runt Mao wants a piece of the action and declares war the next turn. Now it's all against poor old Winston.

The war is fought on two basic fronts. In the south and east I slowly take the remaining Norse cities. In the North I'm hammered by waves of Celtic and Chinese armies, with plenty of Cavalry, of which I have none. My two Chinese conquests fall to Brennus - by now they were both prosperous and rich... not the backwaters I once took. My native northern cities, Hastings and Coventry hold the line. Their lands brutally pillaged they withstand attack after attack. All this time Brennus refuses to talk.

Mao agrees to peace after having his army destroyed, but Brennus continues. He lands a couple of armies by ship into my heartlands. One manages to destroy Birmingham before I can get to them. By this time Brennus has infantry against my Redcoats and I am desperately trying to hang on - but the bastard wants either Hastings or Coventry in return for peace. By the time I get infantry I'm starting to feel more hopeful - after all London now has three great general trainers and I can churn out infantry with bonuses against cavalry. Then I see it. A lonely Celtic tank rolling towards Coventry. I'm at least 15 turns from getting any tanks myself and decide I can always take back Coventry later. So an expensive peace it is. Nevertheless, I've gained eight cities and only lost three.

For now the plan is to sit back, lick my wounds, build up my army - with tanks when I get them - and prepare for the likely attack from either Brennus or Mao. Or perhaps I'll go back for Coventry....

I haven't had this much fun playing Civ for ages. The AI attacking behind my lines! Weakened enemies pulling stronger Civs into the wars in order to save their own skin! Religion is clearly important here - when I have shared religion with a victim they seem to offer themselves on a plate to me. If not, they go their brethren.
 
I expected more features from one Civ 4 expansion...firstly more earth maps..but,aboveall, all stuff i can find in the sevomod and similar...units, bonuses, wonders, civs, techs etc..
I highly hope the next Civ 4 expansion will include all these things and maybe more like, 4 example, some natural events (tornados, earthquake) which can affect the civ economies...what do u think about it?
 
Natural events are unfun IMO. They just serve one purpose: to piss you off. I don't really need that feeling.
 
I enjoyed it. Personally, I always play religious games and defeat my opponents through technological advantage (conquering other civs with advanced units), but when I played the "Alexander" scenario, I learned how to use troops for what they are made for. I wasted catapults bombarding units, used phalanx against horse archers and war elephants, etc. I never really appreciated all the unit advantages until I was forced to utilize my troops wisely. I managed to get Alexander up to a shocking level 11. He had extra movement, level 5 bonus, commando, bonus vs. horsemen, etc. He became an assassin against all mounted units. I could send him in (up to one space) kill an opponent, and get him out. It was awesome. However, I am wondering why great leaders (single movement units) who gain the extra move can't get blitz. Or why mounted units can't recieve commando!?! Anyways, it was fun seeing how high a level I could get Alexander to. In the Mongolian Horde scenario, I really think that the game score should be set to 4000 - 6000, or maybe change it based on difficulty. I played it out and only conquered 3 1/2 civs before I reached 3000. I didn't even have a chance to enjoy it. Tooooo short. And the persian game is also too short. I like to build my wonders.... please give me time to build them all. LOL. Thanks. By the way, why can't spies abduct or assassinate great leaders? And how come I could capture great leaders in my Alexander scenario, but I couldn't capture a great general?
 
I give it a 4/5 stars.

Cool New Features:
  • New Intro Movie and Music
  • Warlords Scenarios
  • Vassal States
  • New units: Trebuchet and Trireme.
  • New Leaders
  • Great Generals
  • New Wonders
  • New Leader Traits
  • New Civilizations, Unique units and Unique buildings.

Some drawbacks:
  • Some of the leader trait changes make previously strong leaders weak.
  • Some scenarios seem under-developed, lacking in variety and depth.
  • Ottoman leader head bug (has a quick fix)
 
I love warlords, vassal states can trigger much bigger wars and bring two or three factions at war so it kinda become global.
With the great general unit it is more tempting to go to war, but to chose what to do with it is always a hard choice because you dont'get another one any soon.
Before, my favorite leader was saladin which could be vary powerful when you create a religion with him and spread it to the entire world or try.
But with the expansion i love the egyptians with their war chariots that are a lot more effective mostly to defend against barbarians axeman or for a quick war versus your neighbors.

I have to say that i have to try imperialistic and protective civ, they look like a nice addition and archer starting with a promotion should be interesting.

what i have to say is that there is always place for improvement and don't be shy to make another expansion in the future, i'll buy it :goodjob:
 
Vassal States is a huge jump in Diplomacy
Warlord unit is cool, but not that powerfull
Great Wall is very very cool graphically and a nice easter egg

Scenarios are good, but not that awesome:
You'll find better here ;)

Main difference: CIV4 was much more cultural and difficult to win My Way.
Now, with the military ranking up (with warlord, more easy experience points, stables and above all the end of the need to run after that last annoying city they have built in Tundra, because they can be your vassal), in the end...
I JUMPED ONE LEVEL in dificulty level!!!
 
Not worth buying.

I dont' play scenarios and the extras that were added to the game did not justify the price that we Australians paid for it.

Great wall was the only reason I did buy it but in my games it has proven useless (if the wall moved with the culture borders then it would be good). I do build it still on lower levels because of how good it looks on the screen :)

Trebuchet is way overpowered; I used it the same way I used a catapult until I realised that the Trebuchet was destroying cities by itself.
 
CliftonBazaar said:
Not worth buying.

I dont' play scenarios and the extras that were added to the game did not justify the price that we Australians paid for it.

Great wall was the only reason I did buy it but in my games it has proven useless (if the wall moved with the culture borders then it would be good). I do build it still on lower levels because of how good it looks on the screen :)

Trebuchet is way overpowered; I used it the same way I used a catapult until I realised that the Trebuchet was destroying cities by itself.

The effect of the wall DOES move with your cultural borders, just not the graphic.
 
Yes the wall effect expands with your growing borders (same continent only). The wall is a must have with these freaking barbarians hords.

Great expansion so far not going to review it untill a i have played more than a few unfinished games though.
 
I love the Warlords Expansion Pack. It's very interesting, for anyone that cannot have enough of Civ, this is a good expansion. For the simple reason of having more Civ leaders to play with. And new Civilizations.

The Scenarios are pretty cool and interesting as well.
 
Well this comment is not specific to Warlords but I find winning on Monarch is very difficult to without founding Buddhism or Hinduism. I've tried several times to win without founding a religion and between the lack of happiness from temples and monastaries and the shortage of gold from shrines it makes things so much harder.

I just make a beeline for polytheism every single game, which is cheese and makes me hate myself.

Also, the warlords make life pretty bad for peace loving civs. As if aggressive civs weren't rewarded enough in regular civ4, warlords just encourages players to attack other civs earlier and more often.

Forts are still LAME. Stables are too cool for school.

The scenarios are O.K., but I wish Firaxis would realize most people play regular civ games and NOT scenarios 95% of the time. How many people replay a scenario more than twice?

Give us more content in the main game, and spend less time on scenarios many people play once IF AT ALL.

Also, trying to get a multiplayer game going in one of mods is, ahem, counterintuitive to say the least. You need to launch the mod, then GO BACK and goto multiplayer. Ugh, no wonder I was the only one in the lobby.
 
8.4/10

PROS
+ New Leaders
+ New Civilizations, however I think that maybe 2 more on top of that would have definately raised the score
+ New Scenarios, I personally just love the viking one
+ New feature added in known as Vassal states
+ Smarter AI
+ New unique buildings added in for every CIV

CONS
-Does little to fix the issues of Civ IV
-$30 may not be worth it for this
-New bugs, such as CTD's when trying to play as certain civs or seeing certain 3d LH'S.
-It does very little to differentiate itself from CIV IV which is a shame, I wished it could have added alot more.
- STILL does not have an official patch out.
 
I have a bad feeling about this one. As some one else stated earlier: "CIV III deja-vu".

At first everything looks good.
The Great Wall is back - hurray! New civilizations - hurray! Interesting Scenarios - hurray!


But, then the bad news come rolling in:

The barbarians are - like some of you said - too strong and too many.

The resources are not balanced enough. There are too many people fighting for too little resources. “Well, that’s just like the real life”. Well that’s not my interpretation but fair enough.

About five out of six changes to the core game are aimed directly at the warmongers.


In essence: with Warlords, CIV IV is developing in a bad direction. A direction that made me quit on CIV III and stop playing CIV all together for at couple of years.:eek:

Read my lips: We do not need any more games about competing in epic battles and almost nothing else. The “Total War” series and “Age of Empires” series is enough. CIV IV is with this XP on the way to become a game in which war is not an option but a necessity in an extreme unrealistic matter.

To keep the game balanced we need more building of a cultural/scientific/economic matter and we need about twice as many civics compared to what the game includes now.

Warlords is okay, but a step in the wrong direction and too “thin”. We need more changes and – better yet – more balanced changes. After a few weeks of “Warlords” I’m on my way back to the Vanilla CIV IV to get a balanced game where the game is much more unpredictable. I wan’t a game that develops dynamically. I want to be able also NOT to have to go to war. In Warlords the game developers already made that choice for me, and that is against the purpose of CIV as I see it.
 
Rushjob, that's just what I did. I already deinstalled "Warlords" - and what happened? I had fun with Civ IV again! :goodjob:

An "All-war" add-on is fine, if it just would have been made more configurable. Some sliders or check boxes to allow me some fine tuning: the aggressivness of the other civs, the abundance of needed resources, things like these.

As for you, "Warlords" gave me that uncomfortable "Civ II-feeling" which also made me stop playing years back. But then, Vanilla Civ IV ist just fine (nope: really fine! :) ), so I'll just stick to the basics. And look around for some mods.
 
Ive been playing warlords for awhile and ive got to say its kinda of a horrible expansion pack. It doesnt add enough stuff to the game in my view. Here are some of my views of warlords and civilization 4 in general:

1) The game focuses too much of warfare with the warlords expansion. If they wanted it to be warlords then they shouldve added a lot more units. I wouldve liked to see more tanks or race specific units.

2) I have yet to see a day/night time changer. For example itd be easier for your unit to "ambush" another unit during the night than in the day and maybe your line of site might decrease during the night. I would also like to see seasons. Russian winters have played critical parts in history so idk maybe units might lose soem health when they are stationed for too long in an enemy's territory during the winter?

3)Mansa Musa is still an extremely weak civ imo and i feel they should fix that.

4)The nukes dont really do that much imo. They should have a hydrogen bomb which(when hits a city/unit) destroys the earth around it like in alpha centauri.

5)The civics are very bland and i feel they should get a few more governments in there.I also feel that you should be able to pass your own type of laws inside your civilization.

6)I would like to see revolutions kinda like how America became its own country. I know thatd be a hard thing to tackle,but i just feel the game would add a lot more depth if they had that option.

7) They should add more races instead of leaders.

8) I dont know about everybody else,but i feel that the other civilizations dont have a drive to conquer land. Ive been playing on the earth map and the other civs never fill up the map.

9) There should be "holy areas" in the world. If you take control of that area you get gold or something else. Holy wars wouldve been great for a warlords expansion since in real life nowadays its mostly about religion.

Those are just some of my opinions. I know some of it is more of what should be in the next civilization,but i feel that they couldve added a lot more to the expansion.
 
I rate the expansion a 7/10:D

I've been playing for a few days, so I have developed a review from my first game as Stalin...

The good 70%
It is more fun to conquer the world
The gameplay seems a lot less bland, therefore it is more addicting:D
The AI is slightly smarter
A few much needed units were added
More buildings and wonders! Yay!

The bad 30%
The AI has an even blander personality! I want them to be more unpredictable like in Civ III!:mad:
There is less diplomacy between the AI's and me...
I agree with RussianRoulette adout more units; There aren't enough in the expansion to get rid of the blandness in the unit department.

Overall, Civ IV has great concepts, but it still isn't living up to its full potential, even when some of them are improved significantly with Warlords. These problems probably could easily be fixed in a Civ IV mod, just like Heretic Cata's for Civ III.
 
Back
Top Bottom