Civilization IV: Warlords (PC)

[GamerDad]

Michael Anderson's Civilization IV: Warlords (PC) article - http://www.gamerdad.com/detail.cfm?itemID=3333

[dragon]

OK, so for the folks who can't access game sites at work, what changes to the core game are implemented by this Warlords expansion to Civ4?

[txa1265]

Here goes ...
- 3 New Leader Traits:
- 6 New Civilizations and Leaders, new leaders for existing Civs, and changes to some existing leaders
- About a dozen New Unique Unit types including new siege and naval units
- Three New Wonders
- The Great General Unit
- Vassal State Diplomatic Option
- Unique Buildings for different Civilizations

And that is before getting to the 8 'Scenarios'

Mike

[dragon]

Oops, I guess I meant the "fixes" to the game as alluded to in your article.

[txa1265]

Oops, I guess I meant the "fixes" to the game as alluded to in your article.

Oh - the major 'fixes' were about balancing and making civilizations more unique. There were numerous bug fixes reported, but nothing that meant anything to me.

Mike

[dragon]

Darn...was hoping there would be the "made it interesting enough for dragon to bother playing it again" patch. For whatever reason, I played Civ 4 for a few weeks after its release, and haven't bothered to fire it up since. Playing the game seemed like a chore to me, which was odd considering my great love of the Civ series to date.

[txa1265]

Civ IV was my first of the series, inspired by GamerDad's love for the game and the talk here when it came out. I found that the tweaks made to the expansion made it harder for me, but more satisfying as well.

Mike

[Icarus]

I'm a huge fan of the whole series, too. In fact, it was Civ2 that brought Gamerdad and me together in the first place . But I haven't been back to Civ3 and 4 nearly as much as I was to Civ2. Part of it is that it's a lot harder (I played nothing but Deity on Civ2, but have played somewhere around the middle since then) and I think I liked the simplicity of the earlier versions. The whole culture thing still ticks me off periodically, though I do like the general principle and added dimension of gameplay. It's just really frustrating sometimes . The thing I dislike the most about Civ4 is that you can't easily change the game. Give me the text files of Civ2 or the editor from Civ3 any day. I understand that you can do a lot more with Civ4, but you have to really know what you're doing. I just want to be able to go in and change the name of Genghis Khan to Fred or things like that!

I still can't wait to get my hands on this expansion!

[GamerDad]

Yeah, back in "the day" (mid-90's) Icarus and I were part of a Diety club. We'd trade off making "impossible starts" on custom maps and challenge to see who could beat them by what date.

[Freakhead]

But I haven't been back to Civ3 and 4 nearly as much as I was to Civ2. Part of it is that it's a lot harder (I played nothing but Deity on Civ2, but have played somewhere around the middle since then) and I think I liked the simplicity of the earlier versions. The whole culture thing still ticks me off periodically, though I do like the general principle and added dimension of gameplay. It's just really frustrating sometimes . !

That's pretty much my feeling. I thought Civ2 was complicated enough. I know I said this before, but I have my manual from Civ2 and it's a good 200 pages. NOthing to sneeze at.

Civ IV imo just added alot of muckety muck to the equation. And along with the 3d graphics and animations it just really slows things down.

[dragon]

I loved the original Civ, and played it to death. Civ II was pretty good, and I played that alot.

I then got Alpha Centauri, and loved it, too. Civ III turned out to be a disappointment to some degree--not really as much fun as AC. Civ IV comes out, and while it's fun to play, and better in some ways than Civ III, the culture bomb was not a welcome addition.

It could be, too, that I'm just tired of Civ. Bring on Sid Meier's Railroads!

[txa1265]

Based on what I've read here and from others I'm not sure whether or not I'm glad that Civ IV was my first ... but either way I love the game. Perhaps 'growing up' with this game makes things like theculture system near and dear to me - I love all of the tweaks that make crossing your leader's 'natural type' a real challenge

[happycamper]

I loved the original Civ, and played it to death. Civ II was pretty good, and I played that alot.

I then got Alpha Centauri, and loved it, too. Civ III turned out to be a disappointment to some degree--not really as much fun as AC. Civ IV comes out, and while it's fun to play, and better in some ways than Civ III, the culture bomb was not a welcome addition.

It could be, too, that I'm just tired of Civ. Bring on Sid Meier's Railroads!

I've tried Alpha Centauri, but just haven't gotten into it... the tech tree is fairly robust, but as it is all future-tech it has a pretty steep learning curve, unlike the Civ techs which are a bit more intuitive in their effects...

[Icarus]

Based on what I've read here and from others I'm not sure whether or not I'm glad that Civ IV was my first ... but either way I love the game. Perhaps 'growing up' with this game makes things like theculture system near and dear to me - I love all of the tweaks that make crossing your leader's 'natural type' a real challenge

I think you hit the nail on the head... I don't think I've ever heard anyone who hasn't said their first Civ version isn't their favorite (except for many original Civ players; I think Civ2 is universally regarded as better with a large nod to Civ as the true ground-breaker). SMAC always drove me nuts with all the futurism and I haven't even thought about playing it since I read the first novel . I actually still like digging out Colonization to play every once in a while, though the mid-game of it is just way too slow.

And YES! Bring on SM Railroads! That'll probably be the first game I play with my 2-year old on the computer since he loves trains (calls them "Chooch"es)! I can't wait!