Warlords One - Impi Zisshun

[Kylearan]

Hi,

From my own perspective, my lack of RB participation mirrors my lack of solo play.

This has been different for me. I've participated in almost every Civ 3 Epic for the last two years of the Civ 3 tournament without having played one single private game. With Civ 4 it's similar: I haven't played a single-player game for over half a year at least, and yet had a lot of fun playing the RB events (well, those I had the time for, that is).

These tournament games are so different that while I burned out on solo play, I intend to continue to play the RB Epics/Adventures for some time to come. My problems at the moment are the Warlords and Better AI issues, and lack of variant games at the moment.

-Kylearan

[Blake]

Hi,


Of course not. You (and Iustus) have really done amazing things with the AI; even long-term strategy thinking in some places like going for a cultural victory which I wouldn't have thought to be possible without rewriting the AI from scratch.

However, the constant release of new versions makes it difficult to have a baseline version for the community to play with, and that's one of the reasons I said I will wait with buying Warlords until there's a new patch.

If I remember correctly, some weeks ago you've said there will be a feature freeze followed by some bug-fixing followed by an official 1.0 version of your Better AI mod. What happened to this plan?

-Kylearan

For that to happen the rate of "significant" improvements has to slow.

As of the latest version (a couple of days ago) the Noble AI pretty much plays at Monarch level and this might be a good point to stabilize things, especially since the pace will slow down over the next couple of weeks because of the festive season.

Oh btw don't worry about the "I hope no-one resents me" I was just having a little bit of fun with that (all work no play, *ahem*).

I do think there's a bit too much pessimism in the air (even if there seems to be some kind of rule of the universe that the free time for playing CIV in a system is the opposite of entropy - it never increases....).

[Atlas]

I do think there's a bit too much pessimism in the air (even if there seems to be some kind of rule of the universe that the free time for playing CIV in a system is the opposite of entropy - it never increases....).

Well said!! The "Community Split" doesn't have to be a point of division, but a chance to make comparison(s). I think there is interest out there, on Tuesday I saw 30 people in the Civ Forum (me and 29 guests ). Maybe some of the lurkers will join and start report?

Blake I toyed around with your AI last night, no promises, but I may do a write up of a game with your 12-12-2006 AI. Good, fun, and interesting stuff there. Any suggestions/requests? I have been toying with the idea of automating my workers...

[Swiss Pauli]

I think a lot of people's problem with Warlords is one of attitude: both have their shortcomings, but because of emotional attachment to Vanilla some are inclined to view this version as a glass that's half full, whereas Warlords is looked at as half empty.

This particular Epic may not have looked very interesting to many players, but from the few reports that were posted, I can see that - aside from Izzy vs. Monty - the dynamics of each game varied considerably. It's a shame that Blake didn't have time to post anything up, as I'd be intrigued to see how much of peaceful beating he dealt to the AI.

[darrelljs]

I would say the number of replies to this thread alone shows there is still interest, and I am leaning more towards the lack of Sirian/Sulla participation rather than any kind of version schism being the real culprit. I symphathize with them, RL is handing me more than I can chew as well, but I don't have a community to energize . Unfortunately I don't know that there are too many replacements trained and ready. T-Hawk and Kylearan for sure, maybe others? I'm sure that Sirian wouldn't mind someone organizing a fun Adventure 8).

Anyway, let's see how many people show up for the next Epic, I predict there is a lot of pent up desire!

Darrell

[Gyathaar]

For CFC GOTMs the warlords games are also getting a lot less submissions than the vanilla games.. generally the vanila games get 3-4 times as many submissions as the warlords ones.

The real odd part about about GOTMs are the SGOTMs.. for some reason I havent figured out, they are drawing much more people than the Civ3 SGOTMs ever did... even thou the civ4 succession game forum is a lot more quiet than the civ3 succession game forum was.

Perhaps it is harder to play in casual succession games because there are generally more paths to take, making it harder to play together without a clear common goal? And the competition aspect of SGOTM is helpful for keeping the team focused.. I noticed in the earlier SGOTMs that the teams that often fall apart first are those that easrly identify that they prolly have no hope of winning the competition due to various events or identifying that they made "bad" descisions.

In other words.. seems like many players have problems playing civ4 games just "for fun".. there must be a reason to keep playing the game they play?

[uberfish]

I find monarch to be too easy for me to enjoy the game without either variant goals or a serious fastest finish competition.

[LKendter]

In other words.. seems like many players have problems playing civ4 games just "for fun".. there must be a reason to keep playing the game they play?

You did id one of the problems. I have noticed the Civ4 turns sometimes feel like a chore. I never had that feeling with Civ3. I really hate late game wars with Civ4 - there is just to much going on.

[T-hawk]

You did id one of the problems. I have noticed the Civ4 turns sometimes feel like a chore. I never had that feeling with Civ3. I really hate late game wars with Civ4 - there is just to much going on.

Really? I find it to be the other way round. I choked several times on completing Civ 3 endgame wars with dozens of identical tanks and armor and artillery units. Civ 4 endgames, so far, have been significantly more varied and interesting. The promotion system greatly helps by giving the units individual character. And collateral damage makes it much less of a chore to take down big stacks -- you can just suicide a few artillery units and win everything else at 95% odds without too much thinking. Finally, resistance in Civ 4 disappears automatically, while in Civ 3 it required micromanaging bunches of cheap junk units.

Also, there's usually less to do on each particular turn in Civ 4, which makes wars feel less overwhelming. In Civ 3, it felt like slacking if I didn't capture three or four cities per turn. The pace of conquest in Civ 4 is much slower, with the extended times for healing and rail movement and border adjustment without combat settlers. I can see where some players might feel that as a grinder, but it has the opposite effect for me. More frequent turn intervals keep the game from stagnating.

[Dantski]

I really enjoy modern era wars in Civ 4, the whole Tank/Infantry/Machine-Gun/Marine/Aircraft/Navy balance seems nice to me. However I'm limited to small maps so there probably isn't anywhere near as many units as your games. I can see how it might feel a little overwhelming if you're fighting multiple opponents in multiple areas on land and in the seas.

I look forward to when I can judge the bigger maps for myself.