Warlords has gone gold

[Chairman Kaga]

Well, that was fast.

Street date is July 25th.

[darrelljs]

Well, that was fast.

Street date is July 25th.

Neat! The Wikipedia page has been getting very detailed lately, so I am not surprised

Darrell

[Dreylin]

It's interesting looking at the leader traits combinations which the new leaders have;

We have the "missing combination" Creative/Organised in Augustus Caesar

Several repeats:

Stalin -> Napoleon
Ragnar -> Huyana
Shaka -> Khan

and a seeming under-utilization of the new traits, w/ three known Charismatic, two Protective, and no known Imperialistic - but the unknown Ramses traits must surely include this...?

Kind-of makes me wonder if they're going to be re-jigging the traits of the existing leaders - it seems almost a waste to create duplicates when there are missing combinations out there - but I don't seriously believe that's the case.


Of course this now begs the question of how RB is going to integrate the new expansion with the scheduled events...?

[Sirian]

Of course this now begs the question of how RB is going to integrate the new expansion with the scheduled events...?

The short term plan is that we're not. Longer term remains to be seen.


We've previously dealt with two expansions for Civ3. The first added very little (to single player) other than extra civs. The second added significant changes but did not get them balanced well. Neither successfully addressed the most significant shortcomings present in the core game.

Griselda and I, together, came to regret moving the Civ3 Epics to the Conquests expansion pack. The events would have been higher quality, on average, if we had stuck with just the first expansion. The first expansion did not add a whole lot, but it was a net positive. The second expansion was not, although in the end it didn't matter a whole lot anyway because we had already exhausted most of what the core game and first expansion had to offer.

With Civ4, we've only barely begun to explore. Not a dozen events completed yet. There would always be the possibility to support the new expansion and then pull back later if it doesn't work out, but that is not and never has been my style. I prefer to weigh decisions carefully and then make firm commitments from a well-informed position.


My involvement with Warlords is greater than zero but not significant. I have not, for instance, seen any of the builds in action. Since we're not even remotely close to running out of good scenarios for the core game, there is no pressing need to move forward. I'm skeptical of the six month development cycle and wary of some of the new features. I know there are talented people at Firaxis, so I'm willing to be impressed by Warlords, but the product will have to earn my respect and support not with hype but with performance. "Show me the money."

To that end, I intend to submit the new expansion to the same rigors as any other mod that we would consider. There will be the opportunity for members of our community to engage in an Approval Process. If the evidence produced by thorough investigation looks good, we'll adopt Warlords.


There are five possible outcomes:

1. Not enough interest to produce a sufficient Approval Process. Result: We stick with the core game.

2. The RBCiv community concludes that Warlords is not as well balanced as the core game and would be a net drag on our events. Result: We stick with the core game.

3. The game turns out to have issues, which revolve around bugs or correctable mishaps. Result: We decide to "wait and see what happens from patches," postponing a decision.

4. Opinions are divided or the evidence is confused and unclear. Result: We run some expanded events but continue with vanilla events, too.

5. After due consideration, the product receives a glowing recommendation. Result: We move the RB tournaments to Warlords and never look back.


In any event, publication is still a couple of weeks out, and then it will take time for the process to unfold. As of this writing, I do not expect to rush out and get a copy for myself. If that changes, I'll say so.

I hope this clarifies our intentions.


- Sirian

[Dreylin]

The short term plan is that we're not. Longer term remains to be seen.

I hope this clarifies our intentions.

Yup, crystal clear and pretty much what I'd expected from previous comments on the subject. You didn't mention the whole "putting potential new members off by forcing them to have the expansion" ramifications, which I've also heard expressed on this site before and has a lot of merit.

I anticipate that I'll get hold of a copy fairly speedily (mainly since it's my Birthday soon and I've dropped a number of hints to people!) and if so will certainly be willing to get involved in the review process; though I'm not certain I get through the quantity of games to form more than an instinctive opinion one way or the other.

Anway, I am still enjoying exploring the options of the "vanilla" version, so I doubt you'll get rid of me either way!

[Sullla]

This is some of the best news I've heard in some time. I definitely feel that there is a lot more to be done with Civ4, before charging off into an expansion. I also strongly believe that a "wait and see" policy will be the best approach.

I'll have more to say once Warlords comes out.

[Majromax]

It is definitely unsettling that Firaxis is going "full steam ahead" with an expansion, when the core game hasn't even been fully understood (at an intuitive level) by players yet. An expansion is a unique opportunity to add entirely new facets to a game, but doing so without understanding the existing recipe fully is risky, and risks destroying or fundamentally altering game balance.

[Shaihulud]

I should be getting this around the time it comes out, I like the sound of some of the things they're doing (plus I want to play as Stalin and Churchill).

[Kylearan]

Hi,

It is definitely unsettling that Firaxis is going "full steam ahead" with an expansion, when the core game hasn't even been fully understood (at an intuitive level) by players yet.

I think our perspective on this subject is a bit skewed. We are not belonging to the 95% of CIV buyers who are casual gamers, who I suspect have shelved the game by now and could be brought back by an expansion. We are hardcore gamers, and I don't think the majority of players share our attitude of "there's still a lot of details to learn about this game".

I think the large majority of gamers have exhausted the game, at least those that bought it soon after its release. In their view, they have learned all there is to learn, and tried all there is to try, and have moved on to other games. What they want is not small bug-fixes to details like the whipping bug or the WW problem in team games. What they want is more and fresh content: New civs, leaders, units etc. The expansion will give them (and us) that, so I don't think Warlords comes too early.

I would also dispute that we haven't fully understood the game. Sure, there are a lot of miniscule details still to explore and learn, but I daresay that (apart from bugs and exploits) all major game mechanics needed to win difficult games are known by now. Maybe not all players have fully absorbed them or are able/willing to apply this knowledge (maybe that's what you meant by "at an intuitive level"?), but I seriously doubt that we will see completely different gameplay in a year or so due to new discoveries. And regarding the yet-to-discover details: I don't want to discover them! Heck, CIV had promised to reduce micromanagement (and has successfully managed to do so in a lot of areas), so I'd prefer to explore new content on a higher game level in an expansion, instead of exploring MM details in the main game. YMMV, of course.


Some here in this variant-oriented community might feel this expansion comes too early. Personally, I'm looking forward to it because franky, I need fresh content to keep my interest in CIV alive. I can't put my finger on it exactly, but somehow Civ 3 had longer legs for me than CIV. I hope Warlords will expand the range of options of how to play the game, because by now I feel CIV's gameplay becomes very formulaic once you know how the game works. Things like expand to 4/5 cities then wait for currency; or if you wage ancient war, a large stack of axes with a spear or two against horses is best (or if it's a modern war, apply the Sirian doctrine); or research techs frequently ignored by the AIs (Alphabet, CS, Liberalism, Radio, ...) to stay ahead in the tech trading loop; or switch to Free Religion as soon as you know Liberalism for research/diplo bonus; ... I could go on and on. With all these things, I feel they are "the right thing to do" in almost all cases, all other options are suboptimal. Maybe Civ 3 was similarly formulaic, but variant games have eliminiated some of this (or so I felt back at that time). What frightens me is that when I play CIV variants, I still find myself in a lot situations with the same limited options, playing the same formulaic game again! Luckily there are still some variants that play completely different, like Always War, but more often than not I find myself walking the same path again I did in so many other games of CIV in the past, simply because that path makes the most sense.

On the surface, CIV looks like you can play it in a lot of different ways. But after some time, you discover there's a "right" (or optimal) way to play in almost all areas of the game. I hope Warlords with its new concepts and game mechanics forces me to unlearn some things and discover new ways to play the game. Because of that, I would like to see it incorporated into the RB tournament sooner or later, assuming it won't break the game (and of course I think a "wait and see" approach makes sense here).


Oh my, that post got a lot longer than planned. Sorry for the rant.

-Kylearan

[ThERat]

nobody could have said it better I guess, but Kyl, you expressed exactly my feelings about CIV.
Unfortunately for me I also have to add lagging and computer shut down issues and my interested in CIV has waned...

I will however wait for the community to test warlords properly first before jumping in (in Singapore it won't come out immediately anyway).