Jump to navigation
Sponsored by Alienware tracer
Advertisement

Sid Meier's Civilization IV Warlords Review

PC Review by Kieron Gillen

8 August, 2006

Before we get down to the hardcore analysis of the first expansion pack for one of the best PC games of last year, I've a little information of public interest I feel compelled to disseminate. From what I understand - from many earnest and slightly breathless witnesses with red cheeks and tingling groins - fellow Eurogamer writer James Rossignol is a phenomenal lover. Peerless in all techniques, Rossignol is - apparently - the man for all your orgasmic needs.

Seriously.

Meanwhile, back in the world of videogames, Civ 4's got an expansion pack. Woo!

Expansion packs are a tricky beast for something that's as much of a pure game as Civ. In a game which is about experiencing passing through content, an add-on pack has an obvious reason to exist. A single-player first-person shooter? Some levels in which to head-shot people. An RPG? Some more dungeons and a half-baked plot. An MMO? Some different locales for you to hang around in beating up slightly different monsters for some slightly different treasure and the same old moreish XP. But for a game which is just about plain experience, you're in trouble, especially if they've got decent modding abilities. Add-on packs for online shooters have faced this problem, and it hits Civ too.

A look down the list of what Warlords includes may leave you slightly underwhelmed: a mass of new scenarios, some new civilizations, some new leaders, some new buildings and a new military-focused great person unit who provides the add-on pack its title. And no matter how high the quality is - and the quality is high - you question whether it's really worth twenty five quid. Then you hit the obvious question: what, honestly, could have gone in the add-on pack? In the case of Civilization 3, its Play The World expansion added long-lusted-after multiplayer. This time, though, Firaxis can't do that as it already included multiplayer in the original game. Clearly, it could have been improved in certain ways. For example, it lacked a dedicated server option, which is added in this pack. Except this was something which was also released in the patches for the game. That it specifically references the fact that it includes the patches and name-checks what they include on the back of the box says much.

'Sid Meier's Civilization IV Warlords' Screenshot wall

It's a wall! It's great! It's around China! It's the Big Brick-Thing Of East Asia!

Firaxis essentially did such a good job with Civ 4 that the add-on pack is never going to be essential. At best, it's an attractive luxury.

If you're of a more military bent in Civ, the Great General (the proto-Warlord, but we're going to get to that) isn't going to be that much of a luxury. Arguably - at least I'm going to argue - Civ 4 tended to lean towards a more purely economical form of play with success through war being a harder option than other routes to power. This provides a little more punch for those who like (er) punching. They're generated not through culture, but through the total number of experience points gained. In short, win more battles and get more of these gentlemen. Great generals can either have the option of a more sedentary approach or getting out and getting their fingers dirty. For the former, in a city they can either become a military instructor giving any units created in a city extra starting experience points or a military academy which gives a bonus to actual production.

Become a Warlord by merging with any unit of your choosing, giving twenty experience points to divide up among all the units in the stack. It also means any eventual unit upgrades will be free and not lose any experience points, as well as gaining access to a selection of specialist bonuses. In other words, while keeping your experienced troops alive has always been a core consideration, if you've a Warlord it becomes even more essential.

In terms of other general changes to the game mechanics, the introduction of Vassal states to the diplomatic frame-work's another addition, allowing the dominant partner to demand all sorts of luxuries from its protectorate. Most importantly, in the end game the master gets half the credit for the vassal's achievements. Clearly, this is another option to allow militaristic pressure to lead to capitulation without forced annihilation.

'Sid Meier's Civilization IV Warlords' Screenshot houses

I told you guys we should have built bigger houses.

Other changes to the main game are less sweeping, limited to the individual civilisations. The new leaders lead to oddness like England having three choices of leaders (the new boy's our cigar-chomping V-flicking Winston) while most remain with a single option, but since apparently it was influenced by community demands it seems to be What They Want. There are also new traits for the leaders, each civilization having their own unique building (an improved version of an existing one, in a similar way to individual civilisations having a custom combat unit). Oh - and new wonders too (Wall of China! Cute!). And some new weapons (the Trebuchet's 100 per cent anti-settlement bonus is particular vicious). And buildings (the Stable gives a little experience bonus to any horseys). And stuff!

Away from the main game, we've a mass of scenarios to play through, in reduced periods with their own specialised unit trees. These vary from a selection of well made historical campaigns to some oddities. In terms of bringing the war to the game, you can't do better than the deliciously lightweight Barbarians scenario which places you as the perpetual annoyances from the early game, going forth to destroy a mass of computer generated civilisations. Anti-Civilization, essentially, and cute as hell.

In short, there's a lot of game here but none of it immediately demands you buy it, unless you just need a few new things to insert into Civ 4 to justify returning to it. In which case, hey - go do it. Civ 4's awesome.

At which point we reach the final paragraph and the attentive reader wonders how on earth Gillen's going to link the opening proclamation of Jim Rossignol's lovemaking ability to this expansion pack for Civilization 4. Attentive reader's going to be disappointed.

Except - much like Civilization 4: Warlords - sometimes, it's just worth doing something perhaps slightly ill-advised because it's so good. It's not the best expansion pack in the world, but for a game which already offered as much as the initial game did, it's worth considering just to encourage a developer who did include so much in its original release. After all, the shrug this is received with is just encouraging some suit to argue that they should deliberately withhold some peripheral features from a future original game just to give the add-on pack a raison d'etre. For that, its recommended price of £25 is a little steep, but at any price beneath twenty pounds it becomes increasingly attractive.

Does that work as a link? [No - Ed].

Pah.

6/10

Read our Scoring Policy

Advertisement

Are you excited about Civilization IV: Warlords on PC?
View Eurogamer readers most anticipated games

Thanks!

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Comments: 1-30 of 30 in total

Poster
Comment Low-scoring comments hidden. Log in to see them!
Azazel
08/08/06 @ 12:23
#1
+1
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
lol, was that like a pub bet or something?
Eldritch
08/08/06 @ 12:30
#2
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
It's a wonderful add-on for a wonderful game. 8/10 I reckon.
Salaman
08/08/06 @ 12:48
#3
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Why did he sleep with his colleague?
regmund
08/08/06 @ 13:12
#4
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
all together now link arms and sing
"Who wants to play... Civilisation four? Who wants to play... Civilisation four?Who wants to play... Civilisation four?"
bbrring!
Sorry too late,the end of lunch bell has rung,maybe tomorrow eh?
Eldritch
08/08/06 @ 13:13
#5
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Me! Oh, too late...
disc
08/08/06 @ 13:24
#6
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I was wondering.
Since Alienware was bought by Dell, shouldnt you change the PC games link to

PC powered by Dell.

Bit boring maybe... but true.

And also change that reviewed on to:

REVIEWED ON DELL
Eurogamer reviews PC games on machines that are just as crap as your own.

(Editing is fun.)
Edited 3 times, most recently on 08/08/06 @ 14:25
UncleLou
08/08/06 @ 13:28
#7
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
It's a wonderful add-on for a wonderful game. 8/10 I reckon.

Agreed.

6/10 is harsh.
Eldritch
08/08/06 @ 13:36
#8
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I love the humour of the Civ games.

The best bits in Civ4 are:

- You have to adopt fascism to build the Mount Rushmore monument
- The icon for the invention of the internet shows Al Gore

Still, I don't like the idea of being able to play this sort of game with Stalin as a character. What's next, Hitler?
reality_cheque
08/08/06 @ 13:48
#9
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Most world leaders are particularly nice. Ghengis Khan wasn't known for his flower arranging, you don't seem to object to him :P

I agree with the people that said this is an 8/10 expansion. Well worth getting.
Eldritch
08/08/06 @ 13:56
#10
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Okay, good point. (C:

Favourite phrase: "No, we're quite happy with despotism."
UncleLou
08/08/06 @ 14:00
#11
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Most world leaders are particularly nice. Ghengis Khan wasn't known for his flower arranging, you don't seem to object to him :P

It's a bit like the old humour = tragedy+time formula. Ghengis Khan is an entirely historical figure now, everyone that suffered from him has died many, many centuries ago.

Putting a cartoon Stalin in a strategy game might be a bit too early. It's not the most terible thing to do, but it's at least a tad dubious. :)

Eldritch
08/08/06 @ 14:04
#12
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
True, but where do you draw the line?

I had one game the other day (playing as Bismarck, of course), where my most aggressive opponent was Gandhi. He actually declared war on me, that sneaky bastard.

I'll definitely play my next campaign as Hannibal. (C:
UncleLou
08/08/06 @ 14:13
#13
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
True, but where do you draw the line?

No strict rules apply, I'd say - some Fingerspitzengefühl is necessary. :)


Oh, and Gandhi is indeed a total bastard. One of my most satisfying Civ IV games was when I nuked him into oblivion after he annoyed me for hundreds of years. ;)
Eldritch
08/08/06 @ 14:17
#14
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Indeed. He keeps proposing things like: "Give me Fission and I'll give you Horseback Riding."

I nuked him good, too. (C:
UncleLou
08/08/06 @ 14:18
#15
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Sounds like he out-teched you a tad. ;)
reality_cheque
08/08/06 @ 14:19
#16
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
He always seems to do better than the rest of the AI too, the sneaky little bugger. Ghengis always seems to die first too.

Cyrus is my world leader of choice.
darkbhudda
08/08/06 @ 14:22
#17
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
You get to play the barbarians?
Awesome.

Yeah, I think it's too early for Stalin. Remember, it was only in the 60s we started dealing with Khan. And even then it was in a sci fi show.
Eldritch
08/08/06 @ 14:24
#18
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I gave him Fission, alright, but not the way he wanted it. (C:

And, yeah, Cyrus is a good one!
Eldritch
08/08/06 @ 14:25
#19
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
He's a great goalkeeper though.

Kahn, that is.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 08/08/06 @ 15:25
PortJourno
08/08/06 @ 15:03
#20
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Man, I nuked the hell out of Ghandi, too, because he was going to win the space race. I think we should form a club or something.
AOFanboi
08/08/06 @ 15:32
#21
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
You have to adopt fascism to build the Mount Rushmore monument

Surely you only need to research it?

I usually play on the second-easiest difficulty - one step up and you start having to commit production to countering the fricking barbarian invasions. I guess I could turn them off in the options, though.
reality_cheque
08/08/06 @ 15:35
#22
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I play on Noble, so I don't have an advantage against the AI - the barbarians are really only a problem when it comes to settlers exploring by themselves. All you need to beat barbarians in the early game is an archer from a town with a barracks.
UncleLou
08/08/06 @ 15:36
#23
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
I play on Noble, but only ever win through diplomacy, space race, or culture. If I get into wars on Noble, I am screwed.

On Warchief, on the other hand, I can play with my eyes closed and win whichever way I want to win.

In short, either there's a HUGE difference between the two levels, or I suck at Civ IV, or both. Still loving it, mind.
chupachups
08/08/06 @ 15:53
#24
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"It's a bit like the old humour = tragedy+time formula. Ghengis Khan is an entirely historical figure now, everyone that suffered from him has died many, many centuries ago.

Putting a cartoon Stalin in a strategy game might be a bit too early. It's not the most terible thing to do, but it's at least a tad dubious. :) "

Yeah, I think a good rule of thumb would be not to use a historical fiend until all his victims and their kids have died, because they're the only people who this kind of flippancy might personally hurt.

Stalin killed more people than Hitler and he did things that were just as terrible including genocide. How would people have reacted if the Nazi leader had been included in the game?

(Of course I know why Stalin IS in the game, he was an ally of the Americans and British during the War, so the Western press at the time never criticised him as severely as they did Hitler. They were both the most evil leaders of the 20th Century, but some people seemed to want to be soft on the one that helped them out.)
BurningR
08/08/06 @ 17:30
#25
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"fellow Eurogamer writer James Rossignol is a phenomenal lover. Peerless in all techniques, Rossignol is - apparently - the man for all your orgasmic needs."

- so very true, he gave me the whole package last night.. call me, baby!
Mr Sleep
08/08/06 @ 20:49
#26
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"Oh, and Gandhi is indeed a total bastard. One of my most satisfying Civ IV games was when I nuked him into oblivion after he annoyed me for hundreds of years. ;)"

"Which historical figure would you most like to fight?"
"Ghandi"

\o/
Lim-Dul
08/08/06 @ 22:57
#27
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
"It's a wall! It's great! It's around China! It's the Big Brick-Thing Of East Asia!"

Hahaha! This sounds like the name of one of Leonard da Quirm's inventions. :-D (Pratchett insiders only joke)

P.S. A great game doesn't make an add-on great in the same manner a great movie doesn't mean (and most likely it won't) the sequel must be great too... (Matrix, SW, Shrek, Pirates of the Caribbean anyone? OK - I know I will make myself unpopular now :-D)
Edited 2 times, most recently on 09/08/06 @ 00:00
Genji
09/08/06 @ 05:38
#28
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Wow, the British get ANOTHER leader? As if Elizabeth wasn't good enough.
I'm a bit confused as to what the Warlords are, exactly. Are they created by merging a General with another unit?

"In short, either there's a HUGE difference between the two levels, or I suck at Civ IV, or both. Still loving it, mind."
There's more of a difference between Prince (the level I usually play on) and Monarch. Noble is the "dead even" difficulty level, where neither you nor the AI get any bonuses.
Edited 1 times, most recently on 09/08/06 @ 06:45
reality_cheque
09/08/06 @ 06:37
#29
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
The biggest difference I find is the 'free' levels of health and happiness you get with each difficulty level, it completely changes my style of play.

Incidentally we're organising a play-by-email game over in the forums of non-Warlord CivIV if anyone wants to join.
riz23
09/08/06 @ 11:36
#30
0
You buried this comment
Comment below viewing threshold
Show
Is Gnome sex legal in the UK?

Comments: 1-30 of 30 in total

Want to comment on this article? Log in, or register!

Metaboli

X View gallery