Warlock Master of the Arcane - Fantasy Civ5 clone from Paradox

[Metro]

I wouldn't call it 'shit.' It's nothing amazing but at least you can trade resources and whatnot. It's no weaker than the previous iterations of Civilization diplomacy. The diplomacy in Warlock might as well not even exist. Anyway, did some poking around Paradox forums and a rep basically said there were no plans to make any additional content this year for it although they're 'continually in talks with Ino-Co,' blah blah. Sort of surprised they don't even have plans to make more unit DLC, ah well. Maybe they might come out with an expansion in 2014 (or maybe they'll change their minds) but for the foreseeable future this seems to be the entirety of the game.

 

[The Vault Dweller]

I have to admit due to the best multiplayer support I've ever seen in a TBS (namely from Steam) I have more hours in Warlock than any TBS I've ever played before by far. Over 400 hours in fact. Although most of those are multiplayer where half the time I'm waiting for my opponents turn where I minimize Warlock and have a web browser open.

Sincerely,
The Vault Dweller

 

[Metro]

I found myself habitually playing this again and had a few more thoughts. As someone probably mentioned pages and pages back one of the biggest problems the game suffers from is the 'macro' AI. That, it's fine in individual combat situations but totally inept when it comes to the big picture. You can easily manipulate them through diplomacy and just bribe them for near permanent peace save for maybe four or five turns of war where you can't talk to them. In Civ 5, the AI has a much better handle on strategy and if it has the upper hand, will wipe you out and refuse to negotiate (or at the least demand multiple cities which is a death sentence, anyway).

I played a few games on the second hardest difficulty on smaller maps and could win with relative ease within about forty or so turns if I wanted. So then I started a game on the hardest setting - 'impossible' -- on a large map and after a hundred turns it's still easy. I haven't gotten into war with any of the AI mostly because they didn't even find me for sixty or so turns. Even with four AI opponents I still had time to clear the entire continent I was on and three fourths of another where I eventually stumbled on to one. Moreover, on the large maps there is seemingly no reason to go into the other world portals as I found all of the good resource hexes like Adamantite, Gems, Nevril, etc. in the main world. Granted I was aided a bit by picking elves whose troops have better built in resists and are slightly stronger than the default troops of the monsters and humans but for the most part I was carried by lords and spells -- two things that are totally random. Why anyone would play this multiplayer I don't know because chances are it will just come down to pure luck: find good resources close to your start, get an ogre or mage lord early, get fireball or shadowbolt as an early spell (versus something laughable like clean the land or fertility boost), etc.

I'm also unsure of what the difficulty levels actually do. It certainly doesn't make the AI anymore aggressive or intelligent. I guess it gives them more resources or bigger cheats or something but it's not readily apparent. Certainly not on larger maps where it'll just be you versus the environment for thirty or so turns. The appeal of this game to me is that it's basically turn based Majesty. You send your heroes out against monsters, find gold, find items, find resources to power them up, rinse, repeat. The Armageddon DLC sort of solves the difficulty problem by ratcheting things up to kick in the nuts level. I got to the part where you could enter the Dremor dimension to slay the boss but ultimately gave up because it got too tedious. Instead of just facing the boss right away you have to slog through a mini-world filled with 'towns' and towers and such. So while it does add a challenge it's sort of hasty/sloppy way to fix the issues present in the main game.

Going to give it a long rest now and hope they revisit it within a year with a psuedo expansion DLC that fixes the spell system by getting rid of half (of the current one hundred) and making it a proper tree rather than just blind luck. They could also rework 'religion' and make it a bit more relevant and influence what type of lords you get, etc. It definitely requires fixes and content updates that a trivial DLC can't provide.

 

[SCO]

Since i've played Sollium Infernum (with the godawful AI too), i can't really get excited about games where it's so easy to declare total war.

 

[Metro]

Just for laughs I finished that Impossible difficulty/large map playthrough going for a Unity Spell victory. Not sure why that condition exists unless you're stalemated against the AI and want to turtle and farm research. Problem is the AI is so dull it's much easier to win through conquest rather than delay the game for another hundred turns. Too much PvE and not enough emphasis on PvP. You can ignore your enemies and farm the monster and neutral 'factions.' On the one hand I suppose it's neat the game offers that but on the other it detracts from the true 'versus' aspect of the game. It really is turn based Majesty.

 

[sser]

The heroes kinda upset the balance of the game a bit. A human player is bound to get his stable of bros together and go womp some AI; but I rarely see the AI utilize heroes in a similar fashion. Back when the game came out, the AI might drop a huge army on your border and invade; and you'd have nothing but your own troops to fight back. Now? One hero can be worth more than an AI's empire. If the AI was better at building up heroes, and recruiting more of them, it'd be alright, but they aren't. I think they should just get natural XP bonuses as the AI seems unable to level them properly. For now, I just limit myself on heroes if I want a campaign challenge; otherwise it's too easy to deploy a squad of demi-gods that fear nothing.

 

[Kane]

I just wish they would put the MP out of Beta.

 

[Grunker]

I just wish they would put the MP out of Beta.

This is key for me as well :/

 

[Kane]

I just wish they would put the MP out of Beta.

This is key for me as well :/

I actually checked after I posted and the beta label seems to be gone.

 

[Grunker]

Fo' realz? Awsum.

 

[tuluse]

I wouldn't call it 'shit.' It's nothing amazing but at least you can trade resources and whatnot. It's no weaker than the previous iterations of Civilization diplomacy. The diplomacy in Warlock might as well not even exist. Anyway, did some poking around Paradox forums and a rep basically said there were no plans to make any additional content this year for it although they're 'continually in talks with Ino-Co,' blah blah. Sort of surprised they don't even have plans to make more unit DLC, ah well. Maybe they might come out with an expansion in 2014 (or maybe they'll change their minds) but for the foreseeable future this seems to be the entirety of the game.

Dude what.

In Civ4 with BTS (I haven't played vanilla in so long I don't know if these are available in it), you can make defensive packs, or full alliances, or make a pact to war against a 3rd party. In Civ5 there is only full alliances.

In Civ4 you can have vassals. That's out in Civ5.

In Civ4 you can trade techs, in Civ5 you just have the "research agreements" which give you a bunch of research points after a certain number of turns. Which by the way is extremely poorly documented in game.

In Civ4 you can ask your allies in a war to attack a specific city. That's out in Civ5.

In Civ4 you can force other empires to change their religion and government types, that's out in Civ5.

 

[Metro]

A few of those are legitimate points like specific cities, full alliances (although that was always an odd sort of victory) and religion/government. The others are not 'regressions' as they are phasing out of mechanics. Tech trading was a cheap way to ensure supremacy on the harder difficulties. There were a couple of branches the AI never researched and you could grab one or two obscure techs then trade them around. In a game with a lot of AI you could garner half a dozen techs in exchange for your one obscure tech. Research agreements are a more balanced approach. The concept of vassals has been replaced by city-states. Doesn't really make much sense for an AI to submit to being a vassal because it's essentially admitting defeat.

The heroes kinda upset the balance of the game a bit. A human player is bound to get his stable of bros together and go womp some AI; but I rarely see the AI utilize heroes in a similar fashion. Back when the game came out, the AI might drop a huge army on your border and invade; and you'd have nothing but your own troops to fight back. Now? One hero can be worth more than an AI's empire.

Especially when they are kitted out with full resource/XP upgrades. The elite Stubborn Knight and Ogre are insane tanks with the Ogre doing arc damage to the three hexes in front of him. Casters do absurd amounts of damage, too. On that impossible/large game I managed to get a witch hero unit out of some random gold pile. Think it did like 40ish base damage before any upgrade.

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

Doesn't really make much sense for an AI to submit to being a vassal because it's essentially admitting defeat.

I think that was due to a change in perspective from the designers between 4 and 5. In 4 the AI wasn't "Playing the game" as much, it wasn't playing strictly to win it was instead loosely playing "In character" which is party why religion was such a large part of diplomacy in 4 and you could make vassals out of civs. They had a bit more personality and character to them in diplomacy and would get pissed off and pleased about more things. In 5 the AI is more attempting to play the same game as the player.

'course, that's just the feeling I got from playing them. Haven't read any interviews or anything mentioning that, so take my wild theories pulled from my ass as you will!

 

[tuluse]

Well as long as you agree than Civ5's diplomacy is worse Metro

 

[Metro]

On the balance you could say that. Re: the leaders/civs acting 'in character' in Civ 5 -- from what I've seen in fifty or so hours that's definitely the case. Bismark, Montezuma, Augustus, etc. are guaranteed to declare war on you unless you have a stronger military. Gandhi, whoever the Siamese guy is, and the 'nicer' leaders in history will just let you sit there with literally no military and ignore you. Also funny is in my last game Gandhi kept sending hordes of Hindu missionaries my way and eventually overwhelmed my holy city! So, yeah, they do tend to have vestiges of personality. Gandhi also pumped out a shitload of Wonders so presumably his AI is programmed for a cultural victory.

 

[Marsal]

On the balance you could say that. Re: the leaders/civs acting 'in character' in Civ 5 -- from what I've seen in fifty or so hours that's definitely the case. Bismark, Montezuma, Augustus, etc. are guaranteed to declare war on you unless you have a stronger military. Gandhi, whoever the Siamese guy is, and the 'nicer' leaders in history will just let you sit there with literally no military and ignore you. Also funny is in my last game Gandhi kept sending hordes of Hindu missionaries my way and eventually overwhelmed my holy city! So, yeah, they do tend to have vestiges of personality. Gandhi also pumped out a shitload of Wonders so presumably his AI is programmed for a cultural victory.

In 4 the AI wasn't "Playing the game" as much, it wasn't playing strictly to win it was instead loosely playing "In character"... In 5 the AI is more attempting to play the same game as the player.

Glad you can both agree.

 

[Malakal]

On the balance you could say that. Re: the leaders/civs acting 'in character' in Civ 5 -- from what I've seen in fifty or so hours that's definitely the case. Bismark, Montezuma, Augustus, etc. are guaranteed to declare war on you unless you have a stronger military. Gandhi, whoever the Siamese guy is, and the 'nicer' leaders in history will just let you sit there with literally no military and ignore you. Also funny is in my last game Gandhi kept sending hordes of Hindu missionaries my way and eventually overwhelmed my holy city! So, yeah, they do tend to have vestiges of personality. Gandhi also pumped out a shitload of Wonders so presumably his AI is programmed for a cultural victory.

In 4 the AI wasn't "Playing the game" as much, it wasn't playing strictly to win it was instead loosely playing "In character"... In 5 the AI is more attempting to play the same game as the player.

Glad you can both agree.

I'll arbitrate on this issue: Civ 4 AI was custom made for leaders. There are tables you can look up describing AI leader behaviour. Some of those wont, for example, backstab you unless certain conditions are met. CiV AI is more generic in this matter and everyone is a raving mad psychopath (ie like player).

 

[Marsal]

On the balance you could say that. Re: the leaders/civs acting 'in character' in Civ 5 -- from what I've seen in fifty or so hours that's definitely the case. Bismark, Montezuma, Augustus, etc. are guaranteed to declare war on you unless you have a stronger military. Gandhi, whoever the Siamese guy is, and the 'nicer' leaders in history will just let you sit there with literally no military and ignore you. Also funny is in my last game Gandhi kept sending hordes of Hindu missionaries my way and eventually overwhelmed my holy city! So, yeah, they do tend to have vestiges of personality. Gandhi also pumped out a shitload of Wonders so presumably his AI is programmed for a cultural victory.

In 4 the AI wasn't "Playing the game" as much, it wasn't playing strictly to win it was instead loosely playing "In character"... In 5 the AI is more attempting to play the same game as the player.

Glad you can both agree.

I'll arbitrate on this issue: Civ 4 AI was custom made for leaders. There are tables you can look up describing AI leader behaviour. Some of those wont, for example, backstab you unless certain conditions are met. CiV AI is more generic in this matter and everyone is a raving mad psychopath (ie like player).

I agree. You can really tell CiV leaders have distinct personalities.

Spoiler

 

[Misconnected]

I'll arbitrate on this issue: Civ 4 AI was custom made for leaders. There are tables you can look up describing AI leader behaviour. Some of those wont, for example, backstab you unless certain conditions are met. CiV AI is more generic in this matter and everyone is a raving mad psychopath (ie like player).

To be slightly less vague, the Civ5 AI personalities are essentially a bunch of different behaviour-defining variables. Each personality has a different set of base values, which combined determines how a faction leader behaves. However, during match creation there's a chance that each of these behaviour-defining values will receive a slight modifier.

The result is that Monty, for example, is generally a warmongering loon and never a religious nutsack. But in a given match he can be somewhere in-between.

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

Just tried an Armageddon game and got rolled pretty hard on one difficulty down from impossible. I was able to hold my territory but the pressure from the dremers is getting to the point I don't think I can hack it. Certainly can't expand.

This leads me to believe they didn't break the AI with recent patches and Metro is just good at Warlock! With that being the case you definitely might wanna hold off on Fallen Enchantress for a good sale Metro. If I can stomp that game on challenging easily you'd probably destroy it.

 

[Metro]

I actually tried another traditional game on impossible and while two of the AI did reasonable jobs of expanding another one only had one city when it could have expanded in my direction easily. So there are still some AI bugs. Might have something to do with normal versus Armageddon mode (although the half dozen times I've tried Armageddon games the 'player AI' usually gets curbstomped by the Dremor AI). Armageddon on normal difficulty is hard enough and while I once was able to stem the invasion I got bored slogging through the Dremor lands -- far too tedious to kill all of those castles and such. As I said in a previous post while Armageddon mode is an interesting concept it seems as if it were also a sloppy fix to AI shortcomings. I doubt I would ever lose a normal game on impossible which has killed my desire to play since I'm not a big fan of Armageddon mode.

 

[Gord]

Which DLCs for Warlock are worth acquiring?
Any DLC particularly good/bad?

I guess I can wait until some sale, but otoh, they aren't very expensive anyway.

 

[Multi-headed Cow]

Elf DLC is good if you want an additional faction, and Armageddon's sorta cool since it gives you a different game mode. Others you can take or leave as you will.

 

[asongforsimeon]

soeaking of dlc, artifacts are cool, if wildly unbalanced

 

[KoolNoodles]

I would say the Elf DLC is the only one that is "worth" it, simply because a whole new factions adds potentially much more to the game than anything else. Artifacts is ok, Armageddon is ok etc., but don't add too much in the end. I'd wait for a Steam sale or some such and grab them all for like $.50 each, and play the base game in the meantime. Multiplayer is fun too, if you can get a game with good players, and where having an extra faction in the Elves really helps flesh it out.