How is this game?

[unmerged(38835)]

I like CivV quite a lot, and i think it should be even better in a fantasy setting.

So how is this game?

 

[unmerged(15561)]

Compared to Civ5?

I havent played Civ5 but I have lots of time on Civ 1-4, and main difference is that Warlock is not a civilization builder. Its got not really a kingdom builder either.

It is mostly a fantasy battle wargame. That involves tactical battles, which are fought depending on the sort of strategy you decide to employ.
Examples include:

• The game is very much focused on conducting war with a large variety of units and or combat spells.
• choose to use more combat magic vs larger armies
• more high quality units vs larger armies lower quality units
• use of stealth and cunning to attack vs strong powerful tank units

Also

• 4x victory conditions allow you some leeway to determine how you want to play and win.
• The pace of the game is rather fast given its turn-based mechanics.
• It has been designed to be this way by having units and buildings be built/recruited quickly. More so than usual 4x type games.

The game is also about to get MP functionality + a host of other things in a large patch. So you picked a good time to get it.

 

[MasterofSiege]

This game is great IMO. It has a lot less depth than Civilization V but it is much faster paced and more action oriented.

 

[Jute]

A bit too easy on impossible.

With that said - its awesome. Its lasted much longer than I thought it would as being my goto every night game for the past few weeks.

I usually get bored after mid game, since there isn't a lot of end game metrics. I just start another one up though.

Multi-player could be really interesting, just need someone that has the time for it.

 

[Snap Wilson]

It's terrific. A great turn-based fantasy battle system with lots of flavor. There are issues: the documentation is poor, but I was able to figure out most things by glancing around the forums and the wiki. The UI needs a lot of work--not everything is clear and some things are more frustrating to accomplish than they should be, and the AI isn't amazing but comparatively, I don't think it's terrible. And besides, when is computer game AI ever really amazing?

Nevertheless, it's great. The random maps mean every gaming experience is different, so there's lots of replay-ability, the monster spawns are a nice wrinkle, and when a huge battle gets into swing, it's a lot of fun. A very addictive game. I've played five very long games (all 200+ turns) and I keep coming back for more.

 

[PkK]

IMO it is a lot like "The Battle for Wesnoth" but with better graphics, some basic city-building, unit-independent spellcasting and research added, and campaigns and scenario editor subtracted. The AI is worse than the wesnoth one, which isn't that good either.

Philipp

 

[PkK]

Speaking of AI, it isn't that bad at a tactical level; the problems are more on a strategic level, e.g. the units in a given area behave sensibly, but the Ai is bad at deciding which unit to send to which area when fighting simultanously a in multiple areas.

Philipp

 

[unmerged(494828)]

Civilization is deeper, better documented and overall just have more efforts put in. Warlock, on the other hand, is more about war and fun.

Also, my personal feeling is what Civ 5 lost its direction after Shafer left it. Warlock is updated in much better way and developers are in much better contact.

 

[loki100]

my view is this game is the electronic equivalent of what those of us old enough to remember paper and counter games called a 'beer and pretzel' game. Its fun, enjoyable, very addictive (too addictive!) and I'm actually glad it is not vastly challenging. I have other games I play when I want to risk being beaten by the AI or to spend ages fussing over moves and getting military/diplomatic/economic matters all aligned.