Civ IV: Colonization

[Enigma]

Got it yesterday and I am somewhat disappointed. I expected it to be an updated version of the old "Conquest of the New World", but instead it felt like a shareware version of Civ IV.

2.5/5

Your thoughts? I'll expand on what I think of the game in about 2 hours time.

[charlemagne]

Disappointment here, too. The mechanics are seriously screwed up in "vanilla" CivCol, the bigger and more colonies you build, the harder it gets to live through the war when declaring independence. This is unacceptable, because the game literally punishes you for doing what is the most fun.

There's fan-made mods that try to correct this and other flaws, but I went back to CivIV quickly. Depending on how things are on the mod-front, I might revisit the game in 6 months or so.

[Enigma]

Conquest of the New World despite being about 15 years old is superior to this game. If your explorer discovers a mountain range, river, etc.. you get to name it. The combat system though clunky is superior to CIV:C. If I was able to play CotNW on my computer I'd be playing it now.

[Coaan]

DosBox and the CotNW cd are your friends.

That said, I own a copy of Civ 4: Col too, recently bought on the achievements and the fun memories that I have of Colonization and CotNW. It's major flaws can be condensed into two things, as the rest are either passable or fairly enjoyable.

AI - It's shit. There's not really much more you can say here. The other european powers all try to gnaw off their own arms and don't even bother with defense of their colonies, assuring they'll never win an independance victory. As far as the indians go, they'll turn around and murder you as soon as you look at them funny. Correct? maybe, but it still leaves for an annoyance when they attack you with their obscene hordes at turn six.

At that point, you're lucky to have one soldier and if your only town goes, you are fucked.

WoI - While it's nice to have the king occasionally expand his forces to try and meet with the growing possibility of rebellion...fucking hell. The mechanics don't half cheat. On my first real game, I had a grand total of twelve colonies boasting 12-14 people each. My economy worked and I had a large truck load of soldiers. So, then, Finally I declare independance and the king sends his forces.

Four hundred fucking units.

In comparison, I had eighty soldiers and assorted bits and pieces up to about a hundred total.

How the fuck are you supposed to stop that when regulars and the king's gear is far better than anything you can ever field? The only way I had some minor success was to spend the entire game sending my soldiers to murder everything in sight so they leveled up. They still lost!

It'll be a fun game if and when they get around to patching the myriad of issues it has. Right now, I have it modded up to the gums, thanks to fans. It has soothed some of these issues.

[Stark]

Holy shit - I managed to totally miss Conquest of the New World. It looks really flash, so I think I'll try to track it down. Does it have a hopelessly forced war of independence?

I didn't even bother with Civ4-Col; it looked appalling from the first news about it.

[Enigma]

Holy shit - I managed to totally miss Conquest of the New World. It looks really flash, so I think I'll try to track it down. Does it have a hopelessly forced war of independence?

I didn't even bother with Civ4-Col; it looked appalling from the first news about it.

In CotNW, eventually you'll have to declare independence once the taxes from mother country reach a certain level. If you are very prosperous you can stay as a colony longer than if you are struggling. Nevertheless, the game is a lot more flexible than CIV:C. I mean, you can choose where you can build your lumberyards, farms etc.. in your colony for maximum efficiency and you can level up your colony and the buildings within. Not so much though with Col. What I also liked about CotNW is that you can also be an indian whereas you can't in Col.

[Stark]

Pffft, I'm not going to waste my time then. I'm not interested in RELIVE AMERICA FUCK YEAH. A war of independence being the victory condition is fucking stupid, even worse when it's linked to retarded 'kick tax up to 85% regardless of game situation' nonsense.

[Enigma]

Pffft, I'm not going to waste my time then. I'm not interested in RELIVE AMERICA FUCK YEAH. A war of independence being the victory condition is fucking stupid, even worse when it's linked to retarded 'kick tax up to 85% regardless of game situation' nonsense.

I don't think it is a victory condition. I think no matter which victory condition you choose, you'll still end up having to go independent. Give it a shot, you might be surprised.

[Stark]

If there's no way to win other than fighting a war of independence, the game sickens and disgusts me with it's ignorant American basis. I've heard, right, that there are colonies that weren't forced into a war of independence and remained loyal and even - gasp - gained independence without violence.

Fucking shocking, I know. *I* hear that traitors work harder than loyalists however, and printing presses spread 'liberty', lol.

[charlemagne]

printing presses spread 'liberty', lol.

Nooo, they just make your wise statemen produce more 'liberty bells'!!

But you're right, one and only one victory condition is really lame. Always being nice to your king should open more diplomatic possibilities than just "Hey, I wanna leave" with him replying "Oh no you don't". (I can live with the king stomping over my colonies when I tell him to bugger off all the time.) And why can't I just buy the colonies out?

[Stark]

In many it makes internal sense in that the game is structured around random/absurd taxation. In one game of good ole Colonisation, for instance, the tax kicks were very small for some time and I was making the crown absolute shitpiles of money and generating a very low amount of 'liberty'... but then I got two 30% tax hikes in a row, which really does force you into violent rebellion (since there's no actual dip or relationship with the crown at all). These games are clearly simply 'relive America's colonial experience' and not actually 'colonisation' or 'conquer the new world' at all. They totally fail to describe the colonial history of even CANADA (outside the random events that occasionally merge different factions), let along South Africa or India or Australia. I mean, there aren't even gametypes where you pick the nature of your government - anything from giant corporations to private exploration to relgious nutters should be possible, but isn't.

Not being American, I have absolutely zero interest in this kind of game. In a sandbox game, random events should certainly be able to push you in this direction, but for it to be the sole victory condition you're forced into every time by hardcoded stuff is ridiculous and boring. If it's Colonisation and the whole game is built from the ground up as turning evil, lazy 'tories' into hard-working, industrious colonials, which is even more amusing. It's a shame, because I consider Colonisation a much more interesting and complex game than Civ.

[bobalot]

I never thought Civ IV was a good game. Totally overrated in my opinion. I still play Civ 3. Colonization is basically spruced up mod for Civ 4. It's even more crappy though. It's very difficult to declare independence and win. I have never finished a game, I always got bored and went back to Alpha Centauri or Civ 3.