Looks like Take2 is releasing Civ IV: COlonization after all. :D

http://ir.take2games.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=315205

Screenshots

http://www.strategyinformer.com/news/1303/2k-games-announces-civilization-iv-colonization-for-pc

Here's a link that works.

http://ir.take2games.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=315205

Here's a link that works.

http://ir.take2games.com/ReleaseDetail.cfm?ReleaseID=315205

Thanks Fresh Oracle, I fixed the link, and added a screenshot link.

Ans welcome to the Forums. :beer:

Looks like a Mini game or something. I don't get it? Why port a game over from Console and put it in the same series as BTS and Warlords when it's not an expansion?

wow I am stoked about this!

Just 2 weeks ago I was playing Colonization DOS version (I still have the original box and disks and manual), not the later windows 3.1 version, and I thought to myself "I wish they would put out a colonization remake".

This is such an awesome game, I can't wait until the new one comes out.

Not sure what an above poster means about it being a Mini game, and not sure which console system it was out on.

The press release seems to suggest it is the CIV engine rebuilt slightly to handle the colonization mechanics.

Count my pre-order in :)

I thought that was the console civ project, and it was being ported to PC but I guess I'm wrong. Still don't know what it has to do with Civ4 though.

oh you were thinking about Revolutions, the console civ. (civ2 was also on ps1 hehe).

No, it doesn't have much to do with CIV at all, not sure this should even be in the BTS forums :)

Colonization was after original civ, before civnet. It has the same sort of turn based, tile based, city based, unit based gameplay as civ. Your citizens have speciaties though, and you actually harvest raw resources from tiles worked, to be used in creating goods... So you would have a colonist work as a lumberjack to get wood, for a carpenter to use that goes into production. Or a sugar planter that yields sugar from a tile, the sugar is used by a Distiller who makes rum, you then sell the rum to europe, natives, or other europeans in the new world.

Bleh there is alot more to it, but basicly you are trying to gain independance from the home country.

P.S.
Privateers were so cool cause you could steal cargo off of enemy ships muaha. Oh and fortresses that have an artillery unit in them would auto bombard passing ships too :)

I guess it's just titled Civ IV because of the engine. Fun game though, I hope the new one does it justice.

Oh I see. That sounds kind of cool then. My First semi-Civ experience was Call to Power, so I missed all the earlier fun stuff.

yeah, I wonder how they're going to handle all the raw material mechanics and stuff. that's a pretty radical change from civ IV. also the european port.

Excellent

still have the original colonization installed and working on XP. its a whopping 5 MB i think. was an excellent game back in the day. still is actually.

Hope this one does it credit :)

I'm not entirely sure why this is being billed as "Civ 4: Colonization". It doesn't appear to be connected to Civ 4, and if it's anything like the original colonization, there won't be much resemblance.

Could be good though - it's a very long time since I played the original Colonization.

My first reaction was: I wish to put their energy in Civ 5.
My second reaction was: The Civ 4 engine? Isn't it a little outdated?

Looks good. As I get it, the Civ IV engine is a bit like the Baldur's Gate "Infinity" engine, a good piece of kit which is versatile enough to make these kinds of super-mods without wasting too much time on re-doing the engine just to make a spin-off game. Eventually the BG engine was jacked in in favour of 3D RPGs like Neverwinter Nights, but it didn't hold up the development of NWN while Bioware/Black Isle were spinning off more BG clones like Icewind Dale and Planescape: Torment. I would suspect one team was working on this, and another parallel team is working on Civ V (if it really is in the works).

As for Civ V, it may be a little teaser of what is to come. I'm looking forward to playing it but I like the open-ended nature of Civ Proper rather than specific mods or scenarios already set up completely, so I'm not sure that if I am further on in my career in the autumn than I am now I will be playing much of anything...but. We'll see.

I'm looking forward to playing it but I like the open-ended nature of Civ Proper rather than specific mods or scenarios already set up completely, so I'm not sure that if I am further on in my career in the autumn than I am now I will be playing much of anything...but. We'll see.

You should keep an open mind, the original Colonization was a great game. And don't think of it as a mod or scenario, it's going to be a full game in it's own right. The original one was at any rate. Although it had some similarities to Civ, it was really quite different as this one will be as well.

You should keep an open mind, the original Colonization was a great game. And don't think of it as a mod or scenario, it's going to be a full game in it's own right. The original one was at any rate. Although it had some similarities to Civ, it was really quite different as this one will be as well.
Just because I said it was a glorified mod or scenario doesn't mean I wouldn't play it, it just depends on whether, when it comes out, I'm still playing Civ IV or games in general. It uses the same engine but is a stand-alone game; I would keep an open-mind but as I said the real factor as to whether I'd play it or not has nothing to do with whether I enjoy mods or scenarios (not particularly unless they alter the basic game, add new units, civs whatever to that rather than being games tending to a point rather than being open-ended as such), but whether I'll have time or not when it comes out.

I think I'll try it... but I would prefer:

- The final patch on BTS :p
- SMAC II
- Civ V

before a new Colonization game. But that is only the opinion of someone that is a SMAC junkie ;)

I think I'll try it... but I would prefer:

- The final patch on BTS :p
- SMAC II
- Civ V

before a new Colonization game. But that is only the opinion of someone that is a SMAC junkie ;)

The only way you're going to see SMAC II is if EA buys out Take Two, as they hold the rights to the game. And frankly I don't want to see that happen. I think their concept of what makes a good game sucks and we would probably see the end of the Civilization series as we know it.

I really dont see this delaying Civ5 by long.

A new Colonization? That's great news. I can't wait.

With it being a civ 4 total conversion, I hope that means it will be cheap. Thinking along the lines of $19 and I am all over it.

Good news, IMO. I always liked replaying the colonization eras of history.

With it being a civ 4 total conversion, I hope that means it will be cheap. Thinking along the lines of $19 and I am all over it.
That would be nice, but if it's as good as the original COL, I'd be willing to pay one month of my salary. No kidding.

The only way you're going to see SMAC II is if EA buys out Take Two, as they hold the rights to the game. And frankly I don't want to see that happen. I think their concept of what makes a good game sucks and we would probably see the end of the Civilization series as we know it.
Ok...

Zacharov, a new era of struggle and oportunity awaits for you. The UN starship Unity has arrived to Proxima Centauri :p System after a fourty years voyage. All contact with Earth has been lost. After Captain Garland (... )

Good enough ? ;)

But I agree that EA has the bad taste of Simsmorph all the games that it grabs ( I :cry: about what they did to command and conquer..... ). Let's pray to Civ doesn't get there.....

Is a independent game from the Civ 4?

Yup..... ;)

and there was much rejoicing!

I like the idea, and I like the fact it will be Civ IV engine.

I really dont see this delaying Civ5 by long.


Whereas the CIV series drives my laptop purchases ( a bigger and better machine to run a bigger and better game) and Vista still seems to be part of the problem rather than part of the solution, I
'm happy to have them working on anything else but CIV V at this time.

EA owns the rights to SMAC? Thats horrible. All EA knows how to do is ruin good game franchises (C&C) and remake the same football game every year. Its funny to imagine a bunch of guys sitting around a TV pretending to play football, when they could just play football. Fear my assault mechs Electroic Arts!

EA owns the rights to SMAC? Thats horrible. All EA knows how to do is ruin good game franchises (C&C) and remake the same football game every year. Its funny to imagine a bunch of guys sitting around a TV pretending to play football, when they could just play football. Fear my assault mechs Electroic Arts!

What are you talking about, EA often takes great pains to make its football series worse most years. Introducing new glitches at 2x the rate they fix them is protocol, they probably keep a sign with such instructions wherever they do programming.

This year, only the receivers will jump for high bullet passes, and crappy no-names can one-hand multiple catches per game. Oh yes, and flipping the play and running defenses with 3 down lineman and 1 linebacker is an effective run stopping defense. Realistic.

I'm a good player in it too. I'm 94-27 or something in 08, but it's ridiculous, yet far from the worst I've seen (their "upgrades" in ncaa football 2006 and madden 2007 were game-breaking in a BAD way, both eventually forcing me to stop playing them altogether.).

yeah, I wonder how they're going to handle all the raw material mechanics and stuff. that's a pretty radical change from civ IV. also the european port.

I wonder these things as well. Maps in colonization were Flat, not wrap around, and the edge of the map would take you to Europe. Also tiles that I think were ocean as apposed to coast would give you the sail to europe popup without having to be at the map edge. This seems pretty doable with CIV as a popup box "Sail to Europe?" on "ocean" tiles not sea or coast.

The raw materials was probably more work hehe. They did say a new UI. The original had raw mats for the city in the city screen, as well as an advisor that showed goods for all cities.

The screenshots from that link by the OP clearly show a colonist being constructed at a colony, an expert silver miner, unless that is a seperate queue being shown for a Schoolhouse or University, and not the Carpenters' / Lumbermills' build. fun stuff, I'm going to look for more screenies :)

Man, i was playing FreeCol for a while and it was very much fun. So I imagine this will be quite fun too.

As far as resource diversion from Civ 5 goes, they probably did this with a pretty small team. I imagine they have a relatively small team working on pre-production for Civ 5, the bulk of their workers finishing up Civ Rev. Then when it's done the bulk of those people will work on Civ 5 with a small team doing DLC.

I wonder if EA would ever consider selling Sid the rights to SMAC.

I would give my first born son for SMAC II.

EA owns the rights to SMAC? Thats horrible. All EA knows how to do is ruin good game franchises (C&C) and remake the same football game every year. Its funny to imagine a bunch of guys sitting around a TV pretending to play football, when they could just play football. Fear my assault mechs Electroic Arts!

Whats wrong with C&C franchise (C&C renegade?)? I've been playing since the first C&C and they've been getting better imho, not worse. I do have my gripes about EA, but C&C is not one of them.

Hope for PORTUGAL!!! this time

I is très excited!!!

Whats wrong with C&C franchise (C&C renegade?)? I've been playing since the first C&C and they've been getting better imho, not worse. I do have my gripes about EA, but C&C is not one of them.

I haven't tried Renegade but Generals absolutely sucked. I ended up trading in my disk at EB Games. I have the new Tiberium Sun but haven't really played it yet. My all time favourite was the original Tiberium Sun and the expansion. They just haven't been as good since then IMO.

I played this game to death,the feeling of sheer panic when those redcoats start landing. . . . I can still feel it now

wow I am stoked about this!

Just 2 weeks ago I was playing Colonization DOS version (I still have the original box and disks and manual), not the later windows 3.1 version, and I thought to myself "I wish they would put out a colonization remake".




Uggg! I bought that game when it came out. Worst, most boring, game I've ever played. It turned me off Sid's games for years.

I think it's funny how so many of you think it's like a MOD just because it uses the same engine. Would you call Half Life a Quake-MOD, Red Alert a Tiberium Dawn MOD or Sam'n'Max just a Day of the Tentacle MOD?
I don't think so.
But back on topic. I loved Colonization and I'm really looking forward to this. Especially now that I can play it with friends via Internet.

Colonization was an excellent cousin of Civ, I still got it somewhere - I used to love old King George turning up from time to time saying "Kiss my Pinkie ring" remember that?

I always wanted to be able to ally with the Iroquois/Mohicans to stick it to the other European colonizers, with the Civ IV diplomacy sophistication this could mean more 3am finishes..........

I played this game to death,the feeling of sheer panic when those redcoats start landing. . . . I can still feel it now

I was always underwhelmed by that myself, since they were so easy to beat. They always landed in the same spots with just a handful of troops each time, so my massive forces wiped them out easily. I used to have so many units that I wasn't able to build anymore due to the cap that was in place. So the final battles were always a cakewalk for me.

it sound pretty well but i have reasons to not like it that much.
First i want civ V second i hate the fact that i m restricted to a single age..

i want EPIC

@woody1

I'm sorry to hear that, I disagree. It IS more micromanagement to produce what you want / specialize your colonies than traditional civ models, but I appreciate building as much as warring so personally I like the extra detail in the game.

@Willem

The difficulty scaling was more about rebel/tory settings making it more difficult to get to independence, not sure of other modifiers the AI gets. The military situation was pretty standard as far as defending against the motherland so I see your point, it was pretty much unit spam and the euro AI couldnt beat you very easily. You did have to recapture any colonies that were lost before you could win. It was cool cause soldiers in your colonies when you declared revolution would be upgraded to Continentals.

Not sure what difficulty you topped out on, but I found most of the higher difficulty levels in rebel sentiment building. Have to get those elder statemen :)

Anyway a modified CIV AI should be interesting, and I would hope Better than the original lol.

Continental congress, real trade routes where you trade the goods yourself (with customized automated trade routes for loading/unloading cargo), various interesting diplomacy features for natives and other europeans, etc.
There are so many other unique mechanics of colonization that are much fun, I hope they can incorporate many of them, and all of you civ players should at least read up more on it when the info becomes available for the new one as you may love it!

I guess founding fathers will be similar as tech tree. But in Colonization they appeared in random order... so who knows. Liberty bells are like beakers. I hope it will not be 100% Colonization 1. Hopefully this will be improved... Portugal should be added and there should be a possibility to play as indians... just as you may as barbarians in barb scenario.

If they want to make 100% colonization then they should include trade and crash bug too:D

it sound pretty well but i have reasons to not like it that much.
First i want civ V second i hate the fact that i m restricted to a single age..

i want EPIC

You really should check it out first before you discount the game. This is not a Civ mod, it's an entirely different game with objectives that have nothing in common with Civ. There's no need for any other age, there's plenty to do with what you have. Hopefully they'll do a better job of redoing this one than they did with Pirates and Rialroads. If they do, it might end up becoming one of your favourite games. I enjoyed playing the original almost as much as playing Civ.

I guess founding fathers will be similar as tech tree. But in Colonization they appeared in random order... so who knows. Liberty bells are like beakers. I hope it will not be 100% Colonization 1. Hopefully this will be improved... Portugal should be added and there should be a possibility to play as indians... just as you may as barbarians in barb scenario.

If they want to make 100% colonization then they should include trade and crash bug too:D

Yea that's right, I think liberty bells are like beakers towards your Founding fathers for Continental congress, but you were able to choose which category you wanted to get next. That seems pretty easy to adapt to a tech tree style. Also though liberty bells made your colonies more productive, by a large margin actually if you were doing well. I can see that implemented fairly easily as well modifying existing CIV mechanics.

Extra options for playing natives would be sweet!@

Can't wait! :thumbsup:

JosEPh :D

Civ IV is my first Civ experiance, but from what I've heard about colonization from this site and others this seems very intriguing. I've become a total Sid fan, so I think I'm going to buy almost anything he has his name on from now on.

I hope the diplomacy is more indepth than what we get in Civ IV. My biggest complaint about Civ IV is that the diplomacy is fairly simple and not much to it. I want more options with other nations/colonies/vassals/whatever and this sounds like it might do just that.

Civ iv is also my first civilization game.The one i got used to play and my favorite game too.

It looks like a civ mod so much only because the models used to represent worked tiles(the little boats) are the same so i guess it would be wise to change them.Also i don't like the water too much,the reflection thing ..well doesn't work.Because let s say the units have their own scales right?(if they would be proper scalled we could'nt see them.)
But the map it scaled the same even if it's ocean lake or something like that.
But the ocean seen from plane let s say seems just a blue green mass like that one in Civ IV.I won't continue it cause it s only graphics wise and that s not that important.

Second,what time period this game has??
Does it allow for railroads and such??
And i guess natives are like barbarians...or not?
And cityes still produce food,commerce and something else that took the place of resarch?
heard strategic resolurces work different pls explain

Civ4 units have no equipment... but pioneers must have tools... So they must change the engine anyway. Also Wagon train must be something new.

But does Remake mean 100% or it has the same idea but still a little changed gameplay?

Also Wagon train must be something new.

Not really, there's a wagon in the Charlemagne scenario. Of course it doesn't do trade routes like the ones in Colonization should.

But does Remake mean 100% or it has the same idea but still a little changed gameplay?

No, according to the report I read it's going to be a 100% remake. The only thing that's going to be connected to Civ is the engine.

I know but I just hoped some improvement.. like you don't want to play civ1 in civ4 engine... that would be boring.

I know but I just hoped some improvement.. like you don't want to play civ1 in civ4 engine... that would be boring.

Oh I see, I misinterpreted. I thought you meant it would be more like Civ 4 in a colonial context. Chances are there'll be some changes in the gameplay from the original. I'm sure Sid and company have had time to think about some improvements since then, and computer technology has progressed enough to allow things that weren't possible back then. The reviews I read didn't say anything about that though.

A longer tech tree would be an improvement. The late game has a lot of focus on creating liberty bells. Having research as well would make the late game a lot more interesting, because you´d have to diversify more. Anyway, being able to do some actual research yourself would be a step forward anyway.

BTW, why is this in the BTS subforum? Seems out of place.

So Firaxis found the time to make a fancy new Civ4 mod but they didn't find the time to finish patching BTS?

I think this is another Firaxis product I shall not be purchasing. :)

Hope for 5 (FIVE) nations this time:
England
France
Netherlands
Spain
PORTUGAL

To create later:
US
(the French what were they call) Quebeq?
Surinam
Mexico
Brazil

Well for natives:
Aztecs
Incas
Sioux
Iroquois
(Maya ???)
Arawaks
...

Hope for more two new natives nations that over the original.

So Firaxis found the time to make a fancy new Civ4 mod but they didn't find the time to finish patching BTS?

I think this is another Firaxis product I shall not be purchasing. :)


Never ever purchase a Firaxis game until it has been out at least a year and undergone several patches. I never learned my lesson from Civ1 or Civ2. After Civ3, I finally learned. I waited with Civ4, and am quite happy with the final result (with Bhruic's patch).

I must say, I'm really pleased wih the announcement of Civ 4: Colonization! It's okay if it takes longer until Civ5, since I'm not done with 4 yet ;).

Judging from the pictures, the graphics look much better than standard 3.13 BTS. Would it be possible that they release a patch for BTS (or vanilla, warlords etc) to match the graphics of colonization. I'm sure many people could run the game this way.

(the French what were they call) Quebeq?
Quebecois is the people. Quebec is the region/nation.

Wodan

Fabien what is the graphic difference between theme excepting the water

Fabien what is the graphic difference between theme excepting the water

They said they'd use higher resolutions for all the textures and since the game requires a shader 1.1 card, I guess we'll see some differences anyway. Sid talks about it at Gamespot (http://www.gamespot.com/news/6192569.html?action=convert&om_clk=latestnews&tag=latestnews;title;0). So I guess we'll see many enhancements and it would be nice If they added it to BTS as well, but I'm quite sure they won't...

The Terrain does indeed look better, astleast in my eyes. Image (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/160/946846_20080609_screen002.jpg)

Quebecois is the people. Quebec is the region/nation.

Wodan

It's not a nation nor ever has been. That's a very sensitive issue here in Canada that's better left alone. They are a province within the country of Canada. Before that they were a colony of France, then one of England.

The Terrain does indeed look better, astleast in my eyes. Image (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/160/946846_20080609_screen002.jpg)

The water certainly looks better but I'm not sure I care for the rest of it. It all looks too much like an oil painting for me.

Has anyone noticed that the 3 tile restriction for placing cities is gone?

The graphs look a lot like some images of the graphs tests for Civ Iv ( especially the walls and the plain tiles..... ). And clearly the civ Iv normal 3 tiles restriction is not respected by the pictures cities ( but this is WB, most surely.... )

The Terrain does indeed look better, astleast in my eyes. Image (http://image.com.com/gamespot/images/2008/160/946846_20080609_screen002.jpg)Wow, that is pretty sharp. Hope I don't need to upgrade Again :-)

Which will mean newMobo+CPU+Ram+Graphics... theres little point in trying to acquire a halfdecent AGP card these days. Even a year/year and a half ago, the AGP flavour of the same card was nearly double the price.

Has anyone noticed that the 3 tile restriction for placing cities is gone?
I believe the BFC is gone in Civ:Colonization, the restriction for city placement might have been changed as well?

In original Colonization your city radius was only extended 1 tile out from the colony center. You could also build a colony Adjacent to a native settlement. I'm trying to recall if you could build 2 colonies adjacent to eachother and I can't remember trying it, but I seem to recall being able to build them 1 tile apart.

This makes me afraid they will delay civilization V.I am very curios on how it will be.

It's not a nation nor ever has been. That's a very sensitive issue here in Canada that's better left alone.
There has always been a strong independence movement. That seems to me to be an argument for, rather than against, inclusion in the game.

They are a province within the country of Canada. Before that they were a colony of France, then one of England.
Right, so they should be included. Just as any other colony should be included: American colonies, Brazil, etc.

Wodan

There has always been a strong independence movement. That seems to me to be an argument for, rather than against, inclusion in the game.


Right, so they should be included. Just as any other colony should be included: American colonies, Brazil, etc.

Wodan

It's not so much whether they should be "included" as it is what your nation becomes when it wins its war for independence.

I'm working off of about fifteen-year old memories (I really should find that game and reinstall it somewhere), but in the original:

Colonial Name -> Name at Independence

New England -> America
New France -> Quebec
New Netherland -> Surinam
New Spain -> Mexico

And even though it doesn't look like they're in (yet), I'm sure New Portugal could become Brazil :D

Right, so they should be included. Just as any other colony should be included: American colonies, Brazil, etc.


In the context of the game sure, but please don't refer to the real Quebec as a nation, as you seem to have been doing in your first post. It's not, nor ever has been one, as much as some of the Quebecois would like things to be otherwise.

New Netherland -> Surinam


In the context of the geographical area of the game, Curacao would be more appropriate.

In the context of the game sure, but please don't refer to the real Quebec as a nation, as you seem to have been doing in your first post. It's not, nor ever has been one, as much as some of the Quebecois would like things to be otherwise.
Civilization (and Colonization) is all about what could have been. It's about making a new history, about "what if".

Sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities. You make this sound like we're suggesting Hitler be in the game, or something. :lol:

Wodan

Sorry if that offends your delicate sensibilities. You make this sound like we're suggesting Hitler be in the game, or something. :lol:


As I mentioned, it's a sensitive issue here in Canada. Innocent people have died because of it. Not many I admit, but even one is too many.

It's not so much whether they should be "included" as it is what your nation becomes when it wins its war for independence.

I'm working off of about fifteen-year old memories (I really should find that game and reinstall it somewhere), but in the original:

Colonial Name -> Name at Independence

New England -> America
New France -> Quebec
New Netherland -> Surinam
New Spain -> Mexico

And even though it doesn't look like they're in (yet), I'm sure New Portugal could become Brazil :D

How about NewFoundland -> the Vikings
Or Nova Scotia (Nouveau Scotia) -> The Scots :-)
Or New Brunswick - I have no idea... England? (cource they're already in!)

New Sweden- Delaware?
New Russia- Alaska
New Denmark- Virgin Islands?

Hmm posted my ideas in wrong place earlier but here goes.

Additions i expect...
More units
Scenarios with possible local indian alliances to certain nations.
Plus unit promotions or would this still be done by building and buying arms and horses. They will want to maintain the original game features.

Naturally Colonization revolution to follow or a Colonization expansion pack or two.

All in all I dont expect civ 5 any time before 2010 if at all.

How about NewFoundland -> the Vikings

Now that would be a stretch. They had one tiny colony that died out long before the others arrived.

Or Nova Scotia (Nouveau Scotia) -> The Scots :-)


It was the French that initially settled that area and there are still many French speaking people living there. In fact France still controls two small islands off the coast.

Both Scots and Swedes had colonies in the Americas in the quoted period...... but both in the Caribean :crazyeye:

Both Scots and Swedes had colonies in the Americas in the quoted period...... but both in the Caribean :crazyeyes:

Delaware is in the Carribean?

As I mentioned, it's a sensitive issue here in Canada. Innocent people have died because of it. Not many I admit, but even one is too many.
Historically, pretty much every independence movement has resulted in quite a few deaths. Unfortunately it seems to go hand in hand. Those who have power don't seem to ever want to give it up.

Wodan

@JasonT

The ones I know were in the Caribean... didn't knew anything of Delaware :(

You know Willem I'm getting sick and tired of your know-it-all attitude about everything.
I live in Nova Scotia. And Nova Scotian history was what we did in school primarily til Junior High. So thanks for your insight.

And vikings was a joke. Obviously they weren't around during the time frame Colonization is based in.

I live in Nova Scotia. And Nova Scotian history was what we did in school primarily til Junior High. So thanks for your insight.

And vikings was a joke. Obviously they weren't around during the time frame Colonization is based in.

Well then you should also know that the Scots weren't around in Nova Scotia during the time frame of Colonization either, the French were. Go tell the Acadians they weren't there first and see what they have to say about it.

Oh and I apologize for missing the part about you being from there. I'm just used to people who know squat about this country and didn't look at your location. I wouldn't have come across so smugly had I noticed.

In the context of the game sure, but please don't refer to the real Quebec as a nation, as you seem to have been doing in your first post. It's not, nor ever has been one, as much as some of the Quebecois would like things to be otherwise.

Interesting, because when i lived and had my education in canada, it was always taught that Quebecois were a different people then the canadians, same with the acadians.

New Sweden- Delaware?
New Russia- Alaska
New Denmark- Virgin Islands?

New Poland/Courland - Tobago :p

Both Scots and Swedes had colonies in the Americas in the quoted period...... but both in the Caribean :crazyeye:

The scots iirc colonized Panama. but it failed. The Swedes Colonized the rural areas of New York and other atlantic provinces iirc.

@JasonT

The ones I know were in the Caribean... didn't knew anything of Delaware :(

No problem. :)

New Sweeden was centered in the area of Delaware. Peter Minuit was actually in the employ of Sweden when he was doing his thing in the New World.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sweden

Interesting, because when i lived and had my education in canada, it was always taught that Quebecois were a different people then the canadians, same with the acadians.

They're different yes, but they're still Canadians. Chinese-Canadians are different too, but that doesn't make them any less Canadian. Quebec has never had any independance, they've always been a province or colony of some other power. They may have a different language and a somewhat different culture but they're not considered a nation, though some of them would like to be. They came very close to it a few years back however. There was a referendum and the No side only won with something like 51% of the vote.

Some links:

New Sweden (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Sweden)
Danish West Indies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Danish_West_Indies)

Also does anyone know if Colonization will only be about the Americas but also the rest of the world?

Other interesting links:
Austrian Colonies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austrian_colonisation_of_Nicobar_Islands)

They're different yes, but they're still Canadians. Chinese-Canadians are different too, but that doesn't make them any less Canadian. Quebec has never had any independance, they've always been a province or colony of some other power. They may have a different language and a somewhat different culture but they're not considered a nation, though some of them would like to be. They came very close to it a few years back however. There was a referendum and the No side only won with something like 51% of the vote.

If having a different Language and culture then everyone else doesn't consider someone to be a nation, then that means that there isn't any "nation" on this planet. ;)

If having a different Language and culture then everyone else doesn't consider someone to be a nation, then that means that there isn't any "nation" on this planet. ;)

But along with the different language and culture there has to be political autonomy, the ability to deal directly with the other nations of the world and to form it's own laws. Quebec has never had that. It has jurisdiction only within it's own regional territory, with Canada as the international representative and ultimate law maker.

[offtopic]
The Conservatives have coined quebec to be "A Nation within a Nation" - which caused jokes to arise across various newsmedia, like The Mercer Report. I believe he did a "Rant" about it, questioning what would the canadian natives in Quebec be...
A Nation within a nation within a nation...

[EDIT]
Other political satire arose during many of Quebec's separtist "almost-movements", like not letting them use the Canadian Dollar, or how the Natives ("Indians") would reclaim their land once Federal Treaties and Agreements were effectively dissolved due to Quebec being its own nation.

Not that maybe anyone cares, ... so anyways :-)

Also does anyone know if Colonization will only be about the Americas but also the rest of the world?


Since it looks to be a remake of the original, then it will only be about the Americas. The Atlantic Seaboard to be precise. In the original the Caribbean or South America wasn't really included. IIRC, it only went as far as Florida, with maybe just a little bit of the South American coast. And to the West I think it only went as far as the Mississippi River, though my memory is a bit vague on that. Hopefully they'll expand the area this time to at least include Brazil and maybe the Caribbean.

But along with the different language and culture there has to be political autonomy, the ability to deal directly with the other nations of the world and to form it's own laws. Quebec has never had that. It has jurisdiction only within it's own regional territory, with Canada as the international representative and ultimate law maker.

You don't have to be a state to be a Nation.

Since it looks to be a remake of the original, then it will only be about the Americas. The Atlantic Seaboard to be precise. In the original the Caribbean or South America wasn't really included. IIRC, it only went as far as Florida, with maybe just a little bit of the South American coast. And to the West I think it only went as far as the Mississippi River, though my memory is a bit vague on that. Hopefully they'll expand the area this time to at least include Brazil and maybe the Caribbean.

No, it went all the way south to the Falklands and as far north as Seattle/Vancouver.

EDIT: Actually, it must've been higher than that, because the Hudson Bay was included.

You don't have to be a state to be a Nation.

Semantics. The two are usually considered the same thing. From Dictionary.com:

na·tion [ney-shuhn]
–noun 1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax.

That sounds like a state to me.

I never played the original, but I'd think it would be cool if the game had map options like CIV IV, where "Huge" would include all of North America + outlying Atlantic & Pacific islands.

No, it went all the way south to the Falklands and as far north as Seattle/Vancouver.

EDIT: Actually, it must've been higher than that, because the Hudson Bay was included.

Is that so? Like I said, my memory is rather vague on the game, it's been quite awhile. I don't remember it being that big. I guess maybe since I always played the Dutch I never ended up anywhere else but the East Coast.

Semantics. The two are usually considered the same thing. From Dictionary.com:

na·tion [ney-shuhn]
–noun 1. a large body of people, associated with a particular territory, that is sufficiently conscious of its unity to seek or to possess a government peculiarly its own: The president spoke to the nation about the new tax.

That sounds like a state to me.

Territory doesn't necessarily mean state. i agree with the "that is sufficiently conscious of it's unity" part. The second part is where dictionary.com is wrong. A nation doesn't need to seek self-govorning to be a nation. For example, here in Poland, Silesia. Silesian, i being one of them, are a seperate group of people from poles (even though we are culturally very similar to Polish, and linguistically more of a polish accent), we are in a way a nation seperate from Poland, but we don't seek independence or anything.

Territory doesn't necessarily mean state. i agree with the "that is sufficiently conscious of it's unity" part. The second part is where dictionary.com is wrong. A nation doesn't need to seek self-govorning to be a nation. For example, here in Poland, Silesia. Silesian, i being one of them, are a seperate group of people from poles (even though we are culturally very similar to Polish, and linguistically more of a polish accent), we are in a way a nation seperate from Poland, but we don't seek independence or anything.

Well here's the Oxford definition, since you're forcing me to type it by hand:

Nation - noun - community of people of mainly common descent, history, language etc. forming a State or inhabiting a territory [Latin: related to NATAL]

So yes, a people can simply be living in an area to be considered a nation, but more commonly it's the same thing as being a state. At least that's the way I'm interpreting it, and that's also the way the Quebec seperatists see it as well.

Is that so? Like I said, my memory is rather vague on the game, it's been quite awhile. I don't remember it being that big. I guess maybe since I always played the Dutch I never ended up anywhere else but the East Coast.

Yes, it goes as far as southern Canada or lower Alaska up north (I don't remember exactly, but the Hudson Bay is in there) and definitely all the way down to the tip of South America. I suppose that's why so many people are disappointed that Portugal is not in -- you could colonize Brazil.

oh yeah, I read about this on gamespot..

Well here's the Oxford definition, since you're forcing me to type it by hand:

Nation - noun - community of people of mainly common descent, history, language etc. forming a State or inhabiting a territory [Latin: related to NATAL]

So yes, a people can simply be living in an area to be considered a nation, but more commonly it's the same thing as being a state. At least that's the way I'm interpreting it, and that's also the way the Quebec seperatists see it as well.

Point Proven :D

But back on topic, i don't see why not to include "quebec" as a revolutionary state because if the british haven't intervened, Quebec and Acadia would've very likely at some point achieve independence.

Also just to clarify, in the old game, Only the Americas were included? Because i tried the free version freecol and they had africa and oceania as well.

I do think it would make sense to include Africa, Asia and Oceania in the game, or make Africa specific and Asia + Oceania specific expansion packs.

Since it looks to be a remake of the original, then it will only be about the Americas. The Atlantic Seaboard to be precise. In the original the Caribbean or South America wasn't really included. IIRC, it only went as far as Florida, with maybe just a little bit of the South American coast. And to the West I think it only went as far as the Mississippi River, though my memory is a bit vague on that. Hopefully they'll expand the area this time to at least include Brazil and maybe the Caribbean.

Someone did reply, and I can confirm the reply, as I reinstalled it today. (DOS apps run horribly in XP, but such is my mania.)

Just maybe, you were recalling the original Pirates! instead? That's what occurred to me based on the geography you've quoted.

I'm not harping. Fifteen-plus year old games can be hard to remember :D

Point Proven :D

But back on topic, i don't see why not to include "quebec" as a revolutionary state because if the british haven't intervened, Quebec and Acadia would've very likely at some point achieve independence.

My point wasn't with Quebec being in the game, that's kind of a given. Or at least New France as it was originally called. Wodan was just making it sound like the real life Quebec was a sovereign nation, which it's not.

Also just to clarify, in the old game, Only the Americas were included?

Yes, it was only the Americas. You reached Europe by simply sailing to the edge of the map IIRC.

I do think it would make sense to include Africa, Asia and Oceania in the game, or make Africa specific and Asia + Oceania specific expansion packs.

Well if the game does well, maybe we will see the rest of the world in expansions eventually.

Just maybe, you were recalling the original Pirates! instead? That's what occurred to me based on the geography you've quoted.


No, because I don't recall any of the Caribbean being in the game. But as I mentioned, I always played the Dutch so I'm probably only remembering the territory I usually ended up in. It was always around the New England States area.

Territory doesn't necessarily mean state. i agree with the "that is sufficiently conscious of it's unity" part. The second part is where dictionary.com is wrong. A nation doesn't need to seek self-govorning to be a nation. For example, here in Poland, Silesia. Silesian, i being one of them, are a seperate group of people from poles (even though we are culturally very similar to Polish, and linguistically more of a polish accent), we are in a way a nation seperate from Poland, but we don't seek independence or anything.
I know you were educated in Canada (and I have lived in Poland so I understand the Silesian question) but Quebec isn't an indigenous nation along the same lines, it's more a large "island" of French-speaking European settlers in the middle of a greater sea of English-speaking European settlers. In general terms talking about a nation in the Americas, unless you are discussing First Nations, is different from talking about European tribes/nations/whatever. Comparing a regional Polish identity/ethnicity to the Americas should be in terms of different Native "nations", not different European colonies-turned-federal-states. Quebec separatists are probably right in wanting a degree of autonomy or independence because of the difference between them and the English-speaking Canadians in terms of culture, religion, and so on, but I doubt very much that they constitute an actual ethnicity as do Silesians.

One thing for people dying for Civ5 (which includes me), Firaxis seem to be acknowleding that the civ4 diplomacy system is inadequate by emphasising how it has been improved in Col. so at least we can expect civ5 to have a lot better system than 4 (although i find this talk of MMOG Civ very troubling)

In original Colonization your city radius was only extended 1 tile out from the colony center. You could also build a colony Adjacent to a native settlement. I'm trying to recall if you could build 2 colonies adjacent to eachother and I can't remember trying it, but I seem to recall being able to build them 1 tile apart.

I do hope they remove the ability to build colonies right next door to an existing one. It made for a lot of crappy little cities you couldn't get rid of.

Someone did reply, and I can confirm the reply, as I reinstalled it today. (DOS apps run horribly in XP, but such is my mania.)


Try downloading a DOS emulator. I can still play Colonization and Master Of Magic on my laptop running XP when I use the emulator. I cant run Civ anymore since the version of Civ I bought was on 3 1/2" floppies way back in 1992. :(

Try downloading a DOS emulator. I can still play Colonization and Master Of Magic on my laptop running XP when I use the emulator. I cant run Civ anymore since the version of Civ I bought was on 3 1/2" floppies way back in 1992. :(

I will have to try that.

I also have my Col 3.5" disk somewhere, but I also have a Microprose release called "Conquer the World" - Colonization, Pirates Gold, Railroad Tycoon, and Transportation Tycoon all on the same CD.

At least three and a half reasons to download an emulator! :)

I do hope they remove the ability to build colonies right next door to an existing one. It made for a lot of crappy little cities you couldn't get rid of.

What I also hope is that they refine what stockades do to colonies, and add an option to raze captured colonies.

It's kind of funny saying that, because I feel like I'm coming down on two different sides of the gameplay/historical split.

It 's certainly physically possible for all of the colonists to leave a stockaded colony, but I can see why not being able to move or remove a stockaded colony represents a strategic issue that the player must deal with. For me, it also complicates the issue of capturing colonies. And I have a love-hate relationship with Sieur de la Salle in Congress.

On the other hand, the warfare of the day seems to suggest that colony capture was a bigger thing that colony destruction. But the first time I razed a city because it wasn't where I wanted it, I was hooked. Nothing annoys me more than capturing a stockaded colony where the only forest square is the one underneath the colony because the AI has cut down all of the trees around it. Can't move the colony, can't get native timber to easily improve - but look at all that sugar! :cry:

With that said, I hope they don't follow the Civ 4 model and automatically place a built colony onto the de-forested terrain type. And when that happens in Civ, why not give credit for the hammers from those trees? Heh.

I would love to see an improved custom house that allows for automatic import and export. It would make that colony that can't get lumber because of a certain stupid AI governor suck a whole lot less.

I had another thought, but now I wonder if the design team will think to close the loophole allowed by the exploit. Rather than say right now, I think I'll come back and post about in when the game comes out... ;)

What I also hope is that they refine what stockades do to colonies, and add an option to raze captured colonies.

Reminds me of this old thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=71229), exactly this particular "feature" disturbed me too to no end...

That said, it's one of few things that annoyed me, and I will almost certainly buy Civ4: Col the day it comes out. Of course provided they patch BTS up while they're at it (ok, now that's a can of worms that does not need to be reopened).

Yes that is a pain to not be able to disband a colony because of a stockade, couldn't they just burn it down so as not to allow natives / competing europeans from using the stockade/fort?

I'll throw in another confirmation on it having all of south america in the america map. Don't forget too that there was a customize map setting much like civ with climate settings, random map generation, landmass etc.

Someone mentioned earlier about colonists being actual units, not just a population point. I am very curious how this will be done, I'm guessing they will keep that style as it was so intrical to the game.

On the AI clearing forests, they were pretty impressive with regards to obtaining tools, sometimes being more developed than me on terrain hehe.

Anyone remember the Spanish AI going crazy conquering natives? The AI was pretty agressive in many aspects of the game. Also I've seen a sort of Capitulation in the original, never to me but a msg saying that all of 1 AI's colonies have been turned over to another AI, like "All of Frances colonies in the new world are now part of New Spain!"

About an improved custom house, that would be cool but would take away something from the traderoutes you could create for ships / wagons. Having to actually Use a unit for trading was so cool, alot more fun than just clicking blockade button to actually sink / capture cargo and cripple enemy trade! Though custom houses have some prereqs as well so maybe it would be ok, or make it an upgraded one that is a higher level building (factory the highest?)

Hmmm I just remembered that colony type scenario for CIV, was that warlords or vanilla? It wasn't as fleshed out as colonization but was kinda cool.

Yes that is a pain to not be able to disband a colony because of a stockade, couldn't they just burn it down so as not to allow natives / competing europeans from using the stockade/fort?

My trick was to take advantage of the AI's propensity for building colonies in stupid places. Sometimes you could starve the stockaded colony off the map, or get hostile Indians to attack it to death.

Don't forget too that there was a customize map setting much like civ with climate settings, random map generation, landmass etc.

This is something else I had a love-hate relationship. Sure, there's something to be said for getting away from the familiarity of the Western Hemisphere, but that was always mitigated by hearing:

"We are the Aztecs, a nation of 21 cities..."

Someone mentioned earlier about colonists being actual units, not just a population point. I am very curious how this will be done, I'm guessing they will keep that style as it was so intrical to the game.

Yes that was me, and I'll say it again: If they don't have individual colonists with different specialties and the ability to be changed back and forth from colonists to pioneers and soldiers, then it isn't Col.

On the AI clearing forests, they were pretty impressive with regards to obtaining tools, sometimes being more developed than me on terrain hehe.

What? The AI cheated? Surely you can't be serious! :lol:

Anyone remember the Spanish AI going crazy conquering natives? The AI was pretty agressive in many aspects of the game.

I remember thinking that the AI was nuts, until I saw them pulling down 8-10K for destroying Aztec and Inca cities. Then I was hooked. Now I'm a bigger Indian killer than the Spanish.


Also I've seen a sort of Capitulation in the original, never to me but a msg saying that all of 1 AI's colonies have been turned over to another AI, like "All of Frances colonies in the new world are now part of New Spain!"

Yes, the nation in fourth place is eliminated at a particular point. Just makes for fewer nations to destroy, if you ask me... :)

About an improved custom house, that would be cool but would take away something from the traderoutes you could create for ships / wagons. Having to actually Use a unit for trading was so cool, alot more fun than just clicking blockade button to actually sink / capture cargo and cripple enemy trade! Though custom houses have some prereqs as well so maybe it would be ok, or make it an upgraded one that is a higher level building (factory the highest?)

I really like the idea of an upgradeable custom house. Another idea is to make it a "national building" (a la a national unit, to limit the number) or better yet, to make them like Cathedrals and let the number of cities you have determine the number of Custom Houses. Once I got them into all of my colonies, I hardly ever put to sea.

Hopefully someone is reading all of these ideas!

I know you were educated in Canada (and I have lived in Poland so I understand the Silesian question) but Quebec isn't an indigenous nation along the same lines, it's more a large "island" of French-speaking European settlers in the middle of a greater sea of English-speaking European settlers. In general terms talking about a nation in the Americas, unless you are discussing First Nations, is different from talking about European tribes/nations/whatever. Comparing a regional Polish identity/ethnicity to the Americas should be in terms of different Native "nations", not different European colonies-turned-federal-states. Quebec separatists are probably right in wanting a degree of autonomy or independence because of the difference between them and the English-speaking Canadians in terms of culture, religion, and so on, but I doubt very much that they constitute an actual ethnicity as do Silesians.

Quebec was originally settled by the french, along with acadia. it was the british who invaded quebec and acadia. They deported most of the acadians to elsewhere(mostly france and new orleans) and left quebec alone. So the modern day quebecois are descendents from the original french colonists. In a way there the same nation as the french, but the were apart for so long that quebecs culture changed as with the french. So i agree that it's argueable wether the french are a nation or not. (although if you deny that quebecs isn't a nation, then that means canada, america and australia also aren't nations)

Yes that was me, and I'll say it again: If they don't have individual colonists with different specialties and the ability to be changed back and forth from colonists to pioneers and soldiers, then it isn't Col.


Agree completely, and notice in the screenshot the indian village 'building' an expert silver miner. They aren't building an expert silver miner at all; Colonists without a profession could visit native villages to 'live among the natives'. My guess is a colonist visiting the indian village in the screenshot would wind up an expert silver miner.

I think your all missing the point. They remake colonization as it was. You all pay for the game. Then they release colonization 2 or an exp set with more features.

It would be nice just to play the game again as vista is not very user friendly to old games.

I hope this new game will see a stronger AI like beyond the sword gave us on some levels.

Perhaps also certain indian tribes natives could be specially skilled to certain types of farm work.

I thinks theres lots they could do but I think the first remake will just cover the basics with minor improvements to game play and incorporating the engine and graphics to 2008 credibility.

Noticed something else, on the southern edge of the screenshot with the French forts, there's a green border. Cherokee or..... Portugal?

Noticed something else, on the southern edge of the screenshot with the French forts, there's a green border. Cherokee or..... Portugal?

That's a tile you see when you have your mouse over a tile on World builder.

That's a tile you see when you have your mouse over a tile on World builder.

Aha... OK ... I retract my earlier statement. ;) (I was wondering how borders could be shaped like that if colonies/villages only give a 3 x 3 territory)

Aha... OK ... I retract my earlier statement. ;) (I was wondering how borders could be shaped like that if colonies/villages only give a 3 x 3 territory)

a good question is... why is the shot taken on world builder? i assume it's so you have visibility of fog of war.

Be reasonable. In the colonization of the Americas there were 5 main forces/nations. And of course I'm angry by the lack of consideration of guys of Firaxis not consider Portugal once again in the game.

Spain (Central and South America plus Florida)
Netherlands (Caraibs, Surinam and East Coast of US)
Portugal (Brazil, Labrador of Canada)
France (Quebeq, French Guiana and Caraibs)
England/Britan (North America, Guyana and Caraibs)

So why? Why Portugal isn't there again on the game?

I'm guessing that the focus will be on North America.

If so, Netherlands should not also had a place there. There aren´t no Independence nations in NORTH AMERICA with previous past Netherlands colonization. New Amensterm were conquers be the English, who call it New York.

Agree completely, and notice in the screenshot the indian village 'building' an expert silver miner. They aren't building an expert silver miner at all; Colonists without a profession could visit native villages to 'live among the natives'. My guess is a colonist visiting the indian village in the screenshot would wind up an expert silver miner.

And as someone pointed out before, knowing which villages wll convert free colonists into that specialty colonist you want is money in the bank!

Perhaps also certain indian tribes natives could be specially skilled to certain types of farm work.

Actually, the original game already had that. Indian converts produced food (grain and fish), farm based commodities (cotton, sugar, tobacco), and furs better than free colonists, indentured servants, and petty criminals, but worse than specialists. The only problem is that they won't become free colonists until Barolome de las Casas joins Congress, so they can't become specialized.

Well the one thing I am hoping is that about the time this standalone civ iv scenario is released they also release a patch for the original civ iv

@Krikkitone, if Firaxis delays the patch til the release of Colonization they will have seriously damaged their Credibility (beyond what they already have).
That would be TWO game releases, and people have been clamoring for a patch for what... 6+ months now?

I'm starting to lean towards the darkside of that whole debate. If Firaxis doesn't do something soon - I really doubt I will purchase a game at release-time again. I'm not that fanatic of a gamer, I can easily wait for stuff to drop to 10-20 bucks.

(although if you deny that quebecs isn't a nation, then that means canada, america and australia also aren't nations)


Quebec does not have political autonomy. Canada, America and Australia do. They are a cultural nation but not a political one, which is what most people consider when they think in terms of a nation. Your definition is so vague that the old ladie's sewing circle could be considered a nation.

Quebec does not have political autonomy. Canada, America and Australia do. They are a cultural nation but not a political one, which is what most people consider when they think in terms of a nation. Your definition is so vague that the old ladie's sewing circle could be considered a nation.

Again Silesia doesn't have independence, Ossetia doesn't, niether does Tibet or the Mayans, or the lapp, or the zulu or the australian aboriginees or abkhazia, or chechnya, and i could go on for quite a while... if my house declared independence from Poland, and succeeded would that be counted as a Political Nation?

Portugal (Brazil, Labrador of Canada)


Portugal never settled Labrador, they only discovered it. In fact they never even set foot there, only sailed past. So it's not really accurate to claim that as their territory. It bounced between the French and English until the English finally took over all French territory in what is now Canada.

If so, Netherlands should not also had a place there. There aren´t no Independence nations in NORTH AMERICA with previous past Netherlands colonization. New Amensterm were conquers be the English, who call it New York.

The game begins at the very early stage of the colonization period, which means that The Netherlands does indeed belong there. They had a number of thriving colonies there for quite awhile. In fact they still do in the Caribbean.

Again Silesia doesn't have independence, Ossetia doesn't, niether does Tibet or the Mayans, or the lapp, or the zulu or the australian aboriginees or abkhazia, or chechnya, and i could go on for quite a while... if my house declared independence from Poland, and succeeded would that be counted as a Political Nation?

I'm getting really tired of trying to explain the distinction to you. If you fail to see it then it's your problem. Quebec is a province within the country of Canada, plain and simple. They're no more a nation than the your own Opole Voivodeship is.

Portugal never settled Labrador, they only discovered it. In fact they never even set foot there, only sailed past. So it's not really accurate to claim that as their territory. It bounced between the French and English until the English finally took over all French territory in what is now Canada.

Actually, The french only had small fishing villages on the southern coast, and never really colonize it. After the Treaty of Paris, the french only had fishing rights in southern Newfoundland.

I love being european yet having canadian education. :D

I'm getting really tired of trying to explain the distinction to you. If you fail to see it then it's your problem.

I don't see the point your trying to make, i think emotion is getting in the way of actual facts..

i think emotion is getting in the way of actual facts..

Yes, you're getting on my nerves.

Actually, The french only had small fishing villages on the southern coast, and never really colonize it.

Isn't the definition of colonization having settlements in an area? You can argue that it's still not colonized, since there really isn't much there to this day.

no, you just can't see quebec as an independent nation.

Again Silesia doesn't have independence, Ossetia doesn't, niether does Tibet or the Mayans, or the lapp, or the zulu or the australian aboriginees or abkhazia, or chechnya, and i could go on for quite a while... if my house declared independence from Poland, and succeeded would that be counted as a Political Nation?

Don't try, it's not going to work. But I'm glad to see a European "getting it". I try to stay out of Quebec discussions where people outside of Quebec are participating because they make my blood boil. But anyway, I like your comments. A nation is a nation. Thanks.

Oh I want to add that I also am rather displeased by the apparent absence of Portugal.

no, you just can't see quebec as an independent nation.

Because they're not! Are you trying to explain to me the political nature of my own country now? If you don't know squat about how things actually work here, then you shouldn't be commenting. Like I mentioned, Quebec is no different than one of your own Voivodeships are, or the US state of California, or the Dutch province of Holland. They are not nor ever have been an independent nation. A cultural nation yes, but independant politically no.

And as I have mentioned on several occasions now, this is a very sensitive issue in this country and I'm really beginning to resent you dragging this out. Perhaps I should return the favour by reminding you of your days as a Soviet puppet, or your complete failure to put up any sort of fight against Hitler. You've already brought in someone from Quebec on this issue which can only mean that this will become yet another thread that becomes bogged down in political discussion, when it's supposed to be about a game. Show enough discretion and common sense to drop the subject. Or am I going to have to put you on my ignore list as well?

Ok I've read further back in the thread now.

New France becoming Quebec in Colonization? Well, it would make sense in the context of the game if New France still existed at the end when time for independence came, they would become independent from France and could become Quebec. In reality, well, everybody in Quebec except the anglophones of Montreal (among which I live, by the way) and maybe some areas close to Ontario and the US, call themselves Quebecois first and foremost. I have to admit that when I see a French person from France or any foreigner and they call me a "Canadian" it doesn't sound quite right. It's not that I don't like Canada, I actually think it's one of the best places to live on Earth, but deep inside, I just can't feel "it" when I'm called a Canadian. Even the federalist "pure wool" Quebecois, those who want to remain in Canada, will still call themselves Quebecois first. Myself? I don't know, I'm still on the fence, if there was a referendum on our independence tomorrow, I don't know what I'd vote. Probably "Yes", or not vote at all. I don't think I would go and vote no. I don't believe in the separation of "political" and "cultural" nation. Maybe the recent event of the government recognizing the nation of Quebec is seen as a joke in many places in the country. I expect something from this resolution because I believe the word nation to be strong. If it turns out to be a real joke, then yeah, I'll vote Yes next time.

An interesting random fact to add is probably that "Canada" and "Canadien" used to refer to the French people of North america before, but that has quite changed since then hasn't it.

Edit: Well I agree that it should probably be dropped. But no hard feelings for me. It is certainly sensitive, but I'm not easily offended, hehe.

An interesting random fact to add is probably that "Canada" and "Canadien" used to refer to the French people of North america before, but that has quite changed since then hasn't it.


What, you've never seen any of those Heritage Moments on CBC? Canada comes from the Indian word Kanata, which is Mohawk I believe, meaning village. And good to see you're not one of those fanatical Quebecois. I have no issue with Quebec myself, in fact I usually quite like anyone I meet from there. Nor do I object to their efforts at keeping the French culture alive. In fact I respect it. But I don't want them to heading off on their own. We all belong in this country together.

What, you've never seen any of those Heritage Moments on CBC? Canada comes from the Indian word Kanata, which is Mohawk I believe, meaning village.

Yeah that's what the word actually means. But when it started being used to designate a bunch of people, it was the "Canadiens francais".

Edit to your Edit: Cheers. Actually you're sort of right in that I think Jacques Cartier, in a few of his first manuscripts, used "Canadiens" to refer to the Iroquois of the colonies. Then for a long time Canadiens were the french inhabitants of Upper and Lower Canada. Then all inhabitants of these two became Canadiens. That's why the historical "hockey team of Frenchies" was called the Montreal Canadiens ;)

But when it started being used to designate a bunch of people, it was the "Canadiens francais".


Looking at this map, I can see why. The English didn't have much of a presence in what is now Canada at first, it was all French territory.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/56/New-France1750.png

I'm actually surprised by this, I had thought that the English always had control of Newfoundland and what is now Southern Ontario. And of course Hudson's Bay.

I remember this map from my far away history classes, that's how it was indeed, but it's misleading in a way, since at its height all of this "New France" territory held around 20,000 to 30,000 French subjets... Whereas the much smaller British territory had hundreds of thousands. A lot of the large French territory was due to French alliances with the natives.

Anyway, I'll be away for a couple of days so I can't answer if anyone starts an off-topic debate with a quote of mine! Probably a good thing.

French will always take a backseat in CAnada. IN Sudbury its half french. Yet A worker will come down the cage and speak the new orders from surface only in french if Im working with another french guy in the drift. What a piss off I need to ask for translater to do my job(drill holes)

They like to think they have the right to their language on the job but I speak the language of the person who gave me the job.

Its illigel to talk on the two way in French in ONtario. All transmissions have to be in english. SOme resent that so go around using french all day. What lil buggers

Anyway I to am gone for another few weeks. Back to work with frenchie as a matter a fact. Hmm was I too rude? Ah well, 'Mine' as well get the civfan send off lol

no, you just can't see quebec as an independent nation.
I think you are confusing the issue a little bit. First of all, Willem understands the issues probably better than you do even as someone who went to school in Canada, just like you understand Polish nationalities/ethnicities much better than I do even though I was at the University of Lodz for a year studying Polish language. I would never dream of questioning whether Silesian is a nationality or not, so I don't think you should get involved directly in deciding whether Quebecois is an ethnicity or a nationality or simply the name for people who are of French extraction but live in Canada and want indepedence from the rest of Canada because they do not share the culture thereof. I think Willem and Simon have more right to pronounce on it than you do.

What you are doing is mistaking ethnic nations (including the Silesians, who you would say are a nation...I would say ethnicity to remove all doubt about what you are talking; nationhood in my mind as a political scientist means you need a political unit for it to be so; I think you are translating "narodowosc" as "nationality" where actually IMO as a Polish speaker it should be translated as "ethnicity") for colonies/settlements created by other nations. Quebec is not the same as Ossetia because the Ossetians have an Ossetian ethnicity, whereas it is arguable that "Quebecois" means anything more than "person who comes from Quebec" which is like "Australian" meaning "person who comes from Australia", who might have a secondary ethnicity, e.g. there are a lot of Polish-Australians and Latvian-Australians as well as Anglo-Australians. So in this sense Quebecois could just be seen as Franco-Canadians, which would understate the case for separatism since are concentrated geographically and hence could be indepedent if they so chose. But that is not the same as being of, say, Ojibwa ethnicity, which is closer to being Silesian than being Quebecois is.

It might help if you understand that "nationality" in English does not map onto "narodowosc" in Polish. Nationality can be much broader than simple ethnicity, and because the ethnic divisions in Europe are radically different from those in North America, it is not true that being Quebecois is equal in those terms to being Silesian. Understanding it my way, Quebecois are of French ethnicity, and the reason they want to separate off from the rest of Canada is that they have a radically different cultural heritage - and yes, ethnicity - from the English Canadians. The only real "ethnicities" in North America are either immigrants with a sense of their mother culture or Native Americans/First Nations; European nationalities/ethnicities, including Silesians and Ossetians are more like the latter than the former, which include Quebecois. So there is no parallel between you as a Silesian and Simon as a Quebecois, because the Quebecois are not indigenous to that region.

All in all I have to say I am neutral on the point of whether Quebec should be independent, and although I had a cousin at the University of Montreal (she's now living in the Netherlands) I'm not really qualified to pass judgement. So long as cultural autonomy is respected, I'm not sure I fully agree with Quebec separatists, but it wouldn't bother me if they did decide to secede, as long as the state was economically viable without massive aid programmes needed to bankroll it.

@Willem - it's not very fair to get at him over the USSR or Hitler or whatever. Both issues are well in the past and all nations have their ups and downs. Polish airmen fought tooth and nail for their country as part of the British armed forces, and Hitler preyed on Poland because of relative strengths and weaknesses (you could accuse the French more of capitulating to him than the Polish). As for the USSR, like the Baltic States they had no choice but to join the Soviet bloc after the war because of the might of Russia and the way in which it was liberated, as well as cultural and geopolitical factors. Poland was one of the more liberal Sovietised states and started the ball rolling towards the end of the Cold War ten years before it actually came to an end. So don't drag Last One's own nationality/ethnicity into it.

Because they're not! Are you trying to explain to me the political nature of my own country now? If you don't know squat about how things actually work here, then you shouldn't be commenting. Like I mentioned, Quebec is no different than one of your own Voivodeships are, or the US state of California, or the Dutch province of Holland. They are not nor ever have been an independent nation. A cultural nation yes, but independant politically no.
I'm not going to argue that a Cultural Nation can't be a Political nation as you are pointing out because it is obviously wrong.
And as I have mentioned on several occasions now, this is a very sensitive issue in this country and I'm really beginning to resent you dragging this out. Perhaps I should return the favour by reminding you of your days as a Soviet puppet, or your complete failure to put up any sort of fight against Hitler. You've already brought in someone from Quebec on this issue which can only mean that this will become yet another thread that becomes bogged down in political discussion, when it's supposed to be about a game. Show enough discretion and common sense to drop the subject. Or am I going to have to put you on my ignore list as well?
I know it's sensitive, and i see that Emotion is getting in the way of actual facts, but all i'm saying is that Quebec should be an independent nation in the Game Colonization when france declares it "a colony" as should America or Canada be. And please don't comment on the Soviet puppet and Hitler when you obviously don't know a thing about Poland. For example, we were doing fine on our german front until the Soviets backstabbed us and attacked us in our other front. And don't say i don't know a thing about Canada, as i do, i had my education in here, and i've lived here from about half of my life. I still consider Canada to be my second home, and i have family in Canada.

The topic doesn't need to be dropped as it is about Colonization, and not about politics. Besides you'd agree with me that In real life, that if Britain never conquered Acadia and Quebec, they'd probably be independent nations by now.

ten chars....

I think you are confusing the issue a little bit. First of all, Willem understands the issues probably better than you do even as someone who went to school in Canada, just like you understand Polish nationalities/ethnicities much better than I do even though I was at the University of Lodz for a year studying Polish language. I would never dream of questioning whether Silesian is a nationality or not, so I don't think you should get involved directly in deciding whether Quebecois is an ethnicity or a nationality or simply the name for people who are of French extraction but live in Canada and want indepedence from the rest of Canada because they do not share the culture thereof. I think Willem and Simon have more right to pronounce on it than you do.I understand this part, Silesia is a nation, (although it is really close culturally to Poland that it doesn't really matter anyway)

What you are doing is mistaking ethnic nations (including the Silesians, who you would say are a nation...I would say ethnicity to remove all doubt about what you are talking; nationhood in my mind as a political scientist means you need a political unit for it to be so; I think you are translating "narodowosc" as "nationality" where actually IMO as a Polish speaker it should be translated as "ethnicity") for colonies/settlements created by other nations. Quebec is not the same as Ossetia because the Ossetians have an Ossetian ethnicity, whereas it is arguable that "Quebecois" means anything more than "person who comes from Quebec" which is like "Australian" meaning "person who comes from Australia", who might have a secondary ethnicity, e.g. there are a lot of Polish-Australians and Latvian-Australians as well as Anglo-Australians. So in this sense Quebecois could just be seen as Franco-Canadians, which would understate the case for separatism since are concentrated geographically and hence could be indepedent if they so chose. But that is not the same as being of, say, Ojibwa ethnicity, which is closer to being Silesian than being Quebecois is.
for the language part, remember i speak english as well. ;) i also agree that it should translate to ethnicity. I also agree with you on the second part, as the Quebecois or French Canadians are nothing more then that. French Canadians..

Also unrelated but you said you went to the university of lodz, but why? aren't there better universities in England? :p

...but all i'm saying is that Quebec should be an independent nation in the Game Colonization when france declares it "a colony" as should America or Canada be

Your comments had nothing to do with the game but were directed at the current political situation here in Canada. And just as I know nothing about Poland, you obviously know nothing about the political reality here in this country. You may have lived here for awhile but it seems plain to me that you didn't get to understand the country all that well, especially the issues between the French and the English. I'm guessing you spent most of your time in Quebec and didn't see much of the other side of the story.

Your comments had nothing to do with the game but were directed at the current political situation here in Canada. And just as I know nothing about Poland, you obviously know nothing about the political reality here in this country. You may have lived here for awhile but it seems plain to me that you didn't get to understand the country all that well, especially the issues between the French and the English. I'm guessing you spent most of your time in Quebec and didn't see much of the other side of the story.

Actually i lived in Toronto, then ottawa for 3 years then Toronto again ;)

I only had political comments because you made me go there, to continue the discussion.

I only had political comments because you made me go there, to continue the discussion.

Man, you are so full of it.

Originally Posted by Willem
In the context of the game sure, but please don't refer to the real Quebec as a nation, as you seem to have been doing in your first post. It's not, nor ever has been one, as much as some of the Quebecois would like things to be otherwise.

Interesting, because when i lived and had my education in canada, it was always taught that Quebecois were a different people then the canadians, same with the acadians.

You were the one who jumped in. It seems to me that all you're doing is trolling.

I'm back. I may want to add that it's hard to pinpoint Quebec nationalism only on cultural issues. I, for one, just don't like the way the federation works in Canada. And I prefer to imagine a country where the different levels of government aren't trying to decide things that are happening 4000 kilometers apart. That is, I don't think geographically huge countries with an omnipresent high-level government is a good idea. But these are personal political opinions that don't have anything to do with me being franco-canadian-quebecois-of-French-but-not-so-much origin.

I had a weird background myself, I mean, I'm a pure wool Quebecois born and raised in the boonies in the middle of people like me, but I now live in Montreal in the middle of anglophones and I studied at McGill (anglophone university). In the end though, it's hard to imagine, for most people, how it is to be 6 millions of francophones in the middle of 350 millions of anglophones, and to be trying to keep your culture alive, at the same time seeing a lot of immigrants to Quebec choosing English instead of French, which is understandable considering the situation, especially if they were not aware of languages in Canada to begin with. So yes, it can appear to be paranoia, not too sure it is. Quebecois are certainly constantly under pressure to redefine their identity.

Quebecois are certainly constantly under pressure to redefine their identity.

Ah, so Celine Dion was only a temporary experiment then. Good. :D

Colonization was one of my favorite games - right up there with Civ, so I'm thrilled to hear this is coming out and can't wait to see it.

I'm not sure why people are so juiced over Civ V (if it's in the works). Of course it'd be nice to have such a thing but Civ IV isn't really that old and is pretty robust. I'm not much for mods but I'm digging FFH lately and find it almost more fun than vanilla. It's considerably more than just a mod.

But then, one of the other titles of yesteryear that I miss a lot is MoM (Masters of Magic), which is one reason that I think I like FFH so much, it's somewhat MoM-like.

If someone were to revive MoM and other greats of old like X-COM, my PC gaming life would be so much sweeter. I could care less about yet more FPS and RTS. It's crushing that Bethesda is going to ruin Fallout and turn it into a FPS style. Hopefully JA3 will be worthy.

Stardock is supposed to be working on a fantasy flavored turn based MoM-like game that'll probably end up being decent but I'm sure it's a ways off.

Rambling, but my point is that it's not so bad to see older hits revived and redone when a lot of them are better "PC Games" (IMO) in concept and execution than a lot of what comes out these days (mostly yet more RTS and FPS repetition).

This thread is so badly derailed.

I still don't quite get why it's called -Civ4- Colonization. Do you think maybe it works as an expansion? I mean, in that it has an affect on Civ4.
I figure maybe it upgrades the graphics a bit. I'm not used to expansion packs doing that, though (Or wait, did Diablo 2's expansion add in 800x600 as a resolution or was that a D2 patch?)

I had a weird background myself, I mean, I'm a pure wool Quebecois born and raised in the boonies in the middle of people like me, but I now live in Montreal in the middle of anglophones and I studied at McGill (anglophone university). In the end though, it's hard to imagine, for most people, how it is to be 6 millions of francophones in the middle of 350 millions of anglophones, and to be trying to keep your culture alive, at the same time seeing a lot of immigrants to Quebec choosing English instead of French, which is understandable considering the situation, especially if they were not aware of languages in Canada to begin with. So yes, it can appear to be paranoia, not too sure it is. Quebecois are certainly constantly under pressure to redefine their identity.
Don't worry about it, you're not alone.

The French the world over have been unable to cope with the fact that it is the English, not them, that spread their language to become a world-wide standard for a long time now.

At least it wasn't the Germans though...

I still don't quite get why it's called -Civ4- Colonization. Do you think maybe it works as an expansion?
It could be as simple as the fact that "Civilization" has more market/sales power than "Colonization". In addition, the two terms together probably are additive to some extent.

Wodan

Colonization was one of my favorite games - right up there with Civ, so I'm thrilled to hear this is coming out and can't wait to see it.
I'm not much for mods but I'm digging FFH lately and find it almost more fun than vanilla. It's considerably more than just a mod.
But then, one of the other titles of yesteryear that I miss a lot is MoM (Masters of Magic), which is one reason that I think I like FFH so much, it's somewhat MoM-like.
If someone were to revive MoM and other greats of old like X-COM, my PC gaming life would be so much sweeter.

Same feelings here. I am thrilled to hear about a new COL but if one remake would make me the happiest man on Earth, that would be a MoM remake. I have been desperate for a good fantasy TB game (AoW was nice but didn't really cut it).
If someone was to make a MoM mod, I'd gladly donate my time and (some of) my money.
(As for JA3 - we seem to share the same tastes -, wait and pray. But I'm getting really off-topic. Well, not quite as much as all the nationalist bickering that has been polluting the last pages...).

I still don't quite get why it's called -Civ4- Colonization. Do you think maybe it works as an expansion? I mean, in that it has an affect on Civ4.


No, it's a completely seperate game. They mainly tossed in the Civ 4 for marketing purposes.

Game will be curious this

Don't worry about it, you're not alone.

The French the world over have been unable to cope with the fact that it is the English, not them, that spread their language to become a world-wide standard for a long time now.

At least it wasn't the Germans though...

I don't think anyone here has ever thought of anything like that. You're putting things in their brains that aren't there. I'm not sure what in my message, in the first place, made you say that. But let's not derail again.

Also, the 800X600 resolution was added in the expansion of Diablo II, not in a patch. Since that was asked...

Firaxis should've used those Native city graphics in Civ IV! :eek:

No Portuguese AGAIN?? :wallbash:

What were they thinking??

No Portuguese AGAIN?? :wallbash:

What were they thinking??

They were lost in how awesome Holland is.


..:p yeah I agree, it's a tad silly Portugal ain't in.

What were they thinking??

"Remake", probably.

They were lost in how awesome Holland is.


..:p yeah I agree, it's a tad silly Portugal ain't in.

It's set in North America, so it'd be silly to feature Portugal's colonies.

It's set in North America, so it'd be silly to feature Portugal's colonies.

Actually, it is set in all of the Americas, otherwise the Spanish would have a Mexican leader available, and not San Martin or Simon Bolivar.

It's set in North America, so it'd be silly to feature Portugal's colonies.

Um, no. At least, not if the recreate the gameplay of the original. Assuming that to be true, it will portray the entire New World.

As a player of the original game, the scope of gameplay might actually be another buy/don't buy tipping point for me.

Civ IV is my first Civ experiance, but from what I've heard about colonization from this site and others this seems very intriguing. I've become a total Sid fan, so I think I'm going to buy almost anything he has his name on from now on.



Ha ha ha. Another one bites the dust ! ;)

It's great news, can't wait to play this new updated version.:)

Now we've only got SMAC II to go ! Hope Electronic Arts sell their rights to Firaxis/TTWO pronto.

No Portuguese AGAIN?? :wallbash:

What were they thinking??

Ha ha ha Oh boy, got to ask yourself if they have some bone to pick with Portugal ? J/K :lol:

You're right, I voted in the poll and Portugal should be in ColII.

Same feelings here. I am thrilled to hear about a new COL but if one remake would make me the happiest man on Earth, that would be a MoM remake. I have been desperate for a good fantasy TB game (AoW was nice but didn't really cut it).
If someone was to make a MoM mod, I'd gladly donate my time and (some of) my money.
(As for JA3 - we seem to share the same tastes -, wait and pray. But I'm getting really off-topic. Well, not quite as much as all the nationalist bickering that has been polluting the last pages...).

So... What about Fall from Heaven II. It´s a Mod (or better Total Conversion) of Civ 4 and it brings you everything you need for a superb fantasy TBS!
FfH II is now in its third year of development and was featured with a small scenario on Beyond the Sword, introducing the player to the new universe.

FfH II is a unique fantasy total conversion of CIV with 21 unique new civilizations and spells and armaggeddon and guilds and events and dragons and gods and whatever not.
It furthermore has over 1.000.000 views in the main threat and a whole Subforum with Subforums ;) and all in all around 300.000 downloads.
Give it a try, and start here in the FfH II Subforum:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/forumdisplay.php?f=190

The Subforum has a lot of threads.

the stickied ones are the important ones:
FfH 0.32 Bug Thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=276032) has the link to the newest version and the actual patches.
FAQ (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=190988) for all your questions
The user created pdf Manual (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=257728), giving you a great overview over the new mechanics, units, civs, etc.
The Art Team Blog (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=222807) Showing off some of the newest Custom Models.