There's a very good movie called 'Wonder Boys' where Michael Douglas plays an English Professor who wrote a great book 20 years ago and has been coasting ever since. He lends a draft of his new book to the coed he's sleeping with and she is confused by it. She says, 'I don't understand...I'm reading this and it's like you didn't make any decisions at all'.

That's how I feel about CIV. 'Let's have a game with guys with sharp sticks! And Muskets! And Nuclear Submarines! And Canoes! And the Sistene Chapel! And Helicopters! And on and on and on...'.

So the game is so huge and unwieldy and changes so much every 4 hours it's like a different game. And I hate the 'it will take 18 hours to finish this game' thing.

But I admire Civ4 and played it for about 40 hours before I decided I hated it. :) So will I love Colonization? I never played the old one. It's more focused on one time, right? What makes it more than just the middle 3 hours of a regular game of CIV4?

That's how I feel about CIV. 'Let's have a game with guys with sharp sticks! And Muskets! And Nuclear Submarines! And Canoes! And the Sistene Chapel! And Helicopters! And on and on and on...'.

So the game is so huge and unwieldy and changes so much every 4 hours it's like a different game. And I hate the 'it will take 18 hours to finish this game' thing.

So you want a game that spans all of human history to be: very quick like a Mario bros game, and pretty much the same in every era, without any drastic changes in technology, so you don't have to worry about the game including both muskets and nuclear submarines.

I don't think such a game would make any sense at all.

The franchise has sold 8 million copies, must be doing something right.

So you want a game that spans all of human history to be: very quick like a Mario bros game, and pretty much the same in every era, without any drastic changes in technology, so you don't have to worry about the game including both muskets and nuclear submarines.



So I want a 'Mario Bros game'?

You have almost 1800 posts here and this is the quality of your contribution to this discussion?

Please, if you have nothing useful to say, just read and move on.

So I want a 'Mario Bros game'?

You have almost 1800 posts here and this is the quality of your contribution to this discussion?


I'm just guessing. It's really unclear what you expect from the game. You presumably knew the game dealt with the span of human history - it's only been around in a very similar form for 17 years, I'm sure you could have found out - and you're complaining that it's too long and it has spearmen and nuclear subs? What else were you expecting?

There's nothing wrong with the game, it's enjoyed alot of popularity over the years, it's just not for everyone.

Please, if you have nothing useful to say, just read and move on.

Strange and ironic comment coming from someone who logs on to a Civilization fan board just to say he hates the game.

There's a very good movie called 'Wonder Boys' where Michael Douglas plays an English Professor who wrote a great book 20 years ago and has been coasting ever since. He lends a draft of his new book to the coed he's sleeping with and she is confused by it. She says, 'I don't understand...I'm reading this and it's like you didn't make any decisions at all'.

That's one of my favorite movies of all time. I've seen it, no exaggeration, about 25 times.

". .. .. .. ., James. You shot Dr. Gaskell's dog." :ar15:

The fact that I'm a writer/editor has something to do with it I'm sure. :)

I'm betting I will watch that movie again tonight now that you brought it up.

BTW, have you thought about Civ: Revolution? It's designed for short 1-2 hour games.

[QUOTE=frekk;6972875]
There's nothing wrong with the game, it's enjoyed alot of popularity over the years, it's just not for everyone.

QUOTE]

I'm obviously not one of the folks who enjoy playing a game with 'EVERYTHING' in it. And that's just me, I'm obviously not saying it's a bad game.

I thought the 'Wonder Boys' analogy explained things so well. And the smiley face about playing the game for 40 hours before deciding I 'hated' it - big clue there.

To get back on topic, is Colonization a sort of 'Civ' for people like me who like their games more focused on one time? And how does it differ from just 'Civ4 went you've gone past stone knives but haven't gotten to Ironclads yet'?

It seems pretty ideal to me, an enhanced Civ4 engine, focusing on one time period, turn-based (obviously). I'm wondering how they'll make this more than just a 'mod for Civ4'. Since I never played the original version I'm very curious about this...

That's one of my favorite movies of all time. I've seen it, no exaggeration, about 25 times.

BTW, have you thought about Civ: Revolution? It's designed for short 1-2 hour games.

Yes, isn't it terrific? I just knew there would be people here who would be fans of that film. And I loved the line about 'not making any decisions'.

Yes, Civ-Rev looks very cool. I'll never own anything as unreliable as an Xbox, though, and I'm leery of getting a PS3. I'm really not much of a console gamer, and I don't want the 1-in-10 blu-ray movie I'd watch to spoil me for regular dvd.

But there is some other cool game for PS3 coming out (next year?) but I can't remember what it is. Something like Civ, not an action-video game. Maybe I'll break down some day and get that PS3.

I don't know much about the details of the new release, but the old colonization was similar yet different from the contemporary version of civilization (civ I or II, I forget which was coexisting with it at the time). It had alot of different rules and features, some of which made it micromanagement-heavy even compared to the civ at the time. I can't remember the exact details, but you had specialists like blacksmiths, tobbacionists and gunsmiths that turned resources into certain products, and sometimes I think there might have been two or three stages so you would be shuttling resources around alot to wherever the specialists were. I imagine that will be absent in the new version because it was a bit of a headache. I remember having to keep notes on a sheet of paper to keep things organized ...

Technological advancement wasn't that important, it was more about building up your economy and trade and exporting resources like tobacco and furs in return for ships, tools, guns, etc. Ultimately you were trying to get to the point where you could build your own ships + guns without having to rely so much on buying them from Europe.

In the early game you didn't really build much at all ... you got stuff or traded for stuff from the home country, including colonists. It was like civ in that you had a map with squares, and units that moved around the squares, cities where you would produce things, and you could build roads and new cities ... but other than that it was quite different.

Yeah, I own everything pretty much (and about 150 Blu-ray movies). :)

I'm getting Civ: Rev on the PS3 and DS.

I enjoyed the demo and it's great for when you just want to do some scaled down Civ playing for an hour or two. They did a great job with it. I think lots of people who like the Civ concept, but hate long games or extra mico-managing will love it.

I just love it all. :)

That's how I feel about CIV. 'Let's have a game with guys with sharp sticks! And Muskets! And Nuclear Submarines! And Canoes! And the Sistene Chapel! And Helicopters! And on and on and on...'.

So the game is so huge and unwieldy and changes so much every 4 hours it's like a different game. And I hate the 'it will take 18 hours to finish this game' thing.

I believe I can sum all that up with this:

what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

But I admire Civ4 and played it for about 40 hours before I decided I hated it. :) So will I love Colonization?

How can you expect to come to a Civilization forum, tell everyone you hate the game, and still get a balanced opinion as to whether you'll like Colonization? The obvious conclusion that will be drawn is that you won't.

What makes it more than just the middle 3 hours of a regular game of CIV4?

It's not a Civ mod, it's a completely different game with it's own rules and gameplay. The only way to tell if you're going to like the game or not is to try it, or at least the demo if and when it's available.

How can you expect to come to a Civilization forum, tell everyone you hate the game, and still get a balanced opinion as to whether you'll like Colonization? The obvious conclusion that will be drawn is that you won't.


I suppose some people assume too much in the way of peoples' maturity and civility. Perhaps the OP thought that a Civilization forum would be Civilized?

So what you're saying is, you're a fan of colonization rather than Civ?

I believe I can sum all that up with this:

what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this thread is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.

Ok, everyone who understands OFF-TOPIC PERSONAL ATTACKS, please raise your hands...

To get back on topic, is Colonization a sort of 'Civ' for people like me who like their games more focused on one time? And how does it differ from just 'Civ4 went you've gone past stone knives but haven't gotten to Ironclads yet'?


To get a taste of Colonization, go to www.freecol.org and get FreeCol, a free (mostly complete) clone of the original. It isn't perfect, the graphics are dated, etc but you will get a good feel for the type of gameplay.

Ok, everyone who understands OFF-TOPIC PERSONAL ATTACKS, please raise your hands...

I didn't raise my hand, but personally i would have answer this . .. .. .. . with highly arrogant materials. I'm french, after all. ;)

EDIT: oh, i almost forgot... you description of Civ4 amused me, in the good sense of the term.

So I want a 'Mario Bros game'?

You have almost 1800 posts here and this is the quality of your contribution to this discussion?

Please, if you have nothing useful to say, just read and move on.


Well said.


Forums 1st Rule. No of post =/ IQ

But I admire Civ4 and played it for about 40 hours before I decided I hated it. :) So will I love Colonization? I never played the old one. It's more focused on one time, right? What makes it more than just the middle 3 hours of a regular game of CIV4?


Firstly, I can't believe the number of responses you've got that spit on you for being a civ hater daring to step foot in the holy land of civ worship. Read his post properly people, he doesn't actually hate civ.

To answer your question mate, yes I think you will very much enjoy Colonization. It completely lacks the elements from regular civ that trouble you.
Although it is different to civ, it obviously has many similarities. It is not about advancing techs or world domination so much and is much more about building economic freedom from Europe through development of a far more complex infrastructure than civ attempts. You are in competition with your rival European colonizing nations and with the native american tribes. Eventually you will also be in opposition to your homeland as you declare independence from them and they send troops over to teach you some respect.
It plays much more like a scenario than civ does. Involves you in a little story from a select part of history and progresses in a much more structured and narrative way.
The original game, in my recollection, had more of Sid's classic humour than any of his other games too, which made it even more enjoyable to play. If this incarnation keeps and builds on that it will be worth playing just for the laughs. ;)

I reckon you'll love it mate. Sounds like it's just the game for you. :)

I believe I can sum all that up with this:

<B><SIZE="3"> wWhat you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard read. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response statement were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in who has read this thread is now dumber for having listened to read it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul. I am fortunate however in that I personally could not get any dumber. </SIZE></B>

Just fixing a few errors for you mate. Happy to proof read your forum posts going forward if you like. :)

So I want a 'Mario Bros game'?

You have almost 1800 posts here and this is the quality of your contribution to this discussion?

Please, if you have nothing useful to say, just read and move on.


I thought what he had to say was very useful in regards to your summery of Civ. You clearly prefer your games alot shorter, and smaller in their scope.
Mario Bro's is far more likely to fit the bill for you... Civ doesn't.

If I went onto a Grand Theft Auto chatboard and tried to say that I didn't like the game because it was too fast paced and had too much graphic violence I'd be laughed off the site in a matter of seconds.
But I wouldn't do that, because I'm not that stupid...

I think the OP gave Civ 4 a great run for its money and just found it wasn't for them. They found they spent a lot of time just pressing Enter and not interacting as much as they would like...possibly thats just an issue of not understanding some points of the game. Maybe it's just where some decisions took them. They also don't have time for 18hours on one game.

Anyway what they want to know is whether Civ:Rev will be like Civ scaled down to fit a smaller play time but have all the involvement that would be spread over the original 18 hours crammed into the 4 hour play time.

I think its a legitamate question and she came here to ask people who might know. The stuff about her hating it was to give you some idea about where she stands with Civ. It wasn't an attack against Civ just stating their personal dislike. It certainatley wasnt a personal attack against you.

I think the OP gave Civ 4 a great run for its money and just found it wasn't for them. They found they spent a lot of time just pressing Enter and not interacting as much as they would like...possibly thats just an issue of not understanding some points of the game. Maybe it's just where some decisions took them. They also don't have time for 18hours on one game.

Anyway what they want to know is whether Civ:Rev will be like Civ scaled down to fit a smaller play time but have all the involvement that would be spread over the original 18 hours crammed into the 4 hour play time.

I think its a legitamate question and she came here to ask people who might know. The stuff about her hating it was to give you some idea about where she stands with Civ. It wasn't an attack against Civ just stating their personal dislike. It certainatley wasnt a personal attack against you.

If I found that a game was terrible, I wouldn't be hanging around to check out the next edition, or next game by the same designers.

Of course Colonisation is smaller in it's scope. But it runs on the same principles which the OP doesn't like. Maybe the only game that we should be recomending to her from the Civ series is Civ Revolution...

Other than that you can save yourself the time and not play turn based stratergy games that try take in the 'entire' history of the world.

I think the OP gave Civ 4 a great run for its money and just found it wasn't for them.

I'm in love with TBS games and (fortunately) I (can) buy every one (?) published. Most of those I have are disapointed :lol:, but because (with new games) you never knows, I'll continue so far as I have money...

Wenla

There's a very good movie called 'Wonder Boys' where Michael Douglas plays an English Professor who wrote a great book 20 years ago and has been coasting ever since. He lends a draft of his new book to the coed he's sleeping with and she is confused by it. She says, 'I don't understand...I'm reading this and it's like you didn't make any decisions at all'.

That's how I feel about CIV. 'Let's have a game with guys with sharp sticks! And Muskets! And Nuclear Submarines! And Canoes! And the Sistene Chapel! And Helicopters! And on and on and on...'.

So the game is so huge and unwieldy and changes so much every 4 hours it's like a different game. And I hate the 'it will take 18 hours to finish this game' thing.

But I admire Civ4 and played it for about 40 hours before I decided I hated it. :) So will I love Colonization? I never played the old one. It's more focused on one time, right? What makes it more than just the middle 3 hours of a regular game of CIV4?OK i haven't plowed through all the responses so I do not know if you had your answer yet, but Ill try to explain the difference between civ and colonization.

Where civ focusses on techs, col focusses on population. You start out with nothing but a boat, a few guns and a 'settler' and you should settle down, deal with natives and other european powers and the crown back in Europe.

The challenge in col is gaining independence from the home country. You can loot and plunder the riches of the natives if you want, but the focus is on building prospering colonies, not on combat like in a civ game. (Don't haunt me to say the focus of civ is not on combat, it sort of is unless you get the map and other civs just right.)

To gain independence, you must become completely self-sufficient. That means you will have to teach professions to new colonists that are born, you must process raw materials like cotton, sugar and furs into cloth, rum and coats and sell it back in Europe. It means you will need to make your own muskets and artillery to fend off the royal army that comes to opress you once you claim independence.

The focus of col is on building colonies and them make them self sufficient, until finally you can claim independence. Until that goal is reached you have to deal with a greedy power back home that keeps raising taxes. You will have to deal with other european powers that send privateers after your ships to steal your valuable, hard earned goods. You sometimes have to wage war to grab land from another nation or to defend your own land from being claimed.

there are no techs really, just colonists of all kinds. Some aren't specialised in anything, some are. Specialists always haul from Europe. You can train your own once you get schoolhouses in the New World, but you will need schools and a teacher first. So before you can work your fields with expert farmers, fish with expert fisherman and use process tons of ore with your blacksmiths, you first need to gain the knowledge on how to do that from Europe. Once you have a specialist in the New World, he can instruct the unspecialised colonists in his profession.

There is also the matter of the founding fathers, which resembles the civ mechanics the most. You need to produce 'liberty bells' in your colonies. Liberty bells help see your people that independence is a good step forward, so that if enough people are cionvinced you can finally claim independence. Liberty bells also help convince founding fathers to join your congress. Founding fathers give you a bonus in certain things. For example, Francis Drake makes it so that your privateers have 50% bonus combat strength. There are 5 types of founding father, specialising in politics, trade, religion, exploration and military. When a new ff joined your congress, the game presents you with new ff's to pick, one in each category.

The game focusses heavily on infrastructure, making it a game that lasts about as long as a civ game. Specialising your infrastructure properly requires a lot of micro management, but I guess with the new engine it will run smoothly.

Well, I do not know what else to tell you. Should you have questions about game mechanics or how stuff works, just let me know and I'll try to help.

As a civ4 player, I feel embarrassed by some of the replys attacking the OP.

Let me Quote a recend moderator post by Padma;

We don't have any problem with people complaining about any of the games, here. Of course, constructive criticism is much better than mere complaining. A poster who does nothing but whine, moan, and complain will soon be encouraged to move on, either mentally/emotionally, or physically.

We do have problems with those who "abuse" posters, just because they're tired of the same old whines, moans, and complaints.

If you think a thread/poster is just trolling, report it.

Anyhow, in reply to the OP, if you found Civ4 too overwhealming then i would recommend giving civ2 a go. Just because it is old, does not mean it is not still a fantastic game, and even though i have and enjoy civ3 and 4, i still like to play civ2 on occasion.

Wow! Some people are harsh.

Here are my thoughts with Colonization, the old one that is.

First of all, it is one era. Units do upgrade, but not so much a case of spearman becomes maceman becomes rifleman. It is more a case of you can have a soldier with a musket (or a colonist with a musket though they are weaker). Combine those two with horses and suddenly you have the equivalent of dragoons. At least, that is where my memory seems to be a little hazy.

Ships are whatever your colonies either buy from the motherland, or build for themselves.

The focus on the game is very much on two things in my opinion - trade and city management. Trade is with both the motherland, within your colonies, and with the other European powers and natives. However, I found diplomacy to be a little lacking in the game, not that I minded so much.

The general idea with Colonization was to try and get your little colony as independant as possible. So, that would mean getting the right specialists from the motherland, or alternately trained from the Native camps, and then have those as the "train the trainers" for the rest of your colony as you see fit. So, for example, if you wanted to get the real soldiers, quite simply take a soldier from Europe, get him into a colony with the right building, and sure enough, he'll train a free colonist and turn him into a soldier. Then those two can go along and specialise more colonists. The same applies with Fur trappers and weavers.

Next thing also is to get the economy running. That means turning raw goods like furs or tobacco into good like coats or cigars respectively, that fetch a better price on the European markets.

This game is incredibly addictive, and I do recommend it. It does go for a shorter time than Civ, though I guess if one were to micromanage everything, then a game could go quite some time.

I realise this may not make much sense because you haven't played Colonization, but if you can find a copy, then give it a shot.

I realise this may not make much sense because you haven't played Colonization, but if you can find a copy, then give it a shot.I downloaded a copy a few days ago. Google it, you may be able to find a copy too and play it with dosbox.

I downloaded a copy a few days ago. Google it, you may be able to find a copy too and play it with dosbox.

Colonization is a new game rite? So you should be able to buy it or grab a demo rather than downloading something weird that could be in the direction of piracy. The demo should be enough to get an idea if you will enjoy the game?

Colonization is a new game rite? So you should be able to buy it or grab a demo rather than downloading something weird that could be in the direction of piracy. The demo should be enough to get an idea if you will enjoy the game?

The original Sid Meirs Colonization was released back in 1994. Still copyrighted material, falls into the realm of abandonware, but yeah, obtaining a copy is still piracy.

Don't think there ever was a demo released for this game.

Go here http://www.freecol.org/ for a free fan based copy of the game if you have no luck getting the original Microprose version.

I think piracy is necessary when it comes to Colonization :p