Hi,

Ive been reading that this game is going to be around 300 turns long. To me this seems a little short.

Does anyone know if there will be epic/marathon modes like on civ?

Yeah, I metioned in another thread that this seemed like about half as many turns as an old-school Col game. If 300 turns is standard, I certainly hope there'll be Marathon games. But they have said that it's supposed to be a much quicker game than Civ, so maybe this is the way they want it.

I sure hope so, I like my games real long!! And 300 turns is barley enough time to even think!! I just hope they do not have indentured servants again!!

I just hope they do not have indentured servants again!!

Hmm. Haven't heard anybody mention this. You can probably expect them to be in the game, IMHO... because aside from the extremely-hot-button African slave trade issue, they'll most likely keep the game as historically accurate as possible. Indentured Servants were in the first game because there were a great deal of them in the New World.

But I understand. I hated them too. And those worthless Petty Criminals. *shakes fist* Stay in the Tower of London where you belong, criminal scum!

I agree - I would love to play a Coloniization game for more then 300 turns...

They probably ment it'll only last 300 years or so. Didn't the original last from 1492 to 1850?

Nope they meant 300 turns, which is why I think it will suck. On the bright side, since it will be a moddable, a simple thing to change it to 600 or w/e you want.

They probably ment it'll only last 300 years or so. Didn't the original last from 1492 to 1850?

Yeah, it did. And after 1600 there were two turns per year. I only saw that "300-turns" thing in one review, let's just hope it was an oopso. One of the first reviews said that there wouldn't be any pre-made maps, and that got corrected.

UPDATE: Well, the latest review (http://pc.gamespy.com/pc/civilization-game-untitled/891987p1.html) says 300 turns too.

Hmm. Haven't heard anybody mention this. You can probably expect them to be in the game, IMHO... because aside from the extremely-hot-button African slave trade issue, they'll most likely keep the game as historically accurate as possible. Indentured Servants were in the first game because there were a great deal of them in the New World.

But I understand. I hated them too. And those worthless Petty Criminals. *shakes fist* Stay in the Tower of London where you belong, criminal scum!

About indentured servants, I have a question: my mother language isn't English, and I simply can't find in the dictonaries this expression. In the reality, they were African slaves?

About the role of indentured servants and pretty criminals in the old Col, I didn't have problems: early criminals could be used as scouts, making them expert scouts soon. It was a good way to use them. Indentured servants could be sent to a native village to have a profession, or at least to be a master scout what is practically equal as free colonist since they can be teached in colonies easier.

At the late game, you should have try not to have more criminals, but they still could be used as horse storages:) While indentured servants also can be educated. It's not so bad business if their price is 200 and the cheapest educated unit, ore miner is 600. Practically 400 was the price to make them free colonist.

About indentured servants, I have a question: my mother language isn't English, and I simply can't find in the dictonaries this expression. In the reality, they were African slaves?

Indentured servants were free people from Europe who wanted to come to the New World but couldn't afford to get there. They would agree to work for someone (like a wealthy landowner) who would pay their travel cost. Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant) the Wikipedia entry if you want a much more thorough explanation...

The point I was making to Randall_Flagg about the African slave trade is that the game designers will probably try to keep the game very accurate, so Indentured Servants will almost certainly be a part of it. African slaves, on the other hand, probably won't be, because in America, that's a very touchy subject. Other threads have discussed this extensively. My take is that the game would be more realistic if African slaves were a part of it, but I understand that Sid and company didn't want to alienate a few million potential game players here in the US, so it wasn't in the original. I don't think it'll be in Civ4:Col either, but we'll see.

About the role of indentured servants and pretty criminals in the old Col, I didn't have problems: early criminals could be used as scouts, making them expert scouts soon. It was a good way to use them. Indentured servants could be sent to a native village to have a profession, or at least to be a master scout what is practically equal as free colonist since they can be teached in colonies easier.

At the late game, you should have try not to have more criminals, but they still could be used as horse storages:) While indentured servants also can be educated. It's not so bad business if their price is 200 and the cheapest educated unit, ore miner is 600. Practically 400 was the price to make them free colonist.

Never looked at it that way. I always took the easy way out: Get William Brewster in your Congress ASAP, and never see criminals or servants again. Those are some good ideas, though.

If the turn limit is only 300 then the game should be quicker than the original or it is very hard to get independence in time. You probably get rebels more than 50% but then it is very risky to declare freedom because you will suffer a lot of Tory unrests. In old game turn is about 1686 autumn and my games never ended in that turn. Or maybe 300 turns is the normal speed but you would have 600 turn mode what is exactly same than the classic Colonization.

I really hope they implement longer game modes.

300 turns isn't even enough to get to 1 AD in Civ4's Marathon mode. :sad:

I usually play Civ in standard mode. How many turns would that be?

I always liked to take my time and build. I hate being rushed.

It's not really bothering me.

I confess I've owned Civ 3 for 2 or 3 years and never played a game to the Industrial Age.

I've owned Civ 4 for a couple of months and never made it to the modern age.

I suppose I just lose interest and start another game. I'll welcome a shorter game.

Sorry to bother again, but does anyone know how many turns a standard civ IV game has?

It's not really bothering me.

I confess I've owned Civ 3 for 2 or 3 years and never played a game to the Industrial Age.

I've owned Civ 4 for a couple of months and never made it to the modern age.

I suppose I just lose interest and start another game. I'll welcome a shorter game.

I would do an modded Marathathon with an extra 400 turns, and still want more turns. 300 turns to me is funny, you can barley get a feel for the game, at least I do not.

Sorry to bother again, but does anyone know how many turns a standard civ IV game has?
I didn't answer before because I'm not sure. I guess it's somewhere between 400-600 turns.

Indentured servants were free people from Europe who wanted to come to the New World but couldn't afford to get there. They would agree to work for someone (like a wealthy landowner) who would pay their travel cost. Here's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indentured_servant) the Wikipedia entry if you want a much more thorough explanation...

Never looked at it that way. I always took the easy way out: Get William Brewster in your Congress ASAP, and never see criminals or servants again. Those are some good ideas, though.

Thank you for your answer. Now I see that we don't even have an expression for indentured servants, since Hungary never had colonies :(. It wasn't mentioned in the link you wrote that did indentured servants have the right of marriage or can the owner punish them by whipping for example. It is rather a historical question than a language one.

The problem with Brewster is that in the early game some members give you more useful bonuses like Washington or Cortez. Later Brewster can make a good work as well.

Actually, I would never do Brewster if I couldn't afford it. I would do Washington, give my criminals some muskets and horses (!) and send them off to do battle with a rival European.
Two victories, and voila! They are now free men!

The problem with Brewster is that in the early game some members give you more useful bonuses like Washington or Cortez. Later Brewster can make a good work as well.

I never got Washington until later in the game. Him and some of the other real powerful Founding Fathers just wouldn't come up as a choice. For instance, if I got the other four military fathers just to get them out of the way in order to get Washington, there wouldn't be a choice for a military father until I got several from the other categories.

...hope that made sense, it's been a long day.

As far as Cortez goes, he wasn't very important to me unless I had Coronado (or was it de Soto?) and my scouts were turning up Cities of Cibola every few turns. Cortez was handy because you could send the treasure home for free. If I was playing as Spain, however, Cortez was an absolute must-have, right from the start. Especially when I came across the Aztecs and the Incas.

I never got Washington until later in the game. Him and some of the other real powerful Founding Fathers just wouldn't come up as a choice. For instance, if I got the other four military fathers just to get them out of the way in order to get Washington, there wouldn't be a choice for a military father until I got several from the other categories.

...hope that made sense, it's been a long day.

Yes it made sense.
I don't know if it was a bug, but whenever the choice for Founding Fathers came up, I pushed the escape button and one turn later I would get the list of Founding Fathers again, but with different names on it.

So, I generally got every Founding Father I wanted when I wanted.

As far as Cortez goes, he wasn't very important to me unless I had Coronado (or was it de Soto?) and my scouts were turning up Cities of Cibola every few turns. Cortez was handy because you could send the treasure home for free. If I was playing as Spain, however, Cortez was an absolute must-have, right from the start. Especially when I came across the Aztecs and the Incas.

It was de Soto. He made all lost rumors positive. Coronado made all your units seen 20 squares away.

Actually, I would never do Brewster if I couldn't afford it. I would do Washington, give my criminals some muskets and horses (!) and send them off to do battle with a rival European.
Two victories, and voila! They are now free men!

Washington is cool, but hard to get him. I add that he give even more help to have as much veteran soldiers as you want if you make war with Actecs and/or Incas - and even more money.

Yes it made sense.
I don't know if it was a bug, but whenever the choice for Founding Fathers came up, I pushed the escape button and one turn later I would get the list of Founding Fathers again, but with different names on it.

So, I generally got every Founding Father I wanted when I wanted.


Oh, it's a kind of cheating, bad boy:)

I don't know if it was a bug, but whenever the choice for Founding Fathers came up, I pushed the escape button and one turn later I would get the list of Founding Fathers again, but with different names on it.

I heard of that, I think it was a bug of some sort. I'm not really sure though, because I heard that you could only do that in versions of the game that came out after mine did. Kinda strange, not sure if I'm remembering that right, I just know I tried it and it didn't work. :(

I don't know if it was a bug, but whenever the choice for Founding Fathers came up, I pushed the escape button and one turn later I would get the list of Founding Fathers again, but with different names on it.


It was a bug, I remember they fixed it with an update alter on. The update included an map editor as well.

It was a bug, I remember they fixed it with an update alter on. The update included an map editor as well.

Yeah, I didn't have that.:sad: I almost went out and bought a new copy of the game when I found out they were shipping it with a map editor. I would've spent more time messing around creating maps for myself (like I later did with Civ2) than I did playing the game.