Okay, First I'll admit I only remember playing the original game a few dozen times and that I have played with FreeCol lately. But my impressions were and so far are is that the game offers very little diversity in approaches to victory. Unless you land in the right area and get off to a very good start, you will know before 50 turns you can't win, let alone 300..
Maybe difficult settings could make some difference but it just seems to me that once you find that one single strategy approach to victory (assuming you made an initial landfall in a good spot )you will never deter from it. game after game after game. It just seems like a good CIV historical scenario you play a few times then forget..
As a great fan of CIV 1 thru CIV 4 , am I missing something ?.. I'm always willing to be enlightened..
I'm sure I'll still buy it because I love strategy games..

Thanks :)

The thing I love about Col is how untrue you statement is.

Any position can be made a winner. :)

The path to victory does lie down one path (money) but it is in HOW you make money. That's where the diversity is. And in the thousands of Col1 games I've played, I have never failed to find a way to make money.

That's the beauty of Col, every terrain type makes money!

Plus, if your trade / luxury goods production is low, start hitting the natives. This tactic works well if the substitute natives are Inca or Aztec. ;)

Failing that, privateers swipping other colonies goods.

Literally, there is many paths to victory. And many a game where turn 50 I've said "I'll win this" and lose, or "I'll lose this" and win.

Unless you land in the right area
Which is what?

In colonization 1 and 2 any position can be a winner, as long as you build more then 1 colony.

But of course a few lucky rumours in col 1 was unbeatable.

PS with hernado de soto you allways got lucky rumors such as fountain of youth/city of cibola each third rumour with a seasoned scout.

Founding fathers in col 2 are not random at all though, but it is a race to get em.

I agree with the general disagreement with ACE's statement. There's only one VICTORY CONDITION, unlike Civ, but many ways to get there. Each country plays differently and what Founding Fathers decide to show up has a large impact, and also your neighboring Tribe(s) and fellow colonists; I imagine that won't change much in the new game. Yes, a good start is important and yes, I can usually tell in the first 50 turns if I'm going to win or not (or whether it's worth the struggle), but the journey is - and I predict will be - still a lot of fun.

The thing I love about Col is how untrue you statement is.

Any position can be made a winner. :)

The path to victory does lie down one path (money) but it is in HOW you make money. That's where the diversity is. And in the thousands of Col1 games I've played, I have never failed to find a way to make money.

That's the beauty of Col, every terrain type makes money!

Plus, if your trade / luxury goods production is low, start hitting the natives. This tactic works well if the substitute natives are Inca or Aztec. ;)

Failing that, privateers swipping other colonies goods.

Literally, there is many paths to victory. And many a game where turn 50 I've said "I'll win this" and lose, or "I'll lose this" and win.


I don't agree. The best stagedy is undoubtly:

1. Settle near the Inca/Aztecs. Ideally in the north or the south.

2. Make sure that they they teach farming in their capital

3. Turn every colonist you get into a farmer (since the indians will educate unlimited colonists in their capital).

4. Make cities with five farmers each

5. Collect all the food on wagon trains or ships. Incas and Aztecs will often give you 75 food for free if the warehouse is empty.

You could easily get a new colonist in these cities every fifth turn. Build 30 colonies like this... You do the math.

A silver deposit in the beginning can become handy though, so that you can buy a Galleon, equip insane amounts of tools and by lumberjacks, carpenters, ore miners, blacksmiths or statesmen (if you are lacking any).

That strategy depends on a variable (what they teach at the Aztec/Inca capital) not being an actual variable (they have to teach what you want), so...

That strategy depends on a variable (what they teach at the Aztec/Inca capital) not being an actual variable (they have to teach what you want), so...

Not to mention the fact it assumes the Spanish don't come in and wipe out the Inca and Aztec as they usually do rather quickly. I would say this isn't a valid complaint against the concept but rather complaining about an exploit that allows you to win a 14 year old game when given the right circumstances.

I would expect a far more dynamic gaming experience in the update and your exploit to not work quite so well.

Let me see...no.

I think offering other winning conditions would have spawned even more types of strategies since now you will see that if you want to win early and often you will start to raise horses and make sure you have iron and tools to make muskets etc. while trying to find the best way to make most money.

Hey,, I played the original and as a PC strategy gamer for 25 years I still remember losing interest much quicker than I really should have. Ok,,Maybe it was the time,, mid 90's was a great time for PC strategy games..
This new version does look absolutely fantastic and the historical factor is still very appealing and I know I will buy and play it for sure..
But as I stated,, I hope it's a little more diverse than than that historical puzzle of chance that I recall ;)

Maybe there should of been 3 types of Victories... Independence (popularity etc),, Economic (Gold accumalation) or Military (defeating the home country)...
Oh well... :)

Independence is a military victory. That's part of the problem since it's a economic game, but now that units can be killed instead of replenished with horses it won't be as ridiculous (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=283386) as in the original.

There are a few victories I'd like to see.

I would like to see an economic victory. If you play on too easy a difficulty level I can see it being anticlimactic to cruise to figure X with your smooth running empire, but it's really not that different than winning Space or Domination in Civ4. Achieving either of these victories becomes interesting when there's a time limit or opponent who might reach victory first. On a high enough difficulty market prices will crash if you try to create a single commodity empire. You'll need to trade in all goods. And then the King's taxes will start to bite into your profits so you may need to trade with other Europeans or Indians; hopefully you haven't torched your relations with these parties already. A rich trading empire would likely be a target of other colonial powers, so it couldn't completely neglect defense and avoid war as well.

For the Spanish-type player, victory could be achieved through exterminating X native empires. The booty they ship back to the home country would make it the richest and most powerful country in history, which would promptly be sent down the drain fighting the French, Dutch, Turks, English and a century later it would have lost all vestiges of its former prominence. With the Civ4 diplomacy system it would be easy to see how native populations would rack up negatives against the invading colonial power and unite in war against them, causing their final conquest to be increasingly difficult.

It makes sense to include a time victory for low difficulty players as well, though the scoring rationale would need to not suck as in the original. One thousand gold = 1 point. One expert worker = 5 points. Yeah.

Since there's a cultural victory in Civ4 I figure there could be a crappy, unsatisfying version in Colonization where you try to amass the political power to recruit the most founding fathers. Depending on how deep the founding father pool pool is, a player may not be able to empty it before the time limit, therefore this victory would just be a factor in the time victory.

And of course Independence, the real conclusion.

I just think somebody should look into this issue of all these ideas about different winning conditions and maybe find a way to make a mod? ;)

But then again there's the problem that AI won't understand these winning conditions.

Who knows, maybe Rhye can bring a little of his magic to the game-by introducing "Historical Victories" a la RFC. So the Spanish might have "eliminate 2 native tribes before 1700AD"; "Accumulate X gold from Ruins and Native Tribes by 1650"; "Capture X cities from another European Civ before 1750AD".

Aussie_Lurker.

Scripted history? Please! I'm trying to re-write history, not re-play history.

Dale, come one, surely you've played RFC by Rhye. Its not about "Scripted History", its about gaining extra points for achieving the goals that he historical civ managed to achieve. I mean, we're only talking about a mod in this instance-though I would like to see more victory options in the proper game!

Aussie.

I don't think more victory conditions would realistically work with the default game's setup, besides somehow influencing the other European nations to put pressure on your motherland, so to achieve independence peacefully. As a colony you can't achieve much while being ruled by another power: you're like a Civ4 vassal.

So the concept I had in mind is extending the game's timeframe 100 or so years, adding a couple new military units (upgrades of the existing ones), railroads and perhaps a new tier of industrial improvements and things like that. But regarding victory conditions, make independence a means to achieve the other victories easier. Economic, Domination, Conquest and even Diplomatic (with some kind of UN-like, continent-unifying building) victories would be possible, but independence would be a sort-of prerequisite, without being a victory condition by itself.

Of course, that's all very difficult in nearly every area, and would require modders knowledgeable in Python and SDK stuff. Not only would they have to implement everything for the player, but also improve the AI to play competently in the new situations.

But that's the only way I can see other Civ-like victory conditions working in Colonization, since, again, without independence a nation can't do anything.

But that's the only way I can see other Civ-like victory conditions working in Colonization, since, again, without independence a nation can't do anything.I disagree.

Basically like said other nations could pressurize the motherland give independency or the king to be arrive such conclusion that only possible option is to give independency through series of political moves, example see the case with Brazil. Even though unusual event still something that would offer certainly different kind of strategy to the general gameplay and end game than war of independency with large battles.

I don't know whether there is chance that foreign powers forces take part in the independency war in the game but I think that would be nice to see also.

One option could be also to use methods to cut down the crown troops that engage rebel forces by artificial means so instead of large scale war we would see only small confrontations.

I think it would be very nice addition to the game.

What comes to your suggestion:
So the concept I had in mind is extending the game's timeframe 100 or so years, adding a couple new military units (upgrades of the existing ones), railroads and perhaps a new tier of industrial improvements and things like that. But regarding victory conditions, make independence a means to achieve the other victories easier. Economic, Domination, Conquest and even Diplomatic (with some kind of UN-like, continent-unifying building) victories would be possible, but independence would be a sort-of prerequisite, without being a victory condition by itself.IMO then the whole idea of winning the game through independency should be removed.

When I was designing my own mod of Colonization for Civilization IV (that never came true because of various of reasons and I'm glad it didn't since now "real Colonization" is coming out), I visioned exactly the same what you are describing here. All those victory conditions would have been present example space race would had been longer process of "Manifest Destiny" as of becoming the greatest nation in the New World by reaching certain goals. Diplomatic victory would had been gained through first Pan-American congress which would become available in the late stages of the game (around 1890s).

This is of course very interesting idea to get rid of the independency but probably too difficult to make true.

I respectfully disagree with the OP.

The Primary Victory Condition is achieving independence, but the ways to get there are varied and numerous.

My favorite tactic is to make everything I need to fight the battle, rather than buying it. Get one Fortess pumping out guns and horses. Get another one pumping out warships, get another one pumping out cannon. Keep each fort well saturated with the other's gifts. Use the money from the smaller economic cities to keep the forts (and themselves) supplied with experts (carpenters, ore miners, blacksmiths, etc).

Some prefer to wipe out the Indians, take their gold and prime locations. While others recognize their value as trading partners, allies in war, and converts. I personally prefer the latter, as I can make 10's of 1000's of gold simply trading with them in the same amount of turns it might take me to raise an army large enough to take out one Indian village.

Others might decide to take over the entire New World and wipe out the other European civs.

Now, what would be pretty cool is after the Revolution, if successful, you then had to navigate your country through secondary wars, like the War of 1812, and the Civil War, and deal with national issues and such, like civil liberties. And it sounds like some of these will definitely be in order from the articles. But even if it ends at successful War For Independence (WFI), it's not the destination, but getting there, that's half the fun.

Well, thing is not everyone likes warmongering, and all your points involve basically constant warfare. Personally, I don't mind the military outcome of the game, but some people would rather win peacefully by other means, without crippling their scores by going for the time 'victory'.

Dale : "Scripted history? Please! I'm trying to re-write history, not re-play history."

No,, re-playing history is exactly what Colonization is about.. Re-writing history is the Civilization games... just because you accumulate your gold by either selling corn or with privateers,, you still are headed in one direction.. declaring Independence and facing those soldiers from mother country..

No,, re-playing history is exactly what Colonization is about.. Re-writing history is the Civilization games... just because you accumulate your gold by either selling corn or with privateers,, you still are headed in one direction.. declaring Independence and facing those soldiers from mother country..So you are some hardcore civfan here complaining about game you obviously don't understand?

Ok.

There's plenty of history rewriting in Colonization.

Just because I don't agree with how Colonization is being explained by some of you doesn't mean I didn't play the game or that I totally disliked it...
and your responses do nothing to state your case.. You can take your America love it or leave it approach and stick it.. And since when does every post in the forum have to be some positive agreement ? That's not what a forum is about. That would just be a fan club.
Colonization has both good points and bad ones.. at least I can admit that.. you obviously can't..

Dale, come one, surely you've played RFC by Rhye. Its not about "Scripted History", its about gaining extra points for achieving the goals that he historical civ managed to achieve. I mean, we're only talking about a mod in this instance-though I would like to see more victory options in the proper game!

Aussie.

Yes, I have played RFC. And it's a great mod. BUT, you must admit it promotes following the historical outcome of the real world. By following that outcome you get access to higher scores than if you did some totally opposite to the real world. And by limiting strategy to that one path it is effectively scripted history. Follow this path, or lose.

A great mod with its place, but not for me.

Dale : "Scripted history? Please! I'm trying to re-write history, not re-play history."

No,, re-playing history is exactly what Colonization is about.. Re-writing history is the Civilization games... just because you accumulate your gold by either selling corn or with privateers,, you still are headed in one direction.. declaring Independence and facing those soldiers from mother country..

Sorry I must strongly disagree with you here. Yes, the final goal is one that occured in history, but how you reach that goal is completely your choice. You do not have to follow the historical path of the real world to win.

I Agree with u Dale.
Everyone has its way to attend the goal.
So it depends on the person himself.

Just because I don't agree with how Colonization is being explained by some of you doesn't mean I didn't play the game or that I totally disliked it...
and your responses do nothing to state your case.. You can take your America love it or leave it approach and stick it.. And since when does every post in the forum have to be some positive agreement ? That's not what a forum is about. That would just be a fan club.
Colonization has both good points and bad ones.. at least I can admit that.. you obviously can't..It's rather obvious it has it bad points just like Civilization. But surely it ain't the lack of options or limited strategy especially if you compare it to Civilization. Only bad point in that regard would be the winning condition.

At least in Colonization you have to gather certain amount of resources all the time (rather than just have few so you get those precious units produced for that time period) and make sure they are handled right and manufactured to goods. It takes bit more management than in Civilization which also means more options for strategy. Obviously you miss this.

Your case? Thin like a straw.

okay well how see it is colonization to me is upgraded version of civ but concentrated on well colonization. I played freecol after learing about this and well I found massive armies bad starts etc and well I got out of them. So how about we all admit that we are going to get the game and welll in a week be pros at it.:lol: then in 2 weeks have some awesome mods one from dale and get to be pros at the mods and go on with our lives.

Hey,, I do love the game for it's historical background more than gameplay.. guess thats obvious .. LOL
I still want to see another Victory option not just the one.. Winning by economics or with politics instead of the eventual warfare would be changing history for me.. :)

Winning independence militarily would be changing history for the French and Dutch colonies. :p

OK, rather than being limited to the historical goals of the Colonial Nation you're playing, what about a "Quest Victory"? Basically, the quest victories would work like the Historical Goals, but they would be broader and randomly distributed.
As an example, you might get a quest asking you you to "Obtain Cities X, Y and Z through non-military means", or "Connect the East and West Coast of this Continent"-that kind of thing. You would have a turn limit by which time the quest would need to be achieved, and you'd get points for achieving the quest-plus extra points for early completion. The first Colonial Power to get the threshold number of "Quest Points" wins the game. Obviously such a strategy would go alongside all the other victories, but therefore give players another way of winning the game which doesn't involve a violent break-away from the motherland.

Aussie.

Every game no matter how great had Pros and Cons..,, the great ones just had more Pros.
:)

I think the numbers of strategies available are many, especially when comparing the different difficulty levels.

If playing on an easier level (which you probably aren't if you're a Colonization Veteran :D) going for cooperation with the natives and an economic strategy is the best way to go. As someone here mentioned, you can sell tobacco to some native settlements for 1000-1500 gold compared to the 300-500 you get in Europe. Then buy back silver, and when the price of silver drops, other commodities, and you'll earn some extra gold on that. Combine trade with high production in your own colonies, and you can pretty much buy whatever you want directly from the university in Europe.

When playing on Viceroy, it's a bit different. It's hard not to get entangled in conflicts because the rival nations and the natives are a lot more aggressive. Therefore, my experience is that you might just as well go with the "offense is the best defense" strategy, continually building up your military as you remove potential future threats along the way..

That said, there are some limitations to number of strategies in Colonization compared to Civilization. Col is based on economic expansion, so production of goods, good logistics for buying/selling etc, are the foundations for making everything else work. There are however many different ways to set up your colonies to achieve that goal. One way would be to make every colony self-sufficient, producing tools etc. Another, and possibly better way, is to specialize colonies, one for cigar production, one for tools production and so on, and then re-distribute the goods as needed. That, of course, requires good logistics and some military force to secure the transport of those good.

I find a nice round of Col on Viceroy to be quite challenging. You don't know where you'll land, who's in your vicinity, city-rumors could change the course of the game entirely (fountain of youth vs. p***ing off the natives for entering their ancient burial grounds) and of course, no cheating or re-loading allowed. At that level, I find it to be quite challenging.

I still love the old version, but now I'm looking forward to the new version. I've been hoping for this for over ten years now. Finally!! :woohoo:

So the concept I had in mind is extending the game's timeframe 100 or so years, adding a couple new military units (upgrades of the existing ones), railroads and perhaps a new tier of industrial improvements and things like that. But regarding victory conditions, make independence a means to achieve the other victories easier. Economic, Domination, Conquest and even Diplomatic (with some kind of UN-like, continent-unifying building) victories would be possible, but independence would be a sort-of prerequisite, without being a victory condition by itself.

Of course, that's all very difficult in nearly every area, and would require modders knowledgeable in Python and SDK stuff. Not only would they have to implement everything for the player, but also improve the AI to play competently in the new situations.

OK, well there's the brief for the Colonization expansion pack.

Beyond the Revolt!

OK, well there's the brief for the Colonization expansion pack.

Beyond the Revolt!
:p

City specialization is generally not an option, as in Civilization. It's frequently inevitable, as the resources within the settlement's radius determines the focus it'll have, at least as far as trade goods are concerned. In Civ, even if it's not optimal, cities have no restrictions on what they can do.

Sure, you can decide to make rum in a city that doesn't harvest sugar, or tools in one that doesn't extract ore, but it's certainly not difficult to realize that doesn't make any sense.

Sure, you can decide to make rum in a city that doesn't harvest sugar, or tools in one that doesn't extract ore, but it's certainly not difficult to realize that doesn't make any sense.There exists such things as wagon trains you know...

I'd have to agree with the OP on the belief that the original Colonization had a lot fewer ways to play than the CivIV. Hopefully the new version will figure out how to address that.

For example, when playing as French (who get a bonus of not upsetting the natives as quickly), I would have liked to have played very friendly with the natives, made a bunch of very small colonies, and then used the natives to fight with me for freedom. Unfortunately, it seemed that I'd always still have to generate a group of large colonies, which would still upset the natives, and I'd have to fight them off. This meant that they were never around to help me when fighting my European king for independence.

With Spain, it was kill the natives to get money and people, then build a group of large colonies to fight for independence.

With Dutch, it was trade your way to money and people, then build a group of large colonies to fight for independence.

With English, it was use the steady supply of people to fight off the natives, then build a group of large colonies and fight for independence.

There was some nice differentiation in the beginning of the game, as you established how you would get your money and people flowing, but once that part was done, it invariable became a game of clearing the natives out from a large enough area that you can build some large colonies and then fight for independence.

I'd have to agree with the OP on the belief that the original Colonization had a lot fewer ways to play than the CivIV. Yeah, but comparing...what 14 year old game to CivIV is bit of a stretch and OP meant that it was already at that time having limited strategy.

Personally I considered up to CivIV civilization games having pretty limited strategy and also I considered them rather dull before it after a while.

Some of the points you mentioned probably have been addressed and it sounds like the founding fathers might offer now new strategic element to the game along with real diplomacy with natives. Let alone them being able to be inside your borders in peace. Based into previews you can really ally yourself with natives which sounds really nice.

But I think modmakers could add if just possible of course more victory conditions and maybe even more differences between different colonies and leaders. This would create more dimensions to strategies.

I think in the original Colonization so much better for example compared to Civilization series was the economic model which was kind of free in a way how you created it and into which resources and goods you decided to base it into.

The visuals of this new version ,the historical factor, and the nostalgia of a Sid's original are three selling points right from the start. And despite my cons ( Victory conditions etc) I'm still going to buy it. Good strategy games are still scarce today. And yes the game is good, just not great to me.
I wished this was a new version of Alpha Centauri instead... ;)

The visuals of this new version ,the historical factor, and the nostalgia of a Sid's original are three selling points right from the start. And despite my cons ( Victory conditions etc) I'm still going to buy it. Good strategy games are still scarce today. And yes the game is good, just not great to me.
I wished this was a new version of Alpha Centauri instead... ;)And I never liked Alpha Centauri. :lol:

Only thing great about SMAC was the social engineering.

This one again proves how different people are. Same things taste different.

Yes,, tastes differ... but Alpha Centauri was not just a great game to me.. It's on the top PC strategy game list of every gaming magazine and web site that I have ever seen.. ;)

Yes,, tastes differ... but Alpha Centauri was not just a great game to me.. It's on the top PC strategy game list of every gaming magazine and web site that I have ever seen.. ;)Popularity no great game no make. Or perhaps you liked Titanic as film as well. ;)

We're talking PC turn-based strategy games.. not movies or role-playing or adventure games and if you're saying Alpha Centauri was not a great game,, well you just lost all credibility to even debate. Now., you're acting more like some neurotic Coloniztion fanboy than a true PC strategy gamer.. :)

Some great turn based :D
1. Civ II
2. X-COM
3. Heroes of Might and Magic II
4. Alpha Centauri
5. Master of Orion
6. Steel Panthers
7. Masters of Magic
8. Galactive Civilization
9. Jagged Alliance
10. Space Empires

and if you're saying Alpha Centauri was not a great game,, well you just lost all credibility to even debate.

I never liked the premise of SMAC. As simulation of future society it was interesting but the idea of inhabiting planet not so...

1. Civ II :)

2. X-COM :cool:

3. Heroes of Might and Magic II OK, III :king:

4. Alpha Centauri :sleep:

5. Master of Orion :D

6. Steel Panthers :bowdown:

7. Masters of Magic :undecide:

8. Galactive Civilization :shake:

9. Jagged Alliance :smoke:

10. Space Empires :hammer2:

Oh, and I hate most RTS games including Starcraft. :p

But this is all OT, so let's settle this by saying we all have our taste.

Interesting thread.

In the original COL game, I couldn't care less about actually winning the game. As a "peaceful builder" type of player, what I loved was to explore, to settle, and to watch my colonies grow and prosper while listening to the nice, atmospheric tunes. The combat system was so simplistic that fighting seemed like a chore. In fact, despite starting hundreds of games, I only played it through ONCE, and found the tasks of preparing for independence and fighting for it extremely tedious.
So, I sincerely hope that either the combat system has been improved enough to make it interesting, or other victory conditions are made available.
If not, I'll still buy the game, and repeatedly start over, to enjoy what I enjoy doing...

I agree with Morchuflex,, I mostly played Colonization just for the historical fun and exploration ,trading etc.. Winning was already secondary as I always knew before the finale if I was going to win the battle or not.. it was very anti-climatic...
Another type of Victory condition could of elevated the game to a greater status.. A new coat of paint is just not enough for me..

It's a remake with a fair share of new features and modifications. Pretty far from "a new coat of paint". I'm sure new victory conditions, unrealistic or not, will be modded in. Personally, I don't think it's such a big deal.

Not sure how anyone can say not a big deal if another Victory condition was added or not.. It would of made a HUGE difference for strategy gamers.
And yes it's is a remake with better graphics.. Please ,spare me the modifications added.. it's still the SAME game.. Yes, Lord,, I get it,,you're a fan of the original and could care less.. It's noted :D LOL

You're getting a tad aggressive with your opinions.

Well,, Lord,, here's my thought.. telling someone they are wrong with no real evidence of why is being aggressive to me.. :)
There is a reason this game is being called Col/Civ4 and not Colonization II.. don't you agree ?

Whew,,I'm done responding on this thread other than saying 1..hey it's Colonization with the CIV4 engine and why some can't even admit that is baffling, and 2. It's really not up to Modmakers to make it into Colonization II... LOL

Had something to say but maybe better not to say it.

What's baffling is that you're jumping to so many conclusions without having even played the upcoming version.

...telling someone they are wrong with no real evidence of why is being aggressive to me.. :)
Who's doing that again? :rolleyes:

Please, guys, let it go. This forum had been such an oasis of politeness so far, let's keep it that way.

Please, guys, let it go. This forum had been such an oasis of politeness so far, let's keep it that way.
No problem.