:king: Which Colonization leader will you try out first? :king:

George Washington of England (50% cheaper to equip soldiers)
John Adams of England (+25% Liberty boost)
Adriaen van der Donck of the Netherlands (+100% time between tax increases)
Peter Stuyvesant of the Netherlands (+25% hammers in all settlements)
Samuel de Champlain of France (+100% native converts from missions)
Louis de Frontenac of France (free Grenadier I promotion to mounted units)
Simon Bolivar of Spain (+100% effect of liberty on rebel strength)
Jose de San Martin of Spain (50% less experience to promote units)

Let me know why your selected leader is the best or why you find this person to be more interesting than the others.

I choose George Washington because he is English. The English bonus will give me enough people to fill necessary colonial positions and his personal bonus will give me the opportunity to easily defend the numerous colonies I intend to create and conquer. It is not necessary to be friendly with all of the Native American tribes. Only the ones that are in a position to significantly help my colony will be sold guns or horses. The others will be removed from the land surrounding my initial colony in the new world. Mr. Washington should be the right leader to arm enough men to make this happen.

Stuyvesant. I'll start with the Dutch like I always used to, and that hammer bonus is right up my alley- I'm a city/colony perfectionist and always want every possible building done.

Which Colonization leader will you try out first?

Let me know why your selected leader is the best or why you find this person to be more interesting than the others.

I choose George Washington because he is English. The English bonus will give me enough people to fill necessary colonial positions and his personal bonus will give me the opportunity to easily defend the numerous colonies I intend to create and conquer. It is not necessary to be friendly with all of the Native American tribes. Only the ones that are in a position to significantly help my colony will be sold guns or horses. The others will be removed from the land surrounding my initial colony in the new world. Mr. Washington should be the right leader to arm enough men to make this happen.

My feelings exactly. ;) As I said in another thread, I believe that having a large number of immigrants is crucial for your army and economy. And with Washington, it's 50% cheaper to recruit soldiers so IMO, all the bases have been covered.

Champlain yields +100% native converts from missions.
Frontenac gives a free Grenadier I promotion to mounted units (others?).
Bolivar is +100% effect of liberty on rebel strength.
San Martin requires 50% less experience to promote units.

As I said in another thread, I'm currently torn between the Dutch and the French on who to try out first. I think Stuyvesant is clearly superior to the other guy. I'm leaning toward Frontenac though I'm not sure what the Grenadier I promotion is. Champlain is interesting, but I'd like to see the ordinary frequency of native converts first.

Adams - half immigration cost and double bell production...... means high strength early revolution with lots of colonist troops. :D

And to settle the deal: Champlain gives you more allies to help you with your struggle in the end. :D

correction dale:
adams: -1/4 migration cost., +1/4 bell production.

double migration and bell production would be crazy.
Also something that most people forget is that you can just buy the immigrants for a low cost in europe in the early game. This is often your prime reason for getting a early good start.
Tradeing and buying immigrants is key. It was easily possible to have 30 immigrants in colonization by the 1550ies if you did some good native trading with the incas, and got hernado the soto. 20 if you got bad luck with ruins/natives. PS in the original colonization 4 scouts and hernado de soto was kinda overkill in north america. 1-2 fountain of youth and 2-3 treasure cheasts were not too uncommon before 1540.

PS: natives without guns among good col 2 players online will be very rare.
There is a very good reason for that, but if you are clever at creating practical strategies I guess you can all figure that out!

Only if you cannot bribe unskilled immigrants from europe would the crosses become truly very important. You may well figure out that the dutch player with redused tax rate and more stable prices may be able to keep up with you in population or maybe exceed it because it is easier to just buy them in the beginning of the game. Or maybe just because the dutch player was lucky and got a sugar tile and the local natives to train him a exspert sugar planter.

Remember that you have to build the church in order to truly use your migration bonus. so the migration bonus is more of a post 1520 ties bonus.

Sorry you're right, -25%/+25%.

BTW, don't consider the Col1 cost of buying immigrants what C4C's immigrant cost is. It's a lot more expensive than you might think. The process might well work differently too. ;)

With no fountain of youths and harder to get immigrants to the docks == slower natural colonist rate. That's why JA's lower immigrant cost is a good one.

And BTW, the immigrant cost is regardless of cross production. It comes off the colonist price who is standing on the docks, not added onto the church. It's a cost reduction, not a building bonus. So you don't need a church to use the English trait, it's effective from turn 1. ;)

Add all of the above onto his own ability of extra bell production, which leads to earlier and higher rebel sentiment. Means as the faster colonists come over, they are converted to rebels quicker for the extra bonuses associated with rebel sentiment. Also, a faster DoI means a smaller King army too, another plus. ;)

yes you get a bonus at the start but before you build a church it is 1 cross per city. Also it all depends on how many crosses you need per colonist, compared to the money you get from selling goods, compared to the costs of bribeing colonists. Are you saying you know for a fact that colonists cost more then 800$ a pop? Or that the general crosses needed does not rise for each colonist you get? Or has a low starting cost and low rise?

Cross production may well be the best way of getting new immigrants, but that would indeed mean that most cites will have a church and 3 preachers in every small city. You see colonization 1 and 2 has people as the most important resourse. That means the power of a colony is hugely dependant upon the population of that colony.

But 1 thing i know for a fact cross production was very bad in colonization 1, so it has to be boosted for that cross bonus to be worth it. I am fairly sure that the cross immigration is better then it was in colonization 1. but the question at the end of the day is it more efficient then buying them with money?

I cannot not know that atm, but i will know shortly after the release of the game. It is as simple as compareing numbers.

I think you are confusing the English trait. It does NOT increase cross production. It lowers immigration cost (in crosses). You do NOT need to be generating crosses to gain the full Tolerant benefit.

Basically, if the first immigrant costs 8 crosses, and default colony generates 1 cross (not church or preachers etc) then the English will take 6 turns with one colony to generate the required crosses (lower immigration cost, so the first immigrant costs 6) and the other civs will need 8 turns. If immigrant two costs 16 crosses, then the English gain that colonist after 12 turns (the others 16) with one colony. Thus the English have two immigrants after 18 turns, the other civs after 24.

The maths gets even better if immigrant one creates a new colony. Then the English gain immigrant two after 14 turns (6 for immigrant one, 4 turns to settle that colonist [two turns in ship, 1 turn unload, 1 turn settle] and then another 4 turns to gain immigrant two). The other civs need 18 turns (8 for immigrant one, 4 turns to settle that colonist, and then another 6 turns to gain immigrant two).

Effectively the English can have colony three settled the same turn the other civs gain immigrant two.

As to whether it's better than buying immigrants, I don't think it will be early in the game. Not till later when crosses per immigrant become insane will be it be beneficial.

Peter Stuyvesant.

Get buildings faster to get trade built up.

As to whether it's better than buying immigrants, I don't think it will be early in the game. Not till later when crosses per immigrant become insane will be it be beneficial.Depends if the immigrant is specialist example silver miner. ;)

And I might just start with Spain and see how they can handle the natives. But I'm really looking forward with the French really.

You all seem to forget the advantages of making lots of money. As the Dutch, you can buy the experts you need, prizes stay stable longer - and with van der Donck, it takes twice as long before taxes become oppressive and you have to decide how to deal with the government back home. Adriaen van der Donck is my man, all right.

I'm not going for the best bid to beat the game I'm going for the best bid to have fun. :)

I'm not going for the best bid to beat the game I'm going for the best bid to have fun. :)

Making money is fun.

I agree with Öjevind Lång. That said, I would probably start with the Dutch no matter how bad their leaders were, so I might not get a vote... ;)

adrian van der donck is very good for isolationalists. Players that prefer to do all theire trade with theire motherland should play adrian van der donck. That beeing said there is nothing preventing the dutch from earning fast early cash from the natives by selling them guns, unless they want to wipe em out.

Atvantages of wipeing out natives is more free land and treasures, but with a much slower start unless you trade guns with another native player.
Atvantages of beeing at peace with natives is a potentially good native ally with lots of guns/horses. A very useful tradeing partner and with a few free schoolhouses teaching limited professions. Also you can get some converts from missions and later get them to join you peaefully.

I guess I'm the only one that will try San Martín first! Almost always, I fight against superior numbers, so having superior quality troops will make things easier. Besides, who doesn't like having an elite fighting force? :goodjob:

As for selling guns and horses to the natives, it won't always be an easy early choice for quick cash. I think the native tribes will be less of a push-over in this version. They can and will get upset about the encroachment of their land, even if you don't lift a finger against them.

It might not be much of a deal in the lower difficulty settings, but in the higher levels, I'd put a lot of thought into selling them muskets and horses that might be used against you, most likely against your will, later in the game. I assume it'd be wiser to build a strong relationship, or even an alliance, with the tribe in question before trading such sensitive goods.

If you're careless, quick cash early on can mean quick death later on.

if your not careless about tradeing them weapons you will be so far behind those that do that you still lose. You have to take that gamble or you lose to your other human opponents, who will sell your nabouring indians weapons and horses anyway.
It is not an option in online play, as the natives will get guns and horses one way or another.
You are forced to deal with the natives and give them gifts/ pay for theire land and trade with them etc.
You will be too far behind your other human opponents if you do not do that.
Those that trade guns early will easily be 20-30 turns ahead of those that do not, it is simply not an option to not do it. there is too much money in it when you are still tiny.

When playing online games you trade guns with the natives or you die. it is that simple. If the indians turn on you, you restart. But the point is you automatically win vs other players that do not trade guns to the natives if it turns out well. And the other players that do not trade guns to theire natives are garanteed that theire opposing colonial power will do just that.

Point is if you do not wipe out the natives very early your enemy will sell those natives guns and horses.

washington, with his cross boost combined with half cost soldiers, you'll quickly have a formidable fighting force to match the R.E.F.:ar15::run:

If the indians turn on you, you restart.
Which can be considered cheating.

It's not a gamble nor a valid strategy nor being careless if you manipulate the results.

It is very rare that the initial indians turn on you, but the point is if they turn on you it is game over so you restart and take it as a loss.

But in most cases it will go ok, and you can be garanteed that another online player will sell your natives guns/and horses. Especially if your in the middle of a war with them.
Your only realistic option is to play nice with the indians, or wipe out your colonial neigbour first. Now that is hard to do when your playing good players.
Remember natives are skripted in theire responses. As long as you treat them well they will not decleare war on you.
use missionaries and founding fathers with bonuses to indians and your good to go. And if you have more then your opponent, you will get them before them.
Similar to col 1 and civilization 4.

PS singleplayer is a walkover in most cases, so use strategies that work online. As a lot of wierd and slow starts can work in singleplayer. But you will be destroyed online, as they will raid weaker players with pirateers and sell your natives guns and horses if you decleare war on them. They simply pay too well for them. 50% profit is a good deal.

PS: they might not have noticed it during playing, as they are not as used to breaking the system as some of the more exstreme players are.
Some players set aside morals in games, and only does what makes them win , as long as they follow the official rules. No cheating, saveload tricks etc.
They do not see the history, only the game mecanics. They pick theire founding fathers and strategy based solely on what makes them win. they care little for playing styles, but they do constantly try to get as much economical/military/rebel development as they can.

Yeah lets hope guns and horses cost 5$/6$, it was 1$/2$ (2$/3$ viseroy guns) in the original and that was crazy. Anyway your still kinda forced to sell your starting guns/tools or your screwed. No matter how much they cost you otherwise. it was that way in the original colonization anyway if you wanted a big empire and independence before 1660 on viceroy. In the original colonization i just killed the natives, since they were so weak and gave lots of money with cortez.

I'm thinking they might've tweaked the price of horses and muskets, if selling them to natives was a must for a good start, if victory or defeat revolved about that sole fact.

Also, we're not sure about the changes in the natives' behaviour in the remake. They weren't always predictable in the original. Every now and then, they raided you out of nowhere (and the chief denied involvement) unless they loved you. Depending on the difficulty level, they might be increasingly harder to please and therefore keep on your side.