I've read the other's complains about balance too, and this game simple need everything re-done when it comes to combat.

Deleting your colonists to get rebel sentiments was just one "bug", but there is simply no way to not exploit this game. If you try to defend your cities they will fall right away, but if you defend from outside the city, 1 soldier and 2 cannons is enough to beat any army no matter how big it is. The AI wont attack a well defended unit and you can therefore simply stand on a defencive spot outside the city and let the cannons kill everything.

The way the game is build, combat is all about promotions. With the right promotions, you'll have >99% chance of winning every battle except against heavily fortified cities (where cannons will bring down the defence anyway). It seems like there has been no playtesting what-so-ever, and the different difficulties doesn't really make any difference at all. This game really doesn't desurve having "Civilization" in it's name, since there is very little which can resemble strategy.

But instead of picking at the problems, can we try to look for solutions? I could force myself not to exploit the game, but when picking the right promotions and taking advantage of the terrain is all that is needed, I think it's too much too ask. What can take this a little step further is to remove the REF's insane attack bonus and instead give it some way to defend it's cities. But this is really just a hot-fix to the problem. The real problems are the promotions. They are much too strong and there is no way the AI can stop a well promoted army. Simply removing the promotions would be the easiest fix, but some might feel like this is removing some of the fun of the game. Any better suggestions?

dunno Things like powerful Promotions are generally a good idea - u can overcome larger and stronger armies by using "the right" unit (promotion) to counter the unit u r fighting.
But like the game s actual state and the too big attack bonus on ciites from art and canons there s just 1 tactic left which is no good.
Simply removing art attacking bonus and canons to 50% and all d be fine imo.
- in combat system -

Not really.
100% cannon attack bonus is necessity when taking out native villaes. Especially those on hills, with natives specialized in "village" defense and hill fighting.

The only reason why cannons seem overpowered in WoI is because king troops receive no defensive bonuses, not even in cities.
No 25% from fortify, no 50-100% from fort, etc...

You can try changing the following Flag (Boolean Attribute) for the King's troops in file "CIV4UnitInfos.xml" from 1 to 0 :

<bNoDefensiveBonus>1</bNoDefensiveBonus>

I didn't try it so far but the name of the flag seems like what you are looking for ...

The thing with the missing terrain bonuses isn't well thought-through. I like the idea that you're supposed to fight a guerilla war in the swamps, forests and so on (which is basically what happened in reality). You're not supposed to be able to hold onto your coastal cities, the REF should be too strong for that. Instead you should tackle opposing armies that don't know the land, which you can use to your advantage. On the other hand you probably shouldn't be able to beat the regular troops in a direct fight on open ground.

In my opinion it'd be best if the REF troops were stronger than yours (say 5 vs 4), Dragoons as strong as normal soldiers. Artillery should be reduced to 3 or its attack bonus lowered. All revolutionary troops should then get a good terrain bonus in woods and hills, as well as the charge promotion (think of ambushes) to kill or occasionally capture artillery. Actually I'd go even further and use a support system (similar to the first two civs) where each soldier is attached to a settlement and consume 1 food per turn (say 20-30 food free gratis for the king), 2 if moving or fighting. If a unit isn't well-provisioned, it'd starve and be damaged each turn, eventually killing it.
When losing a settlement there should also be an option for the colonists to flee the settlement which would push them to some place one or two tiles away, ready to be resupplied.

The thing with the missing terrain bonuses isn't well thought-through. I like the idea that you're supposed to fight a guerilla war in the swamps, forests and so on (which is basically what happened in reality). You're not supposed to be able to hold onto your coastal cities, the REF should be too strong for that. Instead you should tackle opposing armies that don't know the land, which you can use to your advantage. On the other hand you probably shouldn't be able to beat the regular troops in a direct fight on open ground.

In my opinion it'd be best if the REF troops were stronger than yours (say 5 vs 4), Dragoons as strong as normal soldiers. Artillery should be reduced to 3 or its attack bonus lowered. All revolutionary troops should then get a good terrain bonus in woods and hills, as well as the charge promotion (think of ambushes) to kill or occasionally capture artillery. Actually I'd go even further and use a support system (similar to the first two civs) where each soldier is attached to a settlement and consume 1 food per turn (say 20-30 food free gratis for the king), 2 if moving or fighting. If a unit isn't well-provisioned, it'd starve and be damaged each turn, eventually killing it.
When losing a settlement there should also be an option for the colonists to flee the settlement which would push them to some place one or two tiles away, ready to be resupplied.

Oh, man! I think the REF is overpowered as it is. As for historicity, you are thinking about the American War for Independence; but the Latin American revolutionaries managed to hold on to quite a few important coastal cities. Buenos Aires was an important centre throughout their struggle for independence. And this game isn't just about Britain's colonies in the New World.

Anyway, to my knowledge the British never managed to capture all the coastal cities either.

Oh, man! I think the REF is overpowered as it is. As for historicity, you are thinking about the American War for Independence; but the Latin American revolutionaries managed to hold on to quite a few important coastal cities. Buenos Aires was an important centre throughout their struggle for independence. And this game isn't just about Britain's colonies in the New World.

Anyway, to my knowledge the British never managed to capture all the coastal cities either.

True, but then again when the Southern and Central American colonies fought their wars of independence, Spain was in pretty bad shape what with Napoleon installing a new dynasty, etc.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to hold on to any coastal cities: If artillery is reduced in power, it won't be able to crush your dug-in defenders as well anymore. I don't think you should be in a state to hold your own if the REF is really determined, though - and you should definitely lose most of your less important coastal cities.

Besides, I don't think the REF is that hard right now. They can only send MOW*4 of units at a time which you can usually crush with a somewhat experienced army, even if you're not exploiting things.

True, but then again when the Southern and Central American colonies fought their wars of independence, Spain was in pretty bad shape what with Napoleon installing a new dynasty, etc.
I'm not saying you shouldn't be able to hold on to any coastal cities: If artillery is reduced in power, it won't be able to crush your dug-in defenders as well anymore. I don't think you should be in a state to hold your own if the REF is really determined, though - and you should definitely lose most of your less important coastal cities.

Besides, I don't think the REF is that hard right now. They can only send MOW*4 of units at a time which you can usually crush with a somewhat experienced army, even if you're not exploiting things.

So you think it might be a good idea to have several cities so as to use as decoys for the REF?

So you think it might be a good idea to have several cities so as to use as decoys for the REF?

Yep, if they divert their forces you can take on smaller armies one at a time. If not, you can use a scorched earth strategy by expelling all colonists from the city leaving them almost no gain. When their main stack is gone you can take it back (I don't think any buildings are destroyed like the cultural ones in civ, so this is not a problem here)

Yep, if they divert their forces you can take on smaller armies one at a time. If not, you can use a scorched earth strategy by expelling all colonists from the city leaving them almost no gain. When their main stack is gone you can take it back (I don't think any buildings are destroyed like the cultural ones in civ, so this is not a problem here)

Cool. OK, I'll use my chief city as decoy, leaving some soldiers and cannon inside it (and on a hill beside it) to take out as many as possible of them before they capture it.

A trick I learned from the AI and eman to use was John Adams simply keeping a lot of colonists parked in his cities so as not to alarm the king by the size of his army. When the time for declaring independence came, he obviously meant to arm them all after declaring, so the king couldn't increase his REF in response to it.

I take it that the size of your army also worries the king, as well as the number of bells? Every time I get a new miliyary unit, he seems to respond by adding one himself.

Only the bells, that's the whole problem with the main exploit people found.

Only the bells, that's the whole problem with the main exploit people found.

In the original game, the king simply added to his troops over time, whatever you did or didn't do. So an early revolution was definitely desirable, but you didn't have to be afraid of generating liberty bells. The way the bells are tied to the size of the king's troops in Col II is simply insane. Stupid.

HISTORICLY seen the games balance is GREAT.

Sea blockade, strong open ground fights, no city defense (people inside being against u dont help u holding cities!), strong artilerie which doesnt help "in the woods".
And specialised rebel troops being great in crosscountry fight and finally just purly outnumbering REF forces.

Whats maybe not so great is that u can build own cavalerie too cheap and that it s really strong.

Overall you should not attack game because u r abusing it.
When playing the game "as it s supposed" only problem is the REF scalling with bells only and espacially the early growth problem if u produce some bells

HISTORICLY seen the games balance is GREAT.

Sea blockade, strong open ground fights, no city defense (people inside being against u dont help u holding cities!), strong artilerie which doesnt help "in the woods".
And specialised rebel troops being great in crosscountry fight and finally just purly outnumbering REF forces.

Whats maybe not so great is that u can build own cavalerie too cheap and that it s really strong.

Overall you should not attack game because u r abusing it.
When playing the game "as it s supposed" only problem is the REF scalling with bells only and espacially the early growth problem if u produce some bells

I shouldn't attack the game because I "abuse" it when I play to win it in the way it practically dictates that I do? You mean I should deliberately use a less efficient strategy? And what would that be, anyway? I'm supposed to abandon my coastal cities - isn't that a very limited way to play? And I have to do that because that's hwo the Continetal Army went about it? If it's the way I'm "meant" to play, then I'll permanently leave the game disc in the closet, which is where I just put it. because ain its present form, it swiftly becomes boring.

I don't care if the game is "great" historically, and anway, that is only true of the American War of Independence. If that's what it's all about, the game should be renamed "Sid Meier's Revolution! 1776".

Does anyone know if a patch is planned, or better yet expected anytime soon?

I love the first Col & am really looking forward to this, but just like Civ and Warlords and BTS, I am waiting until the first patch before I even bother to play it. Thank you all for the play testing you are dong for people like me, who are hoping to have an enjoyable experience first time we play this, instead of squandering the joy with frustration at the bugs and poorly thought out play balance :hatsoff:

Overall you should not attack game because u r abusing it.
When playing the game "as it s supposed" only problem is the REF scalling with bells only and espacially the early growth problem if u produce some bells

I don't really think you can talk about "abusing" or "exploiting" the game if the things you are "abusing" are primary game features... I mean we're not talking about small oversights but about excruciatingly bad design choices.

I shouldn't attack the game because I "abuse" it when I play to win it in the way it practically dictates that I do? You mean I should deliberately use a less efficient strategy? And what would that be, anyway? I'm supposed to abandon my coastal cities - isn't that a very limited way to play? And I have to do that because that's hwo the Continetal Army went about it? If it's the way I'm "meant" to play, then I'll permanently leave the game disc in the closet, which is where I just put it. because ain its present form, it swiftly becomes boring.

I don't care if the game is "great" historically, and anway, that is only true of the American War of Independence. If that's what it's all about, the game should be renamed "Sid Meier's Revolution! 1776".

Did you ever try your hands at mods? You might want to keep an eye on the Creation and Customization forum, I guess there will be some good mods addressing many of these issues fairly soon.

Did you ever try your hands at mods? You might want to keep an eye on the Creation and Customization forum, I guess there will be some good mods addressing many of these issues fairly soon.

I sincerely hope so. What really annoys me most of all is that if they hadn't been lazy and careless, this could have been a great game.

I've never played a mod before, but this could be the time when that changes.

In the original game, the king simply added to his troops over time, whatever you did or didn't do. So an early revolution was definitely desirable, but you didn't have to be afraid of generating liberty bells. The way the bells are tied to the size of the king's troops in Col II is simply insane. Stupid.

Exactly. There are many glaring issues with this game but this is the real killer. Once you figure this one thing out the whole game is hopelessly trivialized. I've played one game since figuring this out and have had no interest since. I went from facing an REF with 200/80/80/75 to 20/6/6/6. No challenge at all.

Another issue is it's so easy to just casually take over every competing civ's major cities it's ridiculous. Make a couple dragoons, one soldier and a cannon or two and you own the new world. Pathetic.

I'm really surprised at how half-assed this game is which is in total contrast to the high quality of Civ 4 and its expansions. I hope they'll make some effort to patch this disgrace. Otherwise I'll just hope the modders can come up with something. I think there's plenty of potential but it was just not given much work.

I'm really surprised at how half-assed this game is which is in total contrast to the high quality of Civ 4 and its expansions. I hope they'll make some effort to patch this disgrace. Otherwise I'll just hope the modders can come up with something. I think there's plenty of potential but it was just not given much work.

That was pretty much the feeling I had. The game concept definitely has a lot of potential but many design and implementation decisions are simply bad. And I really wonder how some of those issues didn't come up during testing... they probably only tested for crashes, not for gameplay.

On a brigth side, game never crash! I am really apriciate that, becaus esome game companies still produce product that crashh all the time.

On a brigth side, game never crash! I am really apriciate that, becaus esome game companies still produce product that crashh all the time.
Not completely true though. The game usually crashes for me if I put my computer in standby and resume it while I'm in full screen. But there is no problem if I tab out of the game before I put it in standby.

I'm happy to see that other people also share my view on the game and maybe they'll eventually fix it...

HISTORICLY seen the games balance is GREAT.

Sea blockade, strong open ground fights, no city defense (people inside being against u dont help u holding cities!), strong artilerie which doesnt help "in the woods".
And specialised rebel troops being great in crosscountry fight and finally just purly outnumbering REF forces.


As far as fighting is concerned I think you do have a point.

In fact I think part of the problem is that apparently the producers really did want the game to more closely resemble the historical background of the US War of Independence than the original game. To this end they adjusted some parts of the game but overdid it in some respects while totally omitting others. The end result is a game that is neither a real historical simulation (like say Sid's Gettysburg) nor a well balanced strategy game with good gameplay (like the original colonization).

Amongst others the issues that I mean are:

- Liberty Bells & Size of REF:

Historically this makes zero sense. The English didn't increase their army simply because people in the colonies were thinking about independence (which historically speaking very few people in the colonies did prior to late 1776 anyway). In fact the British were very loathsome to involve a bigger part of their army at all for most of the war which was one reason for the British loss.

- Lack of foreign interaction during the war:

Historically one of the main reasons for the American victory was that the colonists got major support from France and to a lesser degree from other European nations. Without the French the colonists would most likely have lost. This was also reflected in the original game since other nations would help you with troops. In this game once you declare independence you are totally on your own.

- Education:

How does it make sense that the time it takes to educate colonists increases with the number of colonists you trained earlier? This is neither historical nor does it make sense in terms of game play. If anything the colonies were able to train MORE specialists at LESS costs as time progressed while the game currently makes it almost impossible to train more than 5 or 6 specalists in your schools, colleges and universities.

Just wanted to comment/ask questions on a couple of issues you raise...


- Liberty Bells & Size of REF:

Historically this makes zero sense. The English didn't increase their army simply because people in the colonies were thinking about independence
(which historically speaking very few people in the colonies did prior to late 1776 anyway). In fact the British were very loathsome to involve a bigger part of their army at all for most of the war which was one reason for the British loss.

One effect of the liberty bell production on the size of the REF is that it encourages players to not produce any until the end....till they ramp up enough in order to survive...thus, de facto, following what you describe above...people not wanting to revolt till 1776. I agree that the REF feature is the one that feels most klunky to me...it'd be interesting to see alternatives...periodic shows of force by the mother country, different units (tax men) or something coming for visits, Tory spies, or something.


- Lack of foreign interaction during the war:

Historically one of the main reasons for the American victory was that the colonists got major support from France and to a lesser degree from other European nations. Without the French the colonists would most likely have lost. This was also reflected in the original game since other nations would help you with troops. In this game once you declare independence you are totally on your own.


So, are you implying then that communication should be open? I'm not sure how this would work given the mechanics of the game and the competition being other colonizers vying for the same land...although I can imagine France getting knocked out by Spain and then making a deal with Americans to support them...but stuff like that wouldn't happen every game. It'd give it more depth, though. Sometimes, I think that the problem with comparing this all to history is that history was just one specific game, whereas this allows for replayability in terms of unhistoric happenings.

I'm wondering if this game was 30 bucks because they didn't want to add those sorts of depth. Some people are talking about "sloppy programming" and I keep thinking this isn't a 50-60 dollar game. I can understand why people are complaining, though, because this isn't a game for newbs...Civ IV slowly ramped up the learning curve so you started with less to have to know and accrued knowledge and complexity. This game starts with all kinds of features that a player initially has no grasp of...it's game that expects you to be a gamer.

One effect of the liberty bell production on the size of the REF is that it encourages players to not produce any until the end....till they ramp up enough in order to survive...thus, de facto, following what you describe above...people not wanting to revolt till 1776. I agree that the REF feature is the one that feels most klunky to me...it'd be interesting to see alternatives...periodic shows of force by the mother country, different units (tax men) or something coming for visits, Tory spies, or something.


Actually historically it went the other way around. The British put ever more strain on the colonies to finance the British Army and as a result the resentment in the colonies grew. Actual calls for independence didn't come till after the siege of Boston didn't grow in force until the battles at Long Island.

As for the game....yes those periodic things would be a good way to spice up the game. In fact the financial demands by the king are somewhat supposed to be just that only it falls woefully short.


So, are you implying then that communication should be open? I'm not sure how this would work given the mechanics of the game and the competition being other colonizers vying for the same land...although I can imagine France getting knocked out by Spain and then making a deal with Americans to support them...but stuff like that wouldn't happen every game. It'd give it more depth, though. Sometimes, I think that the problem with comparing this all to history is that history was just one specific game, whereas this allows for replayability in terms of unhistoric happenings.

Have you played the original game? Back then once you declared for independence the other European nations would usually offer to support you with troops once you managed to produce a certain number of liberty bells. This was usually an essential part of the WoI because those troops could be very useful.

This is very much like what happened in reality. The French and other nations were at first tentative to support the colonies but once they saw that the colonies might actually stand a chance, they moved to support them. In the game this could be implemented via the liberty bells like in the original or it could be achieved by actually beating back the REF at one city or something like this.

It would especially make sense because for example if you could get your hands on foreign Man-o-Wars you might actually stand a realistic chance against the royal navy which right now you don't most of the time. Of course this has to be balanced not to make the game too easy, but IMO it worked brilliantly in the orignal so why shouldn't it do the same here?


I'm wondering if this game was 30 bucks because they didn't want to add those sorts of depth. Some people are talking about "sloppy programming" and I keep thinking this isn't a 50-60 dollar game. I can understand why people are complaining, though, because this isn't a game for newbs...Civ IV slowly ramped up the learning curve so you started with less to have to know and accrued knowledge and complexity. This game starts with all kinds of features that a player initially has no grasp of...it's game that expects you to be a gamer.

Actually I totally disagree. First of all this game was 30 bucks because essentially it is nothing more than a standalone mod for Civ IV. Some of the mods that are included in BtS are nearly as big as Colonization and you got them together with the AddOn.

As for why people are complaining: They aren't complaining because the game is too hard or too different from other games. They are complaining because there are things in this game that simply make no sense (education for example) and because unlike any other Civ game or the original colonization there is pretty much exactly ONE WAY to win all others simply don't work. That is frustrating to any veteran because that way the game is simply way too one dimensional and has nearly no replay value, something that has always been the great thing about Civ and Colonization.

My chief complaint is simply this:

It's rather obvious that a lot of design "decisions" that went into differentiating this game from the original Colonization aren't design decisions at all, but strictly workarounds the programmers came up with to make for Colonization-like gameplay within the existing CivIV engine.

And that concerns me, because those design differences are going to be the ones the modders have a very hard time getting around.

Personally, I was hoping for a near-verbatim port of the old game with a reskin and a multiplayer option.

My chief complaint is simply this:

It's rather obvious that a lot of design "decisions" that went into differentiating this game from the original Colonization aren't design decisions at all, but strictly workarounds the programmers came up with to make for Colonization-like gameplay within the existing CivIV engine.

And that concerns me, because those design differences are going to be the ones the modders have a very hard time getting around.

Personally, I was hoping for a near-verbatim port of the old game with a reskin and a multiplayer option.

Yup. So did I. We've been had.

My chief complaint is simply this:

It's rather obvious that a lot of design "decisions" that went into differentiating this game from the original Colonization aren't design decisions at all, but strictly workarounds the programmers came up with to make for Colonization-like gameplay within the existing CivIV engine.

And that concerns me, because those design differences are going to be the ones the modders have a very hard time getting around.

Personally, I was hoping for a near-verbatim port of the old game with a reskin and a multiplayer option.

Indeed.

If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

god, give the poor sods who slaved over this game to make it for us some credit. they presented us with a game they thought was good enough to play and will no doubt incorporate everybodies feedback into the patches for the game. no need to vilify the poor souls before even patch feckin 1.0000000001 is out.... jebus!

god, give the poor sods who slaved over this game to make it for us some credit. they presented us with a game they thought was good enough to play and will no doubt incorporate everybodies feedback into the patches for the game. no need to vilify the poor souls before even patch feckin 1.0000000001 is out.... jebus!

They made a buggy, unfinished game and then sold it to people in order to exploit them as beta testers. They didn't "slave over the game" out of a saintly desire to Do Mankind Good.

My chief complaint is simply this:

It's rather obvious that a lot of design "decisions" that went into differentiating this game from the original Colonization aren't design decisions at all, but strictly workarounds the programmers came up with to make for Colonization-like gameplay within the existing CivIV engine.

And that concerns me, because those design differences are going to be the ones the modders have a very hard time getting around.

Personally, I was hoping for a near-verbatim port of the old game with a reskin and a multiplayer option.

I don't think the design "decisions" were made as a workaround for the CIV engine. It took me exactly one evening to implement a REF that grows with time instead of liberty bells, is difficulty dependent and makes the "win in 30 turns on revolutionary"-exploit impossible. It might not be perfectly balanced, but at least I don't think its fundamentally broken.

Sure, some of the things that were in Col 1 might be difficult to implement with the CIV engine. But the broken REF mechanism for example can only be explained by incompetence.

Does anyone else suspect they ported the 1994 code over line for line?

Does anyone else suspect they ported the 1994 code over line for line?

That's the problem - Civ4Col would have been a much better game if they had restricted themselves to doing just that!

That's the problem - Civ4Col would have been a much better game if they had restricted themselves to doing just that!

Eaxtly. That + the better graphics + cultural borders + no longer removing one European competitor at a certain stage in the game + removing some bugs and the memory shortage, and we would have had a fantastic game.

On a brigth side, game never crash! I am really apriciate that, becaus esome game companies still produce product that crashh all the time.

Thats right, but it has a memory leak or something.
After I have played for a long time, it goes slower and slower.
Then i save and restart the game, its good and fast again. :rolleyes:

Yep, if they divert their forces you can take on smaller armies one at a time. If not, you can use a scorched earth strategy by expelling all colonists from the city leaving them almost no gain. When their main stack is gone you can take it back (I don't think any buildings are destroyed like the cultural ones in civ, so this is not a problem here)

Yes thats what i did in my last game.
Everyone was fighting! and they were fast as lightning! dudidudidudidu...

Pulled them all back to inland towns into jungles where friendly natives lived.
So the REF came after into jungles they lost many more units then, but they were too many for me, in the end they took it all. I think its because i pissed off the king too early in the game and had reached 50% rebel sentiment over long time and not declared independence at an early stage. His forces was like 100 soldiers 80 dragoons and 44 artilleries!! it kinda kills everything lol :lol:

I fought my independence only one time and I lost (but hey, it was my first time and I did a lot of things I shouldn't.) but i can see pretty much how easy it can be.

I'm not american, and I don't know much about their revolution, but I bet my balls that the colonists didn't have lots of dragoons divisions, wich are damn easy to get. Cannons too.

I can't say much because I gonna play it again right now, but theres one more thing. Did you guys noticed that the indepence bells icon is an early american flag? This game is totally completely based on what happened above Cuba and Mexico! You can't fight the REF the way Bolivar (the real one) did, I bet. I'm not complaining, but the historic facts that shook europe over in the reality should happen in the game, like an Bonaparte-like general attacking other countries. Let's say, instead of france, the Dutch attacked the hell of europe, and now the french colonies (and everybody else) are at stake.

Well, I can be talking shiat, but this game would be better if it were a LOT more randomized.

anyway, now I'll kick some REF asses. or not.

whoa, two-posted here, but this is dumb:

I started playing right after my previous post and found out on civilopedia that converted natives can't fight.

What the hell?

Lot's of Simon Bolivar's soldiers were natives! But none of the american colonists fought side-by-side with an apache.

Sid Meier's American Colonization, for sure!

whoa, two-posted here, but this is dumb:

I started playing right after my previous post and found out on civilopedia that converted natives can't fight.

What the hell?

Lot's of Simon Bolivar's soldiers were natives! But none of the american colonists fought side-by-side with an apache.

Sid Meier's American Colonization, for sure!Guare, the beauty of thisgame is that it's so easily customizable. You want Converted Natives to be able to fight? Change it! It's not "Cheating", bro. It's changing a feature which you disapprove of in order to make the game beter simulate the historical reality you're thinking of.

I'm at work right now (on a break); I don't have access to the game, so I'll go off memory.

It's in the XML files; UnitInfos, i think. Find Converted Native in there, look for DefendOnly set to 1 (it's called something like that, you'll recognize it when you see it). Change it to Zero, to deactivate it. This will make your Convert able to fight same as any normal Colonist. You can change his combat values if you want, though I think they're set to 2 same as any colonist, and there's a FF you can get who will boost their combat strength to be the same as a free colonist soldier.

Most of what I see people complain about in this game is stuff they can change themselves. Do so. Learn how, if you need to. It's pretty simple stuff. I know, I'm basically computer illiterate yet I can tweak ostanything in the XML files... ;)

ahnn ok, I'm probably more illiterate than you, but I'll take a look on these xml.

But hey, i'm not complaining: If Sid farts and he calls it a game, you bet I'm playing it! I'm just appointing that when this game was made, they were thinking only about the american rev. I dunno. Maybe i'm complaining because they forgot the folks down here.

Bah, anyway, sorry if I sound so picky.

Eaxtly. That + the better graphics + cultural borders + the removal of one European competitor at a certain stage in the game + removing some bugs and the memory shortage, and we would have had a fantastic game.


Yes. The problem its that the original colo was a perfect and completely balanced game. I dont mind if they want to change some things, but i expected that they make some sense.

For example I cant understand the new Horse production system or the simplified terrain.

Also the ending was better on the original, I loved that photo with all the colonist and the scoring system where they give a name to something in your honor. When i finally won the independence war i expected someting more.

PS Guare: if, by chance, you have probs converting the converted native to be able to fight alongside your other colonists, just let me know. I'm off all day Friday, and would post a reply here explaining how to do it (since I'd have full access to the actual game code, and wouldn't have to guess at file names).

Playing around with XML files is more fun than any human being should be allowed to have.... :D

Yes. The problem its that the original colo was a perfect and completely balanced game. I dont mind if they want to change some things, but i expected that they make some sense.

For example I cant understand the new Horse production system or the simplified terrain.

Also the ending was better on the original, I loved that photo with all the colonist and the scoring system where they give a name to something in your honor. When i finally won the independence war i expected someting more.I hate to be cynical, but for the first time ever I think the great Sid Meier just rushed a game out the door to make a quick buck.

Very anti-climactic, after waiting 14 years. For instance: the beauty, the elegance, the real-time excitement of the "alarm" system used by the Natives in Col1 should have (and could have) been carried over. Does anyone remember how PRECISE that system was? You could move just one Dragoon past a village and watch the green exclamation point super-imposed atop a village change shades. Move several dragoons, there would be MULTIPLE exclamation points. They'd go from green to blue to yellow to red, with a HUGE amount of varying shades in between. They reacted to the movements of your troops, and the closeness of your cities, in constant real-time fashion. GOD how I miss that. Never saw a better, more interesting AI warning system in any game, ever...

The good news: the fans of Col1 CAN--and I hope, will--customize this new, prettier version to be every bit as good as the original, in different ways.

Yes. The problem its that the original colo was a perfect and completely balanced game. I dont mind if they want to change some things, but i expected that they make some sense.

For example I cant understand the new Horse production system or the simplified terrain.

Also the ending was better on the original, I loved that photo with all the colonist and the scoring system where they give a name to something in your honor. When i finally won the independence war i expected someting more.

I agree with everything you say.

The new horse production system and the simplified terrain suck. And I also miss the colonialization score picture. "Wow, did I have that many fur trappers? And where does that convict live - I thought they had all been promoted to better things!"

And the movies are so stupid that I disabled them. The final one showing a cringeing British officer handing over the act of capitulation to an American officer proudly sitting on his horse is particularly annoying. For one thing, there definitely was a proper capitulation ceremony, since the officers on both sides were gentlemen, and for another, this short little item is so obviously something they told an "artist" to slap together in a day or two. On top of it, it's so childish. How old was the guy responsible for that extremely brief capitulation "movie" - fourteen?

Mind you, the jerky, crappy movies at the beginning and after your declaration of independence aren't very impressive either. Even that was handled better in the original game: the initial animation showing a ship navigating mysterious waters filled with mermaids and sea monsters to a very haunting tune until the ship reaches the New (and completely unknown) World, and then we hear a catchy western tune instead; the announcement of your DoI made by that frontier type adviser; the final scene showing jubilant people, fireworks and people throwing stones at the sign of the King's Head Inn - nothing more was needed, actually.

I hate to be cynical, but for the first time ever I think the great Sid Meier just rushed a game out the door to make a quick buck.

Very anti-climactic, after waiting 14 years. For instance: the beauty, the elegance, the real-time excitement of the "alarm" system used by the Natives in Col1 should have (and could have) been carried over. Does anyone remember how PRECISE that system was? You could move just one Dragoon past a village and watch the green exclamation point super-imposed atop a village change shades. Move several dragoons, there would be MULTIPLE exclamation points. They'd go from green to blue to yellow to red, with a HUGE amount of varying shades in between. They reacted to the movements of your troops, and the closeness of your cities, in constant real-time fashion. GOD how I miss that. Never saw a better, more interesting AI warning system in any game, ever...

You make me weep. Yes, that was ANOTHER fantastic feature in Col I. Considering how primitive computer games were in those days, it's amazing how much variety and depth and interest they managed to pack into the game.

Considering how easy it is, from a technical point of view, to produce a game with many features and lots of depth today... oh, well. Enough said.

And the movies are so stupid that I disabled them. The final one showing a cringeing British officer handing over the act of capitulation to an American officer proudly sitting on his horse is particularly annoying. For one thing, there definitely was a proper capitulation ceremony, since the officers on both sides were gentlemen, and for another, this short little item is so obviously something they told an "artist" to slap together in a day or two. On top of it, it's so childish. How old was the guy responsible for that extremely brief capitulation "movie" - fourteen?

Yeah. I didn't want to speak about that since im not british or American, I´m Spanish, but I dont like that those movies are completely oriented to show the American revolution. I would prefer different movies for each country or at least that they were more neutral. Its just a small detail but it will be great.

But dont misunderstand me. This Colo its not a bad game, Its a good game but the original was a Masterpiece (for me more balanced and perfect that the original Civilization) All changes had to be taken with extra care to not imbalance the game.

But dont misunderstand me. This Colo its not a bad game, Its a good game but the original was a Masterpiece (for me more balanced and perfect that the original Civilization) All changes had to be taken with extra care to not imbalance the game.

I know. There were many of us who expected a game that was as good as, or even better than, the original. Instead, we got one of those games that get put away fairly soon... not least by the game reviewers in those on line game magazines, I suspect.

I know. There were many of us who expected a game that was as good as, or even better than, the original. Instead, we got one of those games that get put away fairly soon... not least by the game reviewers in those on line game magazines, I suspect.

Here's hoping they won't butcher Alpha Centauri v2 :rolleyes:

PS Guare: if, by chance, you have probs converting the converted native to be able to fight alongside your other colonists, just let me know. I'm off all day Friday, and would post a reply here explaining how to do it (since I'd have full access to the actual game code, and wouldn't have to guess at file names).

Playing around with XML files is more fun than any human being should be allowed to have.... :D

wow, dude, sorry, but I only touched my pc today. 0__o

A major problem for is that the only way to victory is not only militaristic at the end, but on the way too. It would be nice to have a peaceful option.

A major problem for is that the only way to victory is not only militaristic at the end, but on the way too. It would be nice to have a peaceful option.

There is a peaceful option. Don't start your WOI and hope that nobody else wins their WOI and make sure you have the highest score.

I just had an idea. You can play nice nice with the king the entire game and when any other colony starts their WOI you can declare war on them and make them fight a two front war! its a nice way of making sure that you can win a non Revolution win. Then again that isn't very peaceful... hmmm...