Anyone still playing Civ4Col?

I couldn't start playing til a week or so ago, so I'm enjoying it immensely.

Colonization I is my favourite game of all times along with Dune II. I played the new version for a week and then put it on the shelf.

I'm really disappointed of Firaxis and will think twice before buying another game from them.

Dale's mod is what Civ4Col should have been.

Welcome to the Forums Nai.

I think it's great, but it sure takes some getting used to. The game designers basically said, "And now for something completely different..." when they created C4Col. And it's like we're the lab rats in their experiment.

In previous incarnations of Civ, more was always better. To discourage unwieldy empires of 50-100 cities, the designers added inefficiency, drones, etc. But bigger was still better.

But Turinturambar's strategy showed us just how different C4Col is. Small and quick may be better than fielding a large army. The designers deliberately designed the game that way, though I doubt they expected anyone could win so quickly at the highest difficulty level.

Just look at all the design factors which discourage massive empire and revolutionary delay: crosses lose their value, education loses its value, larger cities take far more liberty bells to reach 50%, wealthy productivity leads to high taxes which leads to less income, and last but certainly not least, the REF can grow to a ridiculous size unless you're very careful.

Our old Civ habits die hard, and we're accustomed to growing big empires just for fun. And it seems there's so much fun to be had in this brand new world of C4Col, too. What a shock when we see just how different the game really is. Diminishing returns, and increasing taxes and REF, means that our new world quickly becomes less and less pleasurable.

So I think the designers succeeded. Bigger definitely ain't better in this game. I still like the pleasure of this new world, though. Just because there's a 40-turn strategy doesn't mean I have to use it. But I do have to create my revolution sooner than I'd like, given my old relaxed Civ habits. There's a good compromise in there somewhere, probably about halfway between the instant revolution and the old massive Civ strategy.

And that's why playing the game is so challenging -- because C4Col really is so different. I don't really care which strategy works quickest, or which generates the highest score. No, instead I'd rather discover which strategy makes the game the most fun (both before the revolution, and during the Big War).

For that's the other difference. Peace is not an option, at least not for the entire game. Ya gotta win the war.

In these forums, I've observed that a lot of newbies get discouraged because the game is so hard, even on Pilgrim. Others, more expert in Civ-style combat, say the game's too easy to win quickly, even on the hardest levels.

To the discouraged newbies, I'd say that the game takes a lot of getting used to, because it's the opposite of Civ at the strategic level. And to the military experts, I'd counter by saying that Civ has always pretty much sucked as a tactical wargame. The AI has always been so dumb that you could beat it pretty easily. But that didn't stop us from loving Civ.

C4Col is a beautiful game set in a beautiful world. We don't get to relax and enjoy it for long though, do we?

IfNecessary: Have you even played Col I? I'm getting tired of all comparisons to Civilization. This game has NOTHING to do with Civ, except that it uses the same interface.

Col II is pretty much like Col I except that it's unbalanced, unlogical and boring. It was much easier to defend a small empire of six colonies, than to defend a giant empire with colonies all over the map.

Basicly, there were two ways of getting a good score:

Option 1: Build a small empire empire with a few really productive cities, buy what you need and try to outrush your opponents. Declare independence in 1650 or something like that.

Option 2: Settle near Inca or Aztecs, build tons of farming colonies and collect food. Educate farmers in their capital and grow food. These empires start out slow, but become really powerful after a while. When your opponents have 30 rebels or something like that, send a massive army to their colonies and crush them so that they never get the chance of achieving independence.

In other words: It was possible to choose if you wanted to build a small nation or a giant empire. There were no shortcuts. You could play whatever game you wanted to play, without having to pretend.

In Col II, I have to pretend that the opponents are tough and I have to pretend that I have to fight a 500 unit expedition force in order to win.

I remember how fun it was when I was a kid and my brothers brought home a new game. We all competed against each other and tried out new tactics when we were alone. Colonization II is broken and therefore not fun.

I'm sure many people enjoy Dale's patch, but to me these fan mods are like making your own crossword puzzles. To me the fun is to learn how to play the game; not to teach the game how to be played.

Bad Brett said:

I'm sure many people enjoy Dale's patch, but to me these fan mods are like making your own crossword puzzles. To me the fun is to learn how to play the game; not to teach the game how to be played.

Click to expand...

I don't agree at all. Mods like Dale's Ago of Discovery II improve the gameplay by a huge amount, and when you know you're going to have to invest loads of hours in the game, improving the gameplay is always good.

Now that I've found a few good mods, I never play the vanilla version any more.

Although I agree somewhat with Bad Brett's comparisons to Civ1, you gotta admit that Col1 was also a tedious game of micromanagement that got more and more tedious the more cities you had to juggle. I liked it for that - micromanagement is a kind of fun in and of itself, and for a few hours you can lose yourself in the mindless clicking. Civ4Col is similar in that way. It's a micromanager's dream.

Love it! --- Wheldrake

Wheldrake said:

IAlthough I agree somewhat with Bad Brett's comparisons to Civ1, you gotta admit that Col1 was also a tedious game of micromanagement that got more and more tedious the more cities you had to juggle. I liked it for that - micromanagement is a kind of fun in and of itself, and for a few hours you can lose yourself in the mindless clicking.

Click to expand...

I disagree. I think Col I was (and still is) great fun; I love building up my colonies and have a flourishing empire by the time I decide to declare independence. I dislike the encircling dragoons and some other silly things, but what I still marvel at is the glories of a game that doesn't need one tenth of the resources of Col II - and yet it is richer.

Greybriar said:

Yes, I am still playing Civ4Col. But not as much as I used to.

I've been much too busy adventuring with my new Death Knight in World of Warcraft. He is so uber!

Click to expand...

Rock on! What server? I'm Alliance on Lightninghoof.

Bad Brett said:

IfNecessary: Have you even played Col I? I'm getting tired of all comparisons to Civilization. This game has NOTHING to do with Civ, except that it uses the same interface.

Click to expand...

Though I agree with you, I have some sympathy for those people who expected ColII to have something to do with civ, given the Publisher's(?) decision to put "Civlization IV" in the title. Oops Firaxis.

Also wouldn't you call it the engine that's common? I thought the interface was different enough to be called different, if you know what I mean.

I do not play the game much anymore. Too boring for me. For me many of the orginial Col 1 things were better.
1. The graphics in Col 1 where better. Why do I say this. Because it was simple and easy to use. In Col 2, sometimes the settlement gets so big, I cannot see the ground around it. Spare me the high 3D graphics, the older 2D ones were find and did the job.
2. In Col 1 you could improve upon the inital square of the settlement. You could clear the forest on it if you wanted, and you could build a farm on it. In Col 2, you cannot do that. Big disappoint there.
3. Col 1 never seemed to be a game of rushing to get to independence. Heck you did not have to declare it. But Col 2 makes independence one of the biggest parts of the game. And all it seems as if at turn 1, I am getting ready for the War of Independence.
4. Col 1 had the custom house, and better system of being able to select your founding father of your choice from a list. Col 2 is in no way like that.
5. In Col 1 you could abandon your settlement. In Col 2 you cannot. So if you press the wrong button and build in the wrong spot by accident there is not much you can do about it. Big flaw there.
6. From my memory in Col 1 roads provided a benefit more than just increasing movement.
7. In Col 1, defenses actually provided you with a good defense. In Col 2, you have to attack the King before he can strike the settlement. But in Col 1, you could sit back and let the King try to get you by going through your fortress or other defense.

That is just what I think.

I was expecting just an enhancement and improvement over the old one. Add a few new features in, such as being able to play as the Natives, add other nations, and perhaps a few new units and buildings. Heck even the addition of slaves to the game would have made me happy. Not because I like slavery or anything, but because it would have made the game more realistic.

Guess I got to wait around for Col 3 if there ever is one, most likely in another 30 years or something.

Commander Cody said:

I do not play the game much anymore. Too boring for me. For me many of the orginial Col 1 things were better.
1. The graphics in Col 1 where better. Why do I say this. Because it was simple and easy to use. In Col 2, sometimes the settlement gets so big, I cannot see the ground around it. Spare me the high 3D graphics, the older 2D ones were find and did the job.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there's two sides to that story. We went through it when Civ4 came out.

2. In Col 1 you could improve upon the inital square of the settlement. You could clear the forest on it if you wanted, and you could build a farm on it. In Col 2, you cannot do that. Big disappoint there.

Click to expand...

In C4C your centre tile is already updated. No need to do that now. A big improvement IMHO.

3. Col 1 never seemed to be a game of rushing to get to independence. Heck you did not have to declare it. But Col 2 makes independence one of the biggest parts of the game. And all it seems as if at turn 1, I am getting ready for the War of Independence.

Click to expand...

But that's the goal of the game. To create a nation capable of self-sustinance and break away from the Motherland.

4. Col 1 had the custom house, and better system of being able to select your founding father of your choice from a list. Col 2 is in no way like that.

Click to expand...

The custom house was the most flawed concept in gaming history. There was such a problem with CH's I'm glad they're gone.

In Col1 a FF could be present in numerous nations. NOT logical. A FF only exists once. The new method is logical.

5. In Col 1 you could abandon your settlement. In Col 2 you cannot. So if you press the wrong button and build in the wrong spot by accident there is not much you can do about it. Big flaw there.

Click to expand...

That was one of the biggest exploits in history. Scout finds treasure, settles, ships treasure, disbands, continues searching.

6. From my memory in Col 1 roads provided a benefit more than just increasing movement.

Click to expand...

Can't remember TBH.

7. In Col 1, defenses actually provided you with a good defense. In Col 2, you have to attack the King before he can strike the settlement. But in Col 1, you could sit back and let the King try to get you by going through your fortress or other defense.

Click to expand...

In reality, the militia of the revolutionary forces were no match to the British in urban warfare. I think it reflects correctly the true nature of combat in the era. Reliance on guerilla tactics should be the path to victory.

That's what I think.

That's a lot of ground to cover and it's too late for me to comment on everything mentioned. I will say that in the original Colonization roads increased the production of timber and furs IIRC in addition to movement.

As for the rest, well, let's just say that I think there are times when some inaccuracies, game flaws, and/or "exploits" make a game more fun.

Greybriar said:

That's a lot of ground to cover and it's too late for me to comment on everything mentioned. I will say that in the original Colonization roads increased the production of timber and furs IIRC in addition to movement.

As for the rest, well, let's just say that I think there are times when some inaccuracies, game flaws, and/or "exploits" make a game more fun.

Click to expand...

I agree. The custom house was such an "imbalanace" or "exploit". Love it.

Greybriar said:

That's a lot of ground to cover and it's too late for me to comment on everything mentioned. I will say that in the original Colonization roads increased the production of timber and furs IIRC in addition to movement.

As for the rest, well, let's just say that I think there are times when some inaccuracies, game flaws, and/or "exploits" make a game more fun.

Click to expand...

Yup that was the benefit. As for the "exploit" or so called inaccuracies. It made the game more fun. To me it was time consuming having to move ships around to just transport goods back to Europe. So the custom house for me, was more of a convience factor. Heck it just allowed me to use my ships for military and what not.

Someone mentioned about the exploit of building a colony for 1 turn, just to be able to send the gold to europe faster. Well I never really saw that as too much of an exploit, as unless you had a gallon to get it to that colony, you still had to pay the 50% commission fee. So you got the gold a few turns faster if anything, nothing too big of a deal, espically as anyone could do that.

havent played it since turkey day

Yes. Still playing, but I think my wife, who plays no other game, is about to go back to the original I am about to give Dale's mod a try - that might save the game.

Can't comment on Civ. I found the first issue of this game such a bore that I have not looked at it since. Colonization was so much better. Pity Col2 now comes AT LAST almost as a patch to Civ, which to be corny was never a patch on it...ho..ho.

And, after so long, a bit disappointing. I am counting on Dale now!!!!...but why??

I actually started playing Col just a couple of days ago. Right now I find it pretty frustrating to play. I've played 3 games and lost each one, but I'll keep trying. :/

I just bought the game last weekend (after returning some Christmas gifts). I've only played a few games...it's entertaining. I never played the original Colonization game so I don't feel the letdown some of you have. I'll probably play the vanilla version for awhile then switch over to Dale's mod & try that later on.

No, I'm waiting on a patch. Oh and that applies to firaxis purchases as well, none till this is patched.

Dale said:

But that's the goal of the game. To create a nation capable of self-sustinance and break away from the Motherland.

Click to expand...

No, seriously we been over this.

The goal of the game is to fight the war of independence as quickly and exploitively as possible NOT to create an independent and successful nation that breaks away from the motherland.

An independent and successful nation is actually PUNISHED, not rewarded.

In Col1 a FF could be present in numerous nations. NOT logical. A FF only exists once. The new method is logical.

Click to expand...

Ahh logic so misused. Nothing illogical about the same founding father existing in more then one place at the same time. No different to the King talking to me via video phone hookup

Perhaps you meant NOT reality??

But then we cant really apply reality to a magical dude who only comes when you do enough exploring or fighting etc to build up ya mana supply to an arbitrary point which you can then use to summon him or wait to summon a more powerful dude.

Once there he then uses his extraordinary powers for you for free! Which is great you dont even need to feed him virgins or anything.

That was one of the biggest exploits in history. Scout finds treasure, settles, ships treasure, disbands, continues searching.

Click to expand...

I dont support removing a useful function to remove an exploit. Patch the exploit some other way.

In reality, the militia of the revolutionary forces were no match to the British in urban warfare. I think it reflects correctly the true nature of combat in the era. Reliance on guerilla tactics should be the path to victory.

Click to expand...

I assume you meant no match for the british in the FIELD ie out in the open which has nothing to do with guarding a fortress or guerilla tactics. Militia is no better with guerilla tactics or fortress guarding, it just has more of a natural advantage, which is NOT reflected in the game.

The crap militia is why the US made an army, some guy, i forget, was called washing machine or something, and had mercenaries like hessian sacks or something and made soldiers, like units you get now in game, only they dont work right.

I think the game engine cant at all reflect the nature of war at the time and the importantance of sieges, mercenaries, training proper armies, of naval assistance and of foriegn intervention in all its forms.

But I think its sad that they never even made the effort

centrelink4 said:

The goal of the game is to fight the war of independence as quickly and exploitively as possible NOT to create an independent and successful nation that breaks away from the motherland.

An independent and successful nation is actually PUNISHED, not rewarded.

Click to expand...

That might be your goal but it is certainly not mine. I play this game (and any game) for enjoyment. Creating an 'independent and successful nation' is exactly what I like most about Col2. Exploring, trading, colony management and combat make for varied and engrossing gameplay. If you prefer to use exploits to win, well you are entitled to - it is your game so you can play it any way you like. But don't assume that yours is the only way to play.