Öjevind Lång
Deity
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,371
In Strategy and Tips, I posted some positive and some negative opinions about Col II because I didn't know where else to put it. I am now posting this here. Yes, it is a rant - or rather, in my opinion, a justified complaint.
When I started playing Col II, I was surprised at some of the changes. Some of them were excellent, such as only having to equip a pioneer with tools once; that meant relief from some very annoying micromanagement. The feature that Indians train experts an indefinite number of times felt nice too, though it made training your population (a very important feature in the original game) somewhat superfluous. You can even tell Indian converts to train with the Indians, and then they become European specialists! I approved of the fact that one can now capture enemy pioneers; they are simply the workers from Civ IV. And I was happy to see that they had done away with the silly way one could get lots of new colonists by simply capturing enemy soldiers.
Other changes made me disappointed. Examples are the drastic cutting down on the time at your disposal to win the game from 1850 to 1792; the fact that fighting wars with your rivals simply isn't practical; the circumstance that the king's wars in Europe no longer influence what happens in the New World. He no longer turns up, cancels your peace treaty with another colonizer and gives you some money and troops (less of both as the game proceeds) to fight the war. In Col II, you are in practice independent from the very beginning, except for the obligation to pay taxes. Also, the tax raises have become much more drastic and become unendurable very early on.
However, I have now realized that these changes are there primarily because the game designers have streamlined Colonization into a scenario which must be played in one way, and one way only, with no distractions. The original Colonization was a game with one ultimate goal - independence - but it could be played in different ways. There was the period of settlement and exploration, the period of building up your colonies, then probably wars with your European rivals and finally preparing for the war for independence. You could play at a rather leisurely pace, having some fun during each period, and the king did not rack up taxes at such an insane pace. As I said, you also had until 1850 to win. But now, from the moment you land, the king is the enemy and you don't even have time for much in the way of warfare with other colonizers because you must focus on the rebellion at once. Building up your economy? Pooh, pooh, that is for after your declaration of independence. All you need to do is found some inland settlements that the king's troops can't reach because you also have lots of troops that are at an advantage in the rugged terrain. And you have to use the strategy used in the American War for Independence, that is to say, abandon the coastal cities, retreat inland and fight a guerilla war. You are also rather obviously meant to use George Washington to win; the other leaders are window dressing. (OK, here insert your description of how you won the game playing as Frontenac; I don't care. Washington is clearly the default choice.)
The king's increase of the Royal Expeditonary force is now tied to the number of liberty bells you produce, so you are actually supposed to keep that down until just before your DoI. If you get statesmen, keep them away from the town hall. Build schools and let other colonists train as statesmen, but don't put them into the town hall until you are ready for a rush towards 50% revolutionary sentiment and a DoI. This is plain silly.
They have even introduced that very annoying "The end of the game is approaching!" notification on the screen. I really hate that one, in Civ IV or any other game. Do they think we are morons? We can figure out for ourselves when the end of the game is approaching.
I don't like to buy a "game" which is actually not even a mod of Civ IV but a scenario. How many times can one play a scenario?
For those who would claim that the game is a standalone game, not a mod or a scenario, let me quote from the official Colonization website. The first sentense under "Information" reads: "GAME OVERVIEW. Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Colonization is the third offering in the award winning Civilization IV series." Now, "the third offering" means an expansion pack, but it clearly isn't even that. It could be claimed to be a mod, but it is too narrow for that. Many mods are able of much more varied playing than Col II. It's a senario, pure and simple.
I am very disappointed. This was not what I expected. And I hope no one will turn up to tell me that the strategy described is the one actually used by the rebellious Americans, because that is beside the point. This game is supposed to be about the colonial experience of other nationalities too. Saying that "the Latin Americans could keep onto their coastal cities because the Spanish army was in bad shape" is uninteresting. One *should* be able to win using more than one strategy. That is known as "variability".
So what would I want? Why, a game that plays at the more leisurely pace, with the old time limit of 1850, the old Colonization score at the end, and without the absolutely insane city-capturing ability that the Royal Expeditionary force now enjoys. They are super-swordsmen! An added option to win independence by peaceful means (that is to say, skilful economic and diplomatic manoeuvring) would also have been nice.
When I started playing Col II, I was surprised at some of the changes. Some of them were excellent, such as only having to equip a pioneer with tools once; that meant relief from some very annoying micromanagement. The feature that Indians train experts an indefinite number of times felt nice too, though it made training your population (a very important feature in the original game) somewhat superfluous. You can even tell Indian converts to train with the Indians, and then they become European specialists! I approved of the fact that one can now capture enemy pioneers; they are simply the workers from Civ IV. And I was happy to see that they had done away with the silly way one could get lots of new colonists by simply capturing enemy soldiers.
Other changes made me disappointed. Examples are the drastic cutting down on the time at your disposal to win the game from 1850 to 1792; the fact that fighting wars with your rivals simply isn't practical; the circumstance that the king's wars in Europe no longer influence what happens in the New World. He no longer turns up, cancels your peace treaty with another colonizer and gives you some money and troops (less of both as the game proceeds) to fight the war. In Col II, you are in practice independent from the very beginning, except for the obligation to pay taxes. Also, the tax raises have become much more drastic and become unendurable very early on.
However, I have now realized that these changes are there primarily because the game designers have streamlined Colonization into a scenario which must be played in one way, and one way only, with no distractions. The original Colonization was a game with one ultimate goal - independence - but it could be played in different ways. There was the period of settlement and exploration, the period of building up your colonies, then probably wars with your European rivals and finally preparing for the war for independence. You could play at a rather leisurely pace, having some fun during each period, and the king did not rack up taxes at such an insane pace. As I said, you also had until 1850 to win. But now, from the moment you land, the king is the enemy and you don't even have time for much in the way of warfare with other colonizers because you must focus on the rebellion at once. Building up your economy? Pooh, pooh, that is for after your declaration of independence. All you need to do is found some inland settlements that the king's troops can't reach because you also have lots of troops that are at an advantage in the rugged terrain. And you have to use the strategy used in the American War for Independence, that is to say, abandon the coastal cities, retreat inland and fight a guerilla war. You are also rather obviously meant to use George Washington to win; the other leaders are window dressing. (OK, here insert your description of how you won the game playing as Frontenac; I don't care. Washington is clearly the default choice.)
The king's increase of the Royal Expeditonary force is now tied to the number of liberty bells you produce, so you are actually supposed to keep that down until just before your DoI. If you get statesmen, keep them away from the town hall. Build schools and let other colonists train as statesmen, but don't put them into the town hall until you are ready for a rush towards 50% revolutionary sentiment and a DoI. This is plain silly.
They have even introduced that very annoying "The end of the game is approaching!" notification on the screen. I really hate that one, in Civ IV or any other game. Do they think we are morons? We can figure out for ourselves when the end of the game is approaching.
I don't like to buy a "game" which is actually not even a mod of Civ IV but a scenario. How many times can one play a scenario?
For those who would claim that the game is a standalone game, not a mod or a scenario, let me quote from the official Colonization website. The first sentense under "Information" reads: "GAME OVERVIEW. Sid Meier's Civilization IV: Colonization is the third offering in the award winning Civilization IV series." Now, "the third offering" means an expansion pack, but it clearly isn't even that. It could be claimed to be a mod, but it is too narrow for that. Many mods are able of much more varied playing than Col II. It's a senario, pure and simple.
I am very disappointed. This was not what I expected. And I hope no one will turn up to tell me that the strategy described is the one actually used by the rebellious Americans, because that is beside the point. This game is supposed to be about the colonial experience of other nationalities too. Saying that "the Latin Americans could keep onto their coastal cities because the Spanish army was in bad shape" is uninteresting. One *should* be able to win using more than one strategy. That is known as "variability".
So what would I want? Why, a game that plays at the more leisurely pace, with the old time limit of 1850, the old Colonization score at the end, and without the absolutely insane city-capturing ability that the Royal Expeditionary force now enjoys. They are super-swordsmen! An added option to win independence by peaceful means (that is to say, skilful economic and diplomatic manoeuvring) would also have been nice.
