Sadly, Grade "F" for Civ IV: Colonization

[ChrTh]

Let's back up a second.

I think TFVanguard has a legitimate point here.

It seems to me that 'saving bells for the late game' seems counterintuitive to a game that forces independence as the sole victory condition. Yes I understand why it generates more troops. Yes I understand there is actually similar analogues in Civ itself wherein if you generate more troops the other Civs respond in kind (although not as directly obvious). But at the same time it's deeply annoying that you have to shift gears.

Here's another Civ IV analogue that illustrates it: a cultural victory. The best way to win a cultural victory is to horde Great Artists and then have them do great works all together on the same turn to help you get over the respective city limits for victory without giving the AI to mass attack (which they will do if you slowly work towards a cultural victory). But doing this is so counterintuitive to reality; it takes you out of the 'realism' of the game. You're no longer playing Civilization, you're gaming the computer.

Now, that's not the only way to gain a cultural victory; but it's a strategy that is most effective in providing an easier victory. As with saving the bells and holding down the REF to make the end game easier on you.

And just as there are other ways to win via cultural victory, there are other ways to win at Colonization. But they're harder, and maybe even impossible at the higher difficulty levels. While it's not a gamebreaker (and does not warrant an F in my opinion), this emerging strategy is concerning.

 

[Dale]

I have never said it's the ONLY option, and I've won other methods just as easily against REF's of 200-250. So it's not a case of "this is the only way to win easily". There are different ways to play.

My point is that TFVanguard is judging the game on one thing. He played a certain way, and got stung. I believe it's a case of not reading up on how things work in Col2 (I won't assume "bad strategy").

To get a REF of 500 you obviously have to be generating bells from the start (and a hellova LOT of bells too from many colonies). Yes, a very valid tactic in Col1, and even has a place in Col2, but you need to be aware of the consequences of doing that. Also, could those statesmen have been better used as tobacco planters, or gunsmiths. You need to think on defenses of that many colonies as well, which it sounds like wasn't enough.

The player in question used one method, failed and judged the entire game on that experience. I'm trying to point out there are other ways. The particular strategy I pointed out to counter his experience (that the REF is too massive to win against) is only one method of winning.

A similar thing would be for me to go to Nottingham versus Manchester soccer and judge the entire sport on that one match.

 

[TFVanguard]

I have never said it's the ONLY option, and I've won other methods just as easily against REF's of 200-250. So it's not a case of "this is the only way to win easily". There are different ways to play.

Then why is your whole retort "You're just a noob who is playing it wrong!" I'm judging a major failure of the game. The whole point of the game is to build up to independence, right? You're saying to 'game the system' to explicitly NOT do that (and forgo some very important bonuses and modifiers) to keep down the bells from the home country.

You also go on to assume that I didn't have enough troops (I had well over 20 in each colony, and just as many dragoons huntin' down stragglers). And, even then, this slog fest took over 100 turns. One hundred turns. If I wanted to do that I would play one of my old Talonsoft games.

I'm saying that in reasonable play, the bells should not generate that many troops on the easiest level of the game. You're defending the game by saying "You're not playing it right. You're doing wronggame. Go do rightgame, despite it going against the theme of the game, and you'll have fun."

I'm sorry, I wanted to play "I want to build my colonial empire" not "guess how the database engine is busted and game it".

 

[ACEofHeart]

The whole concept of "Bells" is what makes the game more of a puzzle than Strategy.. How many Bells,, How soon etc .. it just makes no common sense. The Homeland doesn't get nervous when you purchase Cannons and Troops but gets worried if you put someone in the Bells category ?? oh please
Why is it you can early on you can build a blacksmith, weapons ,an armory and a fort , but you still have to purchase those mercenaries from the Homeland as oppose to just start training your own citizens to be soldiers.. ??
Guess I don't get that part either..
I find this version as a fun little Civ 4 scenario about Native tribes and trading and attracting Founding Fathers,, not as an overall good strategy game.. It never reworked what was needed from the original to change my opinion on it.. sorry
Am happy for those you do enjoy it though..

 

[Dale]

Then why is your whole retort "You're just a noob who is playing it wrong!" I'm judging a major failure of the game.

That's putting words in my mouth. I said that from what you were describing that you need to research the game more so you know what to expect. I didn't say you were playing it wrong, (note above that I say 'I won't assume "bad strategy"') I was pointing out your claim is incorrect and provided some evidence to counter your point.

I think it has been plainly obvious that you're pissy you got pwned. And considering that the game gives every feedback in regards to the size of the King's army (message such as he recruited artillery) and an ENTIRE SCREEN devoted to giving you this information, I'm am totally surprised you were so off guard. Another reason I ask if you read the manual.

The whole point of the game is to build up to independence, right? You're saying to 'game the system' to explicitly NOT do that (and forgo some very important bonuses and modifiers) to keep down the bells from the home country.

I provided one example against yours of how to win the game. There are others.

You also go on to assume that I didn't have enough troops (I had well over 20 in each colony, and just as many dragoons huntin' down stragglers). And, even then, this slog fest took over 100 turns. One hundred turns. If I wanted to do that I would play one of my old Talonsoft games.

How many colonies, 15+? (I say that based on the fact you generated so much REF which implies a lot of bells from a lot of colonies) That's a lot of land to defend in Col2. Another difference to Col1. Another reason for you to try a different tactic. Can I just ask, did you end up chasing your tail a lot of the time?

I'm saying that in reasonable play, the bells should not generate that many troops on the easiest level of the game. You're defending the game by saying "You're not playing it right. You're doing wronggame. Go do rightgame, despite it going against the theme of the game, and you'll have fun."

Once again, more words in my mouth. I have tried to let you know of other ways to play the game. I provide one example and you latch onto that. I'm sorry, but you're coming off as more of a sore-loser now.

I'm sorry, I wanted to play "I want to build my colonial empire" not "guess how the database engine is busted and game it".

You need to try some different tactics to see how they affect the game. You chose one tactic and found how that tactic influences the end-game.

 

[Dryhad]

Let's back up a second.

I think TFVanguard has a legitimate point here.

It seems to me that 'saving bells for the late game' seems counterintuitive to a game that forces independence as the sole victory condition. Yes I understand why it generates more troops. Yes I understand there is actually similar analogues in Civ itself wherein if you generate more troops the other Civs respond in kind (although not as directly obvious). But at the same time it's deeply annoying that you have to shift gears.

Here's another Civ IV analogue that illustrates it: a cultural victory. The best way to win a cultural victory is to horde Great Artists and then have them do great works all together on the same turn to help you get over the respective city limits for victory without giving the AI to mass attack (which they will do if you slowly work towards a cultural victory). But doing this is so counterintuitive to reality; it takes you out of the 'realism' of the game. You're no longer playing Civilization, you're gaming the computer.

Now, that's not the only way to gain a cultural victory; but it's a strategy that is most effective in providing an easier victory. As with saving the bells and holding down the REF to make the end game easier on you.

And just as there are other ways to win via cultural victory, there are other ways to win at Colonization. But they're harder, and maybe even impossible at the higher difficulty levels. While it's not a gamebreaker (and does not warrant an F in my opinion), this emerging strategy is concerning.

I don't see why holding back on Liberty Bells is "counterintuitive to reality". To me it seems ridiculous that the viceroy of the New World, immediately upon founding a new colony in the name of the King would say "Ok, lets get that rebel sentiment going. I'm looking ahead hundreds of years to our war of independence". That's absurd! That's what makes Civ4's cultural victory unrealistic, the idea of devoting your entire game towards getting three cities with legendary culture. That's the kind of arbitrary goal that only appears in games (as compared with, say, Space Race or Conquest, which require what seems to me more natural gameplay). I'm glad to hear that you don't need to produce liberty bells from turn 1, and even that it's disadvantageous to do so. One of my concerns with the game's realism was that you'd be encouraged to try for independence the entire game (what with it being the victory condition and all) and it's good to hear that that isn't necessarily the case.

 

[Randolph]

I'm not sure fighting off a force of 500 would be that terrible. In the first (and only) game I finished (Conquistador ), I fought off a force of 150 quite handily, and I think I could do it even more efficiently next time. Like in CIV once you get the meat grinder going, you just need to have a reasonably steady supply of reinforcements and you're pretty much unstoppable.

 

[Rexflex]

The whole concept of "Bells" is what makes the game more of a puzzle than Strategy.. How many Bells,, How soon etc .. it just makes no common sense. The Homeland doesn't get nervous when you purchase Cannons and Troops but gets worried if you put someone in the Bells category ?? oh please

I don't agree. What would make a boss more nervous - that one of their subordinates has been buying lots of guns, or that they have been talking about going on a shooting rampage? The guns need never be aimed back at the European homeland and in fact may alternatively be used against the homeland's enemies.

 

[GodBen]

Here's another Civ IV analogue that illustrates it: a cultural victory. The best way to win a cultural victory is to horde Great Artists and then have them do great works all together on the same turn to help you get over the respective city limits for victory without giving the AI to mass attack (which they will do if you slowly work towards a cultural victory). But doing this is so counterintuitive to reality; it takes you out of the 'realism' of the game. You're no longer playing Civilization, you're gaming the computer.

I could not agree with this more. It is something that happened in Civ IV that I never noticed in all the Civ games that came before. I started playing with Civ II, then I went back and purchased Civ I and Col 1 and the great things about those games was the fact that you could build an empire in your image. That was the original concept of the game, Sim City but on a larger scale. Civ IV can be very frustrating in that respect as if you don't have a strategy in place from the very beginning then you lose. And that's okay, it provides a challenge, Civ IV has definitely been the most challenging Civ game I've played.

The Greeks, the Romans, the Mongols, the British, the Americans... these empires didn't start off with a strategy to "win", they were empires that formed naturally... and then they fell naturally, hence voiding my argument I guess.

The English pilgrims that moved to the New World didn't have a grand plan for independence the moment they stepped off the boat. Dissent happened slowly over time, it wasn't something that happened very quickly after they had built up an army just because the leaders of the colonies wanted it. What sort of example would it be if the "greatest" democracy on Earth was formed not because the people rose up and demanded it, but because bureaucrats forced the tricked into it like pawns on a chess board?

Actually, that's probably exactly what happened, hence proving my point void again.

I guess my point is that these games are losing their charm and are becoming less and less accessible to the common gamer. I mean, what does it say about a game if people who have been following the series for well over a decade are finding it frustratingly difficult? I used to be great at Col 1, but this game is frustrating to me in its design. I'm sure I'll get used to it and I will win it one day, but Civ isn't as much fun as it used to be.

I guess I want Civ and Col to feel more naturalistic. I want to feel like I'm in charge of an empire making tough decisions and deciding the fate of the world. I don't want to feel like I'm playing a strategy game where I have to plan everything 200 years in advance.

End rant.

 

[GodBen]

I don't see why holding back on Liberty Bells is "counterintuitive to reality". To me it seems ridiculous that the viceroy of the New World, immediately upon founding a new colony in the name of the King would say "Ok, lets get that rebel sentiment going. I'm looking ahead hundreds of years to our war of independence". That's absurd! That's what makes Civ4's cultural victory unrealistic, the idea of devoting your entire game towards getting three cities with legendary culture. That's the kind of arbitrary goal that only appears in games (as compared with, say, Space Race or Conquest, which require what seems to me more natural gameplay). I'm glad to hear that you don't need to produce liberty bells from turn 1, and even that it's disadvantageous to do so. One of my concerns with the game's realism was that you'd be encouraged to try for independence the entire game (what with it being the victory condition and all) and it's good to hear that that isn't necessarily the case.

That's the point, isn't it, independence shouldn't be something planned out as a grand scheme, it should be something you have to react to. The people in the colonies should start to protest about the way the king is treating the colonies and you have to react to that. That's the way it happened in real life.

Liberty bells are something that you need to expand your borders, and that's where I think this game has things backwards. You should build liberty bells to expand your colony, but the downside to that is that your people start wanting independence. You should be forced into independence by people protesting and the king annoying you about taxes, not by a turn limit.

The people who settled the New World weren't scheming for independence right away, it is something that the leaders of the time had to react to rather than plan. Col 1 wasn't perfect in this respect, but it felt better. It felt more natural.

 

[Zhahz]

I don't see why holding back on Liberty Bells is "counterintuitive to reality".

I was thinking similarly - if you want realistic. It's not like colonists from england/wherever hit the shores and immediately started thinking rebellion - for a long time they were just loyal colonists building up their settlements. Then they started to get rebellious. So following the model of building up then shifting towards rebellion probably fits reality the most. <shrug> (Not that I care about the realism factor - per my sig - it's just a game)

A game like Civ has a lot of victory conditions and you can putz around and pick one long into a game. Col has one victory condition and the gameplay revolves around it from turn 1.

 

[Dryhad]

That's the point, isn't it, independence shouldn't be something planned out as a grand scheme, it should be something you have to react to. The people in the colonies should start to protest about the way the king is treating the colonies and you have to react to that. That's the way it happened in real life.

And I don't see how spamming liberty bells from the beginning represents this better than whipping up rebel sentiments later in the game. Quite the reverse.

Liberty bells are something that you need to expand your borders, and that's where I think this game has things backwards. You should build liberty bells to expand your colony, but the downside to that is that your people start wanting independence. You should be forced into independence by people protesting and the king annoying you about taxes, not by a turn limit.

The game walks a thin line in this regard. I agree that the basic premise is a little divorced from reality, but there's not really much that can be done about it. I'm glad that they managed this much, and I know I certainly couldn't have designed a better game with the available material.

The people who settled the New World weren't scheming for independence right away, it is something that the leaders of the time had to react to rather than plan. Col 1 wasn't perfect in this respect, but it felt better. It felt more natural.

I can't really compare Col 1 and Col 2 but I'm still yet to hear exactly why holding back on liberty bells until the end game is unrealistic. Yes, the game is a bit of a mish mash of lots of different subjects. I don't think that's necessarily a bad thing, it just requires a bit of suspension of disbelief.

 

[Vylinius]

I have not played col but I have played civ a lot I got in a war on settler yes settler and it took from medieval to modern guess what the guy had twice my army and production. it took over 150 turns so shut up dude you want to go whine do it in your bedroom. and I won that war I may add and I have played free col I know it is nothing like col 1 or 2 but I was able to kill an army of 500 with my army of 400 and I had zero money I made that army from guns and immigrants.

 

[much2much]

A lot of the playtesters probably concentrated on other areas than liberty bells early as it is more optimum to invest in other things anyways.

Still if you go down the path of building them up early you shouldn't be penalised this strongly. This is weird balance problem caused by some formulas that probably aren't supposed to create this large a force. I hope they will rebalance this.

 

[ChrTh]

The Liberty Bell Question, by ChrTh

Let's look at it historically first, and then gameplay and see if we can come up with some sort of compromise alternative.

> Someone made the comment that the settlers didn't arrive on the shores of the New World and started thinking Independence. That is true, however, that is because for all intents and purposes, they were Independent. The crown was thousands of miles away, and could only offer some protection when the situation necessitated it. (I feel the game actually gets this right by starting off with a 0% tax rate and the ability to petition the king and he'll offer you cheap(er) troops).

> This attitude itself is what led to actual independence (with the occasional self-serving example such as Sam Adams -- I just accepted him into my Continental Congress and I felt so dirty). People felt like they were Independent to begin with, and the crown started treading on them. Higher taxes. Quartering troops. Restriction of trade. The game does *not* reflect this. Higher taxes happen, yes. And the king demands money. But they're not tied into specific events. Here's what I should expect to happen: if New England goes to war with New Spain, then England should go to war with Spain. The crown should send soldiers to 'defend' the colony (I'm not sure how this could actually be done gameplay-wise; could the REF arrive early and hang out under AI control, fighting the opposing country like an allied Native nation? Then when independency is declared, you already have some troops to fight right off the back, a la Boston?), the crown should raise taxes to support those troops, and you better believe they'll also consume resources in your colonies. In addition, why can't the crown restrict your trade? What if it decides you can no longer trade with New France (note: I have no idea if this is actually already in the game)? Actions like these would cause reactive rebel sentiment to grow.

> So what does the game have? Proactive rebel sentiment. Liberty Bells get generated for no reason outside of my feeling like they should. Granted, the mechanics of the game ****** the ability to do this in the early game (why waste a citizen on liberty bells when you're trying to make money on furs), but don't forbid it. And it should. Why would any rebel sentiment exist when there are no taxes? Independence is already in effect, who the heck is going to listen to some mouth-frother bad-mouthing the motherland?

> Now, that's not to say that proactive rebel sentiment shouldn't exist at all. There were individuals who for various reasons believed independence was a necessity. But the ability to generate Liberty Bells via citizens (or Elder Statesmen, or buildings) should not kick on until reactive rebel sentiment exists. Once rebel sentiment hits, say, 10 or 15%, then the game should allow you to start generating Liberty Bells and work towards independence.

> Now, the above mechanism for reactive rebel sentiment presumes warfare will happen. The game allows you to play peacefully, meaning you may never get reactive rebel sentiment up to 10%! This means there needs to be another way of gaining 'independence', and thus there should be another mechanism for victory -- an Economic Independence Victory. (Don't ask me for specifics, I'm more of an idea rat). Build a strong enough economic power, and the crown becomes so dependent on you it doesn't dare resist your 'independence'.

...

Now, these are just random thoughts thrown out while my iPod syncs for a car trip this weekend. Have at them.

 

[hypern]

Look i think that the game needs to be patched up or modded so that it's more realistic.

 

[Vylinius]

sadly I agree well from what I am hearing I SO WANT THIS GAME!

 

[Dryhad]

Someone made the comment that the settlers didn't arrive on the shores of the New World and started thinking Independence. That is true, however, that is because for all intents and purposes, they were Independent. The crown was thousands of miles away, and could only offer some protection when the situation necessitated it. (I feel the game actually gets this right by starting off with a 0% tax rate and the ability to petition the king and he'll offer you cheap(er) troops).

I know the game is already rather anglocentric, but that doesn't mean it should be that way. I don't know exactly how applicable this was to the civs of Colonization, but it's certainly not the default colonial position. Colonists around the world thought of their mother country as being their homeland. You only get rebel sentiment after a few generations when most of the population has never even seen the "mother country" and therefore doesn't think of it as such.

This attitude itself is what led to actual independence (with the occasional self-serving example such as Sam Adams -- I just accepted him into my Continental Congress and I felt so dirty). People felt like they were Independent to begin with, and the crown started treading on them. Higher taxes. Quartering troops. Restriction of trade. The game does *not* reflect this. Higher taxes happen, yes. And the king demands money. But they're not tied into specific events. Here's what I should expect to happen: if New England goes to war with New Spain, then England should go to war with Spain. The crown should send soldiers to 'defend' the colony (I'm not sure how this could actually be done gameplay-wise; could the REF arrive early and hang out under AI control, fighting the opposing country like an allied Native nation? Then when independency is declared, you already have some troops to fight right off the back, a la Boston?), the crown should raise taxes to support those troops, and you better believe they'll also consume resources in your colonies. In addition, why can't the crown restrict your trade? What if it decides you can no longer trade with New France (note: I have no idea if this is actually already in the game)? Actions like these would cause reactive rebel sentiment to grow.

All fine ideas, but I don't agree that their absence harms the game's realism. You can't have everything in the game.

So what does the game have? Proactive rebel sentiment. Liberty Bells get generated for no reason outside of my feeling like they should. Granted, the mechanics of the game ****** the ability to do this in the early game (why waste a citizen on liberty bells when you're trying to make money on furs), but don't forbid it. And it should. Why would any rebel sentiment exist when there are no taxes? Independence is already in effect, who the heck is going to listen to some mouth-frother bad-mouthing the motherland?

This is the mish mash I'm talking about. Liberty bells aren't just rebel sentiment, but they are still rebel sentiment. I suppose political awareness would be an appropriate term. That way it makes sense that you can produce them from the start, but also that you have no real reason to.

Now, that's not to say that proactive rebel sentiment shouldn't exist at all. There were individuals who for various reasons believed independence was a necessity. But the ability to generate Liberty Bells via citizens (or Elder Statesmen, or buildings) should not kick on until reactive rebel sentiment exists. Once rebel sentiment hits, say, 10 or 15%, then the game should allow you to start generating Liberty Bells and work towards independence.

As I explained above, I see nothing wrong with being able to produce bells whenever you like (as long as you consider them political awareness). The lack of realism comes not from being able to do this (I'd hate to play a game that had arbitrary restrictions peppered all over the place in the name of realism. Realism is good, but ham-handed realism is bad) but from wanting to do this. That's why the solution they have is so elegant. It discourages you from doing that without just putting up a barrier. A barrier would be a lazy solution.

Now, the above mechanism for reactive rebel sentiment presumes warfare will happen. The game allows you to play peacefully, meaning you may never get reactive rebel sentiment up to 10%! This means there needs to be another way of gaining 'independence', and thus there should be another mechanism for victory -- an Economic Independence Victory. (Don't ask me for specifics, I'm more of an idea rat). Build a strong enough economic power, and the crown becomes so dependent on you it doesn't dare resist your 'independence'.

Remember this is a remake. If someone had pitched a new idea of a game about colonising the New World this kind of thing would be a consideration, but they made it clear from the start that this was going to be a remake of the original game. I don't think it's fair to come up with amazing new ideas and wonder why they weren't included. At the end of the day it is just a game, and it's a game that already exists at that.

Look i think that the game needs to be patched up or modded so that it's more realistic.

I haven't played it yet, but if the suggestions for making it more realistic are anything to go by that's nonsense. All I've heard are needlessly complicated means of shoehorning gameplay into history. I hear the same things about Civ4 vanilla. It's just a game. It doesn't have to cover absolutely every aspect of history.

 

[Gliese 581]

So what you guys are saying is that you are no longer involved in europe's wars? I think that was a good feature of col1.
If the kings started fighting then you were at war with the colonists from that nation and you needed a founding father (Ben Franklin I think?) that enabled you to stay unaffected by the european affairs. The problem here of course would be that there's now only 1 Benjamin F.

 

[ChrTh]

I know the game is already rather anglocentric, but that doesn't mean it should be that way. I don't know exactly how applicable this was to the civs of Colonization, but it's certainly not the default colonial position. Colonists around the world thought of their mother country as being their homeland. You only get rebel sentiment after a few generations when most of the population has never even seen the "mother country" and therefore doesn't think of it as such.

Not anglocentric an attitude at all, simply a reality. Ignoring history for a second, the game produces colonists based on religious intolerance. So the dynamic you see is (religious) intolerance > tolerance/independence > (economic) intolerance > independence (if you beat the REF). Historically speaking, the only dissimilar example is the conquistadors, but they were adventurers who (for the most part) pillaged then went home. Everyone else was largely on their own, and weren't interfered with. Heck, it's why Roanoke (among many others) was Lost.

As for love of the motherland, it never left America. Even up to the Declaration of Independence the various continental congresses tried to patch things up, and alternately blamed either Parliament or the King. Heck, in 1810 New England was talking about seceding because they wanted strong relationships with England instead of France. Yes, it's easier with subsequent generations to feel less kinship ... which is why I argued that liberty bell production should be prevented at the beginning of the game.

All fine ideas, but I don't agree that their absence harms the game's realism. You can't have everything in the game.

...snip...

You're misreading my intention here. All I ever wanted was an update of Colonization. And I got it. And I'm ecstatic about how close to the original it is. I'm glad they didn't try to change the game (for the most part), because any potential changes could've made it, well, not Colonization.

That said, I'm forward-looking by nature. I want there to be a Col2 (or Col3 or Col5 or however we would vote to call it ), and I saw an opportunity based on this discussion to present ideas that could either be modded or included in an expansion/subsequent release.

My main opposition is to the 'keep liberty bells low' strategy is the fact that it's a strategy that feels inorganic. Will I live with it? Yes, just like I Great Worked cultural victories in one turn. But that doesn't mean I have to support it, or desire its inclusion in subsequent installments.