Sadly, Grade "F" for Civ IV: Colonization

[dr_AllCOM3]

And bad thing is that many people wish 'fun and intresting' game out of the box, without any searches for Really-Right-Mod.

And personally I do not know how really moddable in game. Is it really possible to change REF increase logic so far?

i'm looking into it right now. most likely yes.

 

[Knut_Are_M]

yes but it also leads to some players never aiming for independence, and instead aim for high score victory, by eliminating the competition.

i kinda like it that way, as long as one way is not increadibly overpowering!
Of course that is MP. SP may be different as the AI is so redicously easy and never defend themselfs in Singleplayer col2.

 

[thelibra]

Final Grade: F, due to serious lack of playtesting in the later game

I couldn't possibly disagree more. I don't mean this as an insult, I know you're a solid Civ4 player from the other forums, but it sounds like you need to learn how to play _THIS_ game, instead of trying to play it as if you were playing Col1 or FreeCol. I played as the "middle" difficulty all last night and had a blast.

I've had a great time playing this game so far. And while I agree there's some patching needed here and there (like the too-dark menus and a couple of mechanical oversights), I give them an "A" for making a game that's true to the spirit of the original, true to the spirit of the history, and is at once it's own unique original product.

 

[TFVanguard]

I couldn't possibly disagree more. I don't mean this as an insult, I know you're a solid Civ4 player from the other forums, but it sounds like you need to learn how to play _THIS_ game, instead of trying to play it as if you were playing Col1 or FreeCol. I played as the "middle" difficulty all last night and had a blast.

Again, the next person who says "You're just doing wrongthink" gets perma-ignored. Honestly.

"Learn to play this game." If I get my ass totally and unexpectedly handed to me, despite being the dominant force in the new world, a massive military larger than ANYTHING I've needed to do in Civ4, and doing everything, apparently, RIGHT up until the WoI (which is a win requirement), the game is busted. Period. End of story.

Since there are now quite a few people repeating the exact same complaint, I'm going to suggest you 'leets' get off your high horse and recognize that maybe, just maybe, the complaint is legitimate, and it is in fact a game-killer.

 

[Lord Shadow]

Perhaps you're playing Colonization applying your Civ4 strategies, when you should be getting out of the Civilization mentality and try to develop a new course of action. Don't compare it to Civ4, because it's very different in many regards. I don't know how you play, but I think you should give the game some more time before coming to such extreme conclusions.

For a fair amount of time, I didn't like Civ3, because in some ways it worked differently than Civ2. Eventually, I took the time to learn how everything worked and why, and became very fond of it. Perhaps you should do the same with Colonization. Or maybe leave it alone for while, till you're less angry at it.

Nobody's expected to become a master of Colonization after 3 games. Nobody's 'leet' at this game yet: Dale's got a headstart because he's a beta tester. It's because he knows the game better that he urges you to dedicate more time to it. The same thing happened with Civ3 and Civ4, when people realized their tried-and-true strategies didn't work anymore.

Having said that, I do admit that the King should perhaps be somewhat less sensitive to liberty bells. At least in the early portions of the game.

 

[GodBen]

Why are you guys generating bells to expand your borders? You can't use the land that you expand to with your cities. Just build more cities instead to claim the land so you can actually work it..

Okay, let me give you an example. I was playing as the Spanish, and even though I don't agree with the late game liberty bell generation, I know that it is pretty much my only chance of winning this game, so I produced no bells at all. But the French to the south built lots of bells and declared independence. They got wiped out by the French empire about 5 turns later in an incredibly swift campaign. All the French Independents have left is one colony on an island to the East. They start building new colonies right away, and they decide to build their first new colony next to one of mine, and they start producing liberty bells right away.

My colony only had two colonists in it. I only built it to protect the supplies from my northern colony where most of my ore/tools are coming from. It had one fisherman working a sea tile with fish in it, and it had one lumberjack because all around it was trees. The French colony's border expands quickly, I lose control of the fish tile and suddenly I don't have enough food to support the two men in the colony anymore.

So I put a third colonist there and put them all to work on bells so I can reclaim my fish and feed the colony again. It takes three men just to reclaim the two tiles they took from me, but I never take control of any French tiles because they are matching my bell production. Rebel sentiment in that town is massive and it doesn't even exist anywhere else. Suddenly the King starts increasing the REF.

I suppose I should have just attacked the French Independents and wiped them out of the game, my mistake because now the king has a much larger army than me and that game is unwinnable in the turns I have left.

 

[Akaoz]

Read what I said. What I described is ONE way to win. There are others.

Can you name a few?

 

[TFVanguard]

Perhaps you're playing Colonization applying your Civ4 strategies, when you should be getting out of the Civilization mentality and try to develop a new course of action. Don't compare it to Civ4, because it's very different in many regards. I don't know how you play, but I think you should give the game some more time before coming to such extreme conclusions.

Because you're not discussing or advocating a 'strategy' in the sense of the rules or spirit of the game. You're pushing forward 'gaming the database' as THE method of winning the game. This is different than merely learning and adjusting to new game mechanics, this is a fundamental design issue that is seriously flawed.

A specific and neccessary mechanic of the game, the production of liberty bells, which is required for improved colonies, founding fathers, etc, is also insanely punitive against the player in the late-game. That's not a 'strategy' issue, that's just plain messed up design.

Since it's a literal game-breaker, making games which should be winnable outright impossible, the entire game has to fail, hence the 'F', regardless of any other aspect of the game.

 

[thelibra]

Again, the next person who says "You're just doing wrongthink" gets perma-ignored. Honestly.

Hey, if that's how you roll, man, that's how you roll. I'm not saying you're "inner party or outer party," I'm saying that this is a completley new entity, with a new engine, that is not the same as Col1 and FreeCol. If you feel the need to perma-ignore someone for pointing this out, then you have to do what you have to do, but I gotta warn you, real life interactions with people will go very poorly for you if you adopt that mentality the rest of your life.

"Learn to play this game." If I get my ass totally and unexpectedly handed to me, despite being the dominant force in the new world, a massive military larger than ANYTHING I've needed to do in Civ4, and doing everything, apparently, RIGHT up until the WoI (which is a win requirement), the game is busted. Period. End of story.

Okay, a few key problems in your logic:

* "If I don't win, the game is busted, Period. End of story."

* "I'm doing everything right."

I'm really sorry to be the one to have to tell you this, but you're going to encounter a lot of things in life where you don't win right away, and you'll encounter even more things where you're -not- doing everything right even though you think you are. If this concept causes you to fly off the handle and declare everything you are not instantly good at as "broken", then you will find the majority of stuff to do in the world to be at fault.

I'm going to suggest you 'leets' get off your high horse and recognize that maybe, just maybe, the complaint is legitimate, and it is in fact a game-killer.

I'm neither leet, nor on a high horse. I'm still only an Emperor level Civ player, and finding I must learn new things, improve my strategy, and minmax more and more, every single time I play.

When I first started playing Civ4, I was losing right and left, when I used to win at Civ3 all the time. It took reading article after article in the War Academy and discussing strategy with other players to find out that Civ4 was not Civ3. Fundamental formulas, mechanics, and strategies had completely changed. I STILL find out stuff that I just flat out didn't realize (like that the "Org" trait 1/2price bonus refers to CIVIC maintenance, and not CITY maintenance). It's little things like that, little knowledge bits, that add up over time to make you a better player.

The game has been out all of 2 days. Those articles, and those formulas, strategies, etc, don't exist yet. People are still trying to figure out what works in the game and what doesn't.

As for my "high horse," I think you're mistaking me for someone else. I fully agree the game needs some patching, tweaking, and so forth. What I disagree with is your assertion that if you can't win, that it must be broken. That's a bad attitude to take with you through life. Take it from someone who used to do the same thing.

There's a huge difference between a game that could use some tweak and polish and one that deserves a "Grade F".

Anyway, if you still feel like you need to perma-ignore me for the high crime of disagreeing with you, then here's the link, and I'll do my best not to lose any sleep over it.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/profile.php?do=editlist

 

[TFVanguard]

Hey, if that's how you roll, man, that's how you roll. I'm not saying you're "inner party or outer party," I'm saying that this is a completley new entity, with a new engine, that is not the same as Col1 and FreeCol.

Actually, you ARE doing that. Since the problem has now been discussed by many people on these forums, that the REF becomes insanely powerful because you - despite being told in the game that you should make liberty bells - get extremely punished for doing it, you're actually saying everyone who has this problem is just a 'moron who needs to learn how to play the game'.

I never said "If I don't win, the game is busted", I said, "I appear to be doing everything right, I have a mighty force, larger and more powerful than anything out there, except the REF, which spanks me super hard." And, again, this is on 'easiest' level, where I'm SUPPOSED to learn the ins and outs of the game, right?

Now, since the AI opponents never seem to win a war, much less a WoI, either... maybe it's a problem.

Sorry if it never occured to me to 'for the love of God, don't do the one thing the game tells you to actually do to win it!' as a strategy.

 

[The_Dwarf]

Actually, you ARE doing that. Since the problem has now been discussed by many people on these forums, that the REF becomes insanely powerful because you - despite being told in the game that you should make liberty bells - get extremely punished for doing it, you're actually saying everyone who has this problem is just a 'moron who needs to learn how to play the game'.

That many people complain about this actually doesnt mean much because everone is new to the game. So if the game was out for a month and many people complaining about this being imbalanced it would be a another thing.

I think no one says you are a bad player or something, people including me just think you are way to quick with bashing it without really having a fair sight on things. I mean what is this you played a couple of times and got beat and you automatically assume that its the games fault and not your own.
I mean of course the game might be flawed but it might not, you are acting like if your losses proof anything which I find pretty silly to be honest.

 

[TFVanguard]

I mean of course the game might be flawed but it might not, you are acting like if your losses proof anything which I find pretty silly to be honest.

Dude, I write these kinds of games.. well, used to. I can spot a bad mechanic pretty easily. This is a bad mechanic, at least to the scale that it's being implemented. Since most of the game effectively REQUIRES you (and, indeed, openly encourages you) to make as many liberty bells as possible, it's counterproductive for the REF to be that punitive.

Meanwhile, the things that you would THINK make the King increase the REF, namely pissing him off in negocations, refusing taxes, etc, don't actually affect what he DOES with the REF. As far as I can actually tell at this point, there's no benefit to placating the king unless you still want to trade an item. (Not that you can placate him long anyway, he starts being an ass in just a couple of turns.)

Now, having actually gone through the files of the game, it also looks like the REF level wasn't adjusted for difficulty, with basically it being set at the Deity level for all levels. If this is the case, you still going to think that this was part of the design as intended, or an oversight on release? I'm betting the latter. It's a bug.

 

[snoopy369]

What setting are you basing your opinion that it does not adjust for difficulty level on?

 

[Lord Shadow]

What he's trying to say is that the game encourages liberty bell production, which is indeed critical for expanding your borders and, above all, recruiting Founding Fathers, while also severely punishing you by exponentially increasing the REF's numbers, to the point the King's forces become unbeatable.

I can't prove or disprove this yet, as I haven't played enough. I admit it concerns me.


PD: He's said he's been playing on the easiest level. Pilgrim.

 

[GodBen]

I take the point of all the people saying that this sin't Civ IV, it has it's own rules and we need to get used to that. I think we all understand that. The point being made here is that playing the game well, bulding up a large and productive empire and a military force to defend it, that all means nothing in the WoI. In fact, you get punished in the endgame if you built your empire right.

You are told to build liberty bells because they will help you. If you build them you get spanked harder than if you ignored them. That's like the government encouraging you to take out a loan to fuel consumer spending, but when the banks collapse they criticise you for borrowing so much and you end up being screwed.

Dagnabit, I have got to stop defeating my own arguments!

 

[snoopy369]

Honestly, I think my main problem with this game is it is too much like Civ. There is too much military strategy and min/maxing required to play it, which was not the case for Col (1).

 

[thelibra]

you're actually saying everyone who has this problem is just a 'moron who needs to learn how to play the game'.

I never remotely implied that anyone, even yourself, was a moron. I considered everyone on here to be a friend, and I don't insult my friends. There's a huge difference between saying "learn the system" and insulting someone. You seriously don't take all criticism this hard do you? What will you do if a teacher grades you down some points on a paper for punctuation problems, or a boss at work says you need to do a procedure differently, or a friend suggests that maybe an alternate way of trying something would work out better? Will you always assume they are calling you a "moron"? That's a pretty serious self-esteem issue there, and you might want to consider some therapy or something. Because in the real world, people will regularly do that.

Now, if you will see past the illusion that an unfair world is throwing buckets of insults at you, you will see that I have fully agreed that the game needs to be tweaked. And while I don't know the liberty bell mechanic well enough to know just how much it needs to be tweaked, I know that, from a historical perspective, the game is working exactly as history did.

Our Revolutionary War in America was NOTHING like a quick SoD battle in Civ4. It was the hardest war we ever fought, and we came so close to losing, over and over, that it's not even funny. It required a completely new innovation in warfare (Guerilla Warfare), the support of the French Navy, the military training and advisorship of foreign nationals, the financial backing of other countries, and Britain being so distracted with so many other wars across the globe that they couldn't concentrate more than even a fraction of their resources on us. And we STILL ALMOST LOST IT, over and over.

The Revolutionary war SHOULD be hard. It should be brutal. It should push your strategy, alliances, and resources to the complete and utter breaking point. The British had 5x as many forces they COULD have sent against us. They had the largest army in the entire world. The Revolutionary war was not a battle between equals. Not even remotely close. Your handful of colonies was NEVER intended to win a War of Attrition against an empire that spanned the whole entire globe.

Try to play it with this mentality in mind. Ignore the mechanics and think like a historian.

Now please, stop taking all the suggestions as a personal attack against you, and instead, take them in the spirit that they are meant: encouragement to have patience with the game and try to approach it from a different viewpoint while the patches are being made. You can't possibly expect to completely fail a game two-days into it, and not expect some people to politely disagree.

 

[Sol_Invictus]

I never played original Col or any Civ game so I come to Col II blissfully ignorant and without any preconceived notions on winning strategies. To me it does seem extremely unintuitive to make Liberty Bell production so advantageous for your Colony, but at the same time almost an act of suicide to produce any until very late in the game. At best it is a bad gameplay mechanic imo. I would have expected that the King would not have become alarmed about Rebel Sentiment until it grew to a point where he would have become alarmed by it.

I think it would be better for gameplay if the King didn't really start preparing for a war of anhililation against his own Colony until rebel sentiment got out of hand; say in the 30-60% range. I simply don't care for the need to completely avoid creating any Liberty Bells for most of the game but then be compelled to massively crank them out as fast as possible. I think it really skews the gameplay. Surely this is not how it was meant to be. Could there not be an easy setting to scale the REF to Liberty Bell production in a gently upward slope? Right now the game seems to take a sledgehammer approach. I also don't like the way Education Buildings are handled but that just need a moderate tweak. Seems like a really great game is in here, but some patching and tweaking need to be done.

 

[GodBen]

The Revolutionary war SHOULD be hard. It should be brutal. It should push your strategy, alliances, and resources to the complete and utter breaking point. The British had 5x as many forces they COULD have sent against us. They had the largest army in the entire world. The Revolutionary war was not a battle between equals. Not even remotely close. Your handful of colonies was NEVER intended to win a War of Attrition against an empire that spanned the whole entire globe.

Good point... if you play the game on Revolutionary (toughest) setting. If you want a tough slog that is nearly impossible in order to win the game then that's a choice you should be able to make at the beginning. Pilgrim (easiest) level shouldn't be "brutal".

There are people out there who never played Col 1, or even Civ, before and they might have purchased this game on a whim, much like I did with the original Col and Civ II. Those people don't know how to play, and I personally think that the beginning difficulty level should be designed for new players so that unless they screw up completely, they should still win the game. Apparently that's not so. (I've been playing it on Explorer).

The first time I played Civ was Civ II. I played as the Americans, didn't have a clue about what I was doing and made so many mistakes because I had no idea about many of that game's concepts. At one point I decided to destroy the Russians with my single tank unit! The thing is that I survived that game, and I was in contention for a Space victory before the Carthaginians beat me. It was fun and encouraged me to try better next time.

I played for revolution once in Col 2 and was beaten handily. On my other play-throughs I didn't even bother for independence as I looked at the size of the king's army and played for time instead.

 

[defjam]

yeah but you have to agree something is seriously imbalanced with this so far as from what i've been reading a lot of "smart savvy gamers" haven't done too well so far and we are talking about the usual Sid FANATICS who can play a Sid game better than i ever will and if they are complaining there's a damn good reason for them to be complaining..

oo..my brain hurts...i hope i didn't make anyone stupidier for reading the above..i'm not sure it makes sense to me either...