Sadly, Grade "F" for Civ IV: Colonization

[nbcman]

Waiting on generating liberty bells would be like not trying to get any Great people or generating any culture in Civ4 until the modern era. I agree with TFV-there needs to be some moderation in the link between liberty bell production and the size of the REF. The entire concept of Col (the original) was to declare and win independence and it appears that it will be prohibitively difficult to win independence with the size of the REF with the current version of Civ4Col.

 

[Dale]

However, is that extreme negative sufficient to produce a loss at the lowest level of difficulty? And does the game warn you that you're going to fall into that extreme difficulty?

Umm..... every time the King adds a unit you get a message in the main console. You also have AN ENTIRE SCREEN devoted to displaying how much the REF contains.

Don't tell me you don't know how big the King's army is.

 

[Dale]

The problem with just not producing liberty bells is that they're central to gameplay. They expand the borders of your settlements, and more importantly, are vital to get Founding Fathers to join you (since they are the essence of Political Points, which are needed for all FFs). Holding off the bell production till turn 200 means you'll most likely have to forsake around 70% of the Founding Fathers. And I'm not even getting into the lack of bell-induced efficiency bonuses.

You're not supposed to get every FF. If you get most of the FF's you are in a MASSIVE advantage to other civs. There needs to be a counter to that massive advantage. And that is you need a bigger army.

 

[Dale]

Waiting on generating liberty bells would be like not trying to get any Great people or generating any culture in Civ4 until the modern era. I agree with TFV-there needs to be some moderation in the link between liberty bell production and the size of the REF. The entire concept of Col (the original) was to declare and win independence and it appears that it will be prohibitively difficult to win independence with the size of the REF with the current version of Civ4Col.

Only if you overdo bell production. There's plenty of people winning the war against armies of 150-200 with a controlled number of bells, an average number of FF's and decent production bonus. If you go all out bell production that's when you get massive production bonuses, most FF's and a huge REF.

 

[nbcman]

Is there any consideration of the size of your colony (i.e., the number of citizens which would include military/civilian units not working in cities) in the size of the REF?

 

[Melinko]

It's a game-killer, unfortunately, so it's not an issue that's possible to overlook. Everyone who plays the game to win will run into this issue, and it will ruin the game for them unless they've figured out (or saw how, as Dale did) to 'game the system'.

Well since it is so detrimental I did some searching on the site.. follow that link and it will lead ya to instructions on how to turn it down so you no longer have as big of a problem..


Here ya go


Edit: Just worry about the XML value for a quick fix... you can use notepad to open it and change the values... the rest is them talking about an actual mod (Just to clear up any confusion that may pop up).... and it seems you were already there TFVangard (LOL).... so I guess this is for everyone else.

 

[Reveilled]

Umm..... every time the King adds a unit you get a message in the main console. You also have AN ENTIRE SCREEN devoted to displaying how much the REF contains.

Don't tell me you don't know how big the King's army is.

It's not just about how big the King's army is, it's about whether the size of the king's army should be something that makes winning difficult on the lowest difficulty settings. If your planned strategy is to get Rebel Sentiment to maximum as early as possible to take advantage of production bonuses and extra FFs, and then use the later turns of the game to build up an army (which was the standard strategy in the original), it's a strategy that's likely to fail, at least from what people in this thread are saying. Fair enough, but does the game actually say "Hey, you need to stop producing so many liberty bells, or the REF is going to crush you"? And that's completely ignoring the issue of whether the REF should crush any but the most incompetent of players on the easiest difficulty.

Also, it's about whether the player would know how to stop it. I'm still waiting for the page reference in the manual that explains what causes the REF to increase.

 

[Lord Shadow]

You're not supposed to get every FF. If you get most of the FF's you are in a MASSIVE advantage to other civs. There needs to be a counter to that massive advantage. And that is you need a bigger army.

Well, you do have a point. There's also the fact that a very high rebel sentiment gives substantial combat bonuses to your troops, even more so if you're using Bolivar.

However, don't you think the REF's growth should be tweaked a bit to depend on the difficulty level and other factors like existing colonial forces or stockpiled guns?

 

[The_Dwarf]

It's a game-killer, unfortunately, so it's not an issue that's possible to overlook. Everyone who plays the game to win will run into this issue, and it will ruin the game for them unless they've figured out (or saw how, as Dale did) to 'game the system'.

It's a major, key component of the game, and it's utterly broken. Because of that, the entire game is effectively nonplayable, and therefore the game gets an 'F'.

Edit: And, as I said, it's NOT a strategic issue, it's a mechanical issue. It's busted. Simple as that. The 'die hards' will defend it to the hilt, claiming that anyone else is a 'noob' or 'wronggaming' or what have you - but I strongly suspect that the same people would not find any fault in any aspect of the game what-so-ever.

Common, I understand if you argue that its kind of lame to run into this in a beginner level. However for advanced play I think the exact opposite is true of what you said.
It adds a lot more value to the game when playing on competetive level because you actually are forced to think hard what you are doing and not just produce x liberty bells get all the good founding fathers before the AI and overrun everything - THAT would be broken !
Its neither a mechanical issue nor a strategic issue - its totally fine on higher difficulty levels !
Of course you may dislike it but to say this thing is broken for advanced play levels doesnt make any sense at all.

 

[Dale]

Fair enough, but does the game actually say "Hey, you need to stop producing so many liberty bells, or the REF is going to crush you"? And that's completely ignoring the issue of whether the REF should crush any but the most incompetent of players on the easiest difficulty.

If you ignore the revolution screen, it is not the game's fault. You can see "oh crap the King has 400 troops, I better build more before I have the DoI".

 

[Tmoney02]

If you go all out bell production that's when you get massive production bonuses, most FF's and a huge REF.

But shouldn't that be a valid strategy? In other words if you want to go all out bells you get the pro's of more founding fathers and increased territory and productions bonuses with the downside of having to turn all that into a huge standing army to win.

As it stands now the kings army grows far faster than what you can possibly create in the time allowed if you follow that strategy, no matter how good you are and what difficulty you are on. Basically its flawed because that strategy doesn't even allow the chance of victory.

You have to admit that isn't a good thing as the more ways to play a game and the more strategy one can do based on skill and game developments makes for a more enjoyable experience and better replay value.

 

[smoke9999]

Im really angry at Sid Meier. I know all thats bugging me will be fixed but im really pissed of at this "bugs" (or features, whatever) that ruin the game.

I am a hard core colonization fan, played it through tones of times.

The great thing about colonization is that u can win with lots of different ways.
U could have totall differently games with focuses on either war,economy,converting or slaying indians, and still u could win games on all levels.

Someone here wrote stuff on how u gotta play at start, the game is crap if there are 1-2 ways to win. The feel of this Col. remake is just plain . .. .. .. ..

The time u have to build up is just a joke, on normal speed u have 300 turns? WTH in old colonization after 300 turns u slowly had a running economy and started like slowly going to build up for independence. i edited my xml so i can play 900 turns with 100% on everything. Still feels bad that i have to edit values to get a propper game experience.

Someone else wrote its really hard to win vs. REF in old version. Its not.
If your prepared proper u mostly gotta have to hold out in some strongholds until u get help from another country. It was a challenge but it was mostly balanced on all difficult.

Ahrg, and that ur not supposed to produce liberty bells from start, it is a §$%§$%§$ bug nothing else. U have to produce liberty bells to get massive production bonuses, it was like this in the old and there is no point in changing it to "rush independence late game or the massive REF PWNS U".

Im just annoyed cause i was so locking forward to get the old colonization feeling, im really wondering who beta tested that game. now it is waiting for the mod or patch.........

im annoyed

 

[Reveilled]

If you ignore the revolution screen, it is not the game's fault. You can see "oh crap the King has 400 troops, I better build more before I have the DoI".

Except, by the time the King has 400 troops, if you've been pursuing a loads of bells strategy in the early game, is it even possible to catch up to him then?

And I notice you didn't answer anything else of what I said. I assume, then, that the game's in game help does not warn you that the REF is expanding too fast because you're producing too many Liberty Bells, and that the manual does not explain that Liberty Bell production is what causes the REF to increase, and further, that the game does not warn you away from this strategy the way Civ IV tried to warn you away from bad strategies on lower difficulties. That is the game's fault, or at least, the developer's fault.

Anyway, why the hell should the King ever have 400 troops on Pioneer difficulty or below? It's meant to be easy mode.

 

[smoke9999]

Common, I understand if you argue that its kind of lame to run into this in a beginner level. However for advanced play I think the exact opposite is true of what you said.
It adds a lot more value to the game when playing on competetive level because you actually are forced to think hard what you are doing and not just produce x liberty bells get all the good founding fathers before the AI and overrun everything - THAT would be broken !
Its neither a mechanical issue nor a strategic issue - its totally fine on higher difficulty levels !
Of course you may dislike it but to say this thing is broken for advanced play levels doesnt make any sense at all.

if u ever played old col. and and then u see the numbers of troops REF got when u produce liberty bells from scratch now, it is broken. 500 units? Joke? this is not civ4 where u can hump 20 units a round...

ok the people here defending the REF amount haven't either played the game or dont understand the sense of colonization. u have to become independent, its what col. is about. if king got 500 units, GG. If ur not supposed to produce liberty bells from start, also GG cause its just plainly stupid to rush the bells in late game. its just wrong,

 

[Old MacDonald]

You're not supposed to get every FF. If you get most of the FF's you are in a MASSIVE advantage to other civs. There needs to be a counter to that massive advantage. And that is you need a bigger army.

It's not about getting most of the founding fathers, it's about getting any founding fathers, period. Because the problem is that the computer players don't know your way of winning - they will start producing liberty bells, and they will do it early. So they will get the founding fathers (and if they're close to you, you'll notice the effect on your borders too).

I agree, liberty bells should make a difference when it comes to the REF. But right now it's the only thing that seems to matter, and it has a much too large impact on the REF and your winning chances.

And one thing which people keep repeating is that the game is supposed to be _easy_ on the easiest difficulty setting. It isn't - it's bloody hard. And that's very, very bad.

 

[Dale]

Except, by the time the King has 400 troops, if you've been pursuing a loads of bells strategy in the early game, is it even possible to catch up to him then?

Yes it is. With a heavy cross and food strategy.

And I notice you didn't answer anything else of what I said. I assume, then, that the game's in game help does not warn you that the REF is expanding too fast because you're producing too many Liberty Bells, and that the manual does not explain that Liberty Bell production is what causes the REF to increase, and further, that the game does not warn you away from this strategy the way Civ IV tried to warn you away from bad strategies on lower difficulties. That is the game's fault, or at least, the developer's fault.

You get a message every turn the King is expanding the REF. Isn't that warning enough? Or would a full screen red flashing text "THE KING HAS 400 TROOPS!" be enough?

AND BTW, I'm have never said it's a bad strategy to pursue bells from the start. People complained of 4-500 size REFs and I showed a way to avoid that. And all of a sudden I'm a one-strategy person?

There are many ways to win at Col, including yes, producing bells from turn 1 strategies. But before having a big whine and hissy-fit over the REF explore some other strategies to see how they compare.

Come on be serious. If you get 75% of FF's, 100% sentiment in all colonies (so 50% defense bonus), massive border radius, extreme production bonuses, you're advocating a system where there is no counter? Or a counter which is miniscule compared to the postives? I don't agree with that.

Anyway, why the hell should the King ever have 400 troops on Pioneer difficulty or below? It's meant to be easy mode.

On easy modes it's very easy to make a big army to combat it.

 

[Rub'Rum]

It's not about getting most of the founding fathers, it's about getting any founding fathers, period. Because the problem is that the computer players don't know your way of winning - they will start producing liberty bells, and they will do it early. So they will get the founding fathers (and if they're close to you, you'll notice the effect on your borders too).

I agree, liberty bells should make a difference when it comes to the REF. But right now it's the only thing that seems to matter, and it has a much too large impact on the REF and your winning chances.

And one thing which people keep repeating is that the game is supposed to be _easy_ on the easiest difficulty setting. It isn't - it's bloody hard. And that's very, very bad.

Playing my first Col games. Had not played the original. In my first two games I produced Bells from the beginning since they only seemed to have positive advantages (according to manual). The king's army was huge and I ended up not ever declaring independence and just starting new games.

Then I read here and decided not to pursue bells at the beginning. And well, I got one Founding Father at the beginning and that was it. They were all dutch and spanish because the AI produces bells. So I dunno what to do.

 

[Jeckel]

You're not supposed to get every FF. If you get most of the FF's you are in a MASSIVE advantage to other civs. There needs to be a counter to that massive advantage. And that is you need a bigger army.

On Civ4's easyest difficulty you can easyly get all the Wonders and a never ending line of Great People without much work at all. One just about all the games I've ever played, you can walk through the easyest difficulty without much thought or effort.

Why is this game so different? If it was just one or two people I guess you could mark that up to noobishness and the like, but as many people, many of them TBS and Colonization veterans, coming out and saying the lower difficulties are to hard.. Well Dale and the others can just ignore that and say everything is fine, but lets hope Firaxis has there eyes open and is not any more afraid to rebalance in a patch then they were with Civ4.

 

[Old MacDonald]

Playing my first Col games. Had not played the original. In my first two games I produced Bells from the beginning since they only seemed to have positive advantages (according to manual). The king's army was huge and I ended up not ever declaring independence and just starting new games.

Then I read here and decided not to pursue bells at the beginning. And well, I got one Founding Father at the beginning and that was it. They were all dutch and spanish because the AI produces bells. So I dunno what to do.

I suppose "wait for a patch or mod" is the best thing...

It's a shame, though. I really love the gameplay of Civ4: Col, but like you, I'm finding that every single game is ruined either by not producing bells or by producing bells. No matter what I do, I'm being punished.

 

[pwangsta]

In my opinion, a 'tutorial' mode should offer enough guidance and insight to the player to be able to completely replace the manual. Otherwise, what use is it? Tutorials by definition are teaching aids, and there should be no way for me to lose a 'tutorial'. But then again, the 'tutorial' in this game isn't actually a tutorial, just a bunch of loosely connected comments. When I played this game for the first time, I had no clue what I was doing. After I had finished an entire game with the tutorial comments on, I still had no clue what I was doing. I might just be a little slow, but I didn't even understand how to improve my land till halfway through my second game (the game tells me I need a Pioneer to improve my land - great, but where do I get a Pioneer? I can't buy one, I can't build one, the only way to get one is to convert someone in my town. Not at all intuitive).

As it stands, the tutorial is merely one big instruction manual, and not a strategy guide. It tells you how (almost) everything works (and it doesn't even do that too well), but it doesn't tell you how to take advantage of them. I don't feel that a beginner should be forced to make the necessary connections himself, especially since the tutorial was a large part of the promotion and a "feature" of the game. No matter what the packaging lead me to believe, this is a game with a very steep learning curve indeed.

I wouldn't go so far as to give this game an 'F', but I doubt I'll touch the game again until after the first patch. The main stumbling block, for me, is this:

When there are seven difficulty levels, shouldn't it be nearly impossible to lose on the lowest? I could understand if the game had only three difficulties. If I couldn't win the first time around on the easiest in that case, I'd just conclude that I sucked at the game and try harder. But with seven, there is clearly something wrong if I can't beat the game on any of my first three tries on the easiest difficulty.

PS: I realize that I am a very mediocre strategy player, since I have a hard time with Prince in Civ 4, and can almost never win in MP in WC3. I have also never played the original Colonization. However, I do dominate Warlord Civ 4, and I was able to beat the entire single-player campaign in Warcraft, so I'm not horrible, either. If I can't win on the easiest difficulty, there is something wrong.