Sadly, Grade "F" for Civ IV: Colonization

[NikNak]

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

It's only "very easy" to do if you already know what you're doing and how to get there. I've said this before, a few other people have agreed, but some of you don't get it. The easiest setting on Colonization, with tutorial hints turned on, should never result in a loss unless you actively ignored the advice given.

Your strategies for winning are all based on meta-gaming. There is no way someone brand new to this type of game would win without foreknowledge of the mechanics. That wouldn't necessarily be bad, but nothing in the game tells you this.

 

[Rub'Rum]

Well I agree with the criticism of the tutorial. The *BOX* advertises an enhanced tutorial. I didn't even FIND a tutorial in the game. If by tutorial they mean the help that pops up seemingly at random during any game you play (at any difficulty), then I'm at loss.

 

[Crezth]

It's only "very easy" to do if you already know what you're doing and how to get there. I've said this before, a few other people have agreed, but some of you don't get it. The easiest setting on Colonization, with tutorial hints turned on, should never result in a loss unless you actively ignored the advice given.

Your strategies for winning are all based on meta-gaming. There is no way someone brand new to this type of game would win without foreknowledge of the mechanics. That wouldn't necessarily be bad, but nothing in the game tells you this.

That's the thing, however. You aren't meant to win off the bat. By design, Colonization is a game with an enormous learning curve that requires extreme and elementary discipline on your part to master. I can understand why that may be frustrating but please try to realize what Dale's saying.

It's about learning from your mistakes. If you start the War of Independence and don't finish it in time, then next time you must start it earlier/be more prepared/whatever. You must commit to memory all the reasons for your failure and apply the antitheses to those failures practically in the game. If building bells all game long isn't working, then don't do it. Don't call this "one-strategy gameplay" either. It's a matter of different mechanics impacting the game in different ways, and having the patience to sit down, observe, and think about what sorts of strategies you want to approach.

Colonization is not your typical breed of strategy game. You have to be intelligent, or, not necessarily intelligent, but calm and patient. Rational. If you play the exact same way game after game and lose time after time, then the fault cannot be with the game but with you, or at least with such evidence you cannot blame the game.

It's not supposed to be easy to win. Each time you can only count on doing a little better. That's a huge learning curve, yes, and it's not for everyone. But by no means is it a bad game.

 

[Jeckel]

It's only "very easy" to do if you already know what you're doing and how to get there. I've said this before, a few other people have agreed, but some of you don't get it. The easiest setting on Colonization, with tutorial hints turned on, should never result in a loss unless you actively ignored the advice given.

Your strategies for winning are all based on meta-gaming. There is no way someone brand new to this type of game would win without foreknowledge of the mechanics. That wouldn't necessarily be bad, but nothing in the game tells you this.

Yea, exactly what that quote says. A blind ADHD monkey should be able to win on the easyest difficulty. Plain, simple, and done. It would seem that accomplished TBS/Colonization players are having problems with them, so they need tweeking. Wether some people want to admit that or not, I'm going to mod my game and that will make me happy. The rest of you can do or not do what ever you have the most fun with.

 

[Reveilled]

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

You know that, but you've been playing the game for quite some time now.

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?

You're completely missing the point. By the time the King has 400 troops, it's probably too late. It needs an indication that you're doing things wrong before then. And no, a message every turn that the King is expanding the REF is not an indication you're doing things wrong, because there's no indication of whether or not that's normal, and little indication of what to do about it.

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.

I'm not trying to suggest that you advocate pursuing a single strategy, nor am I saying that there's only one way to win. What I am saying is that the game punishes you too much on lower difficulties for pursuing bad strategies.

Think about Civ IV, playing with the tutorial tips on. If you decide to pursue a construction only strategy, never building military units (a bad strategy, generally), the game pops up with helpful advice to the effect of "You're not safe. Build Units." If you decide to pursue a strategy of developing only one or two cities, it tells you that you ought to build more settlers. If you never build scientific improvements, it suggests that you build them.

In each instance, the game suggests what you ought to do, to move you away from a bad strategy.

In colonization a message simply telling you the REF is expanding isn't enough. It needs to tell you why it is happening, and suggest what you should do about it. It needs to tell you to cut back on Liberty Bell production, or the REF could become too big to handle.

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.

On easy mode? To me, the answer to this seems obviously and emphatically yes.

Going back to the examples of bad strategies in Civ, on the lower difficulties, even with a bad strategy, it's still highly possible to stumble to a victory. With a carefully planned bad strategy, a win is trivially easy. If it is difficult to win Colonization first time on the easiest settings, something is wrong.

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

Not according to the people playing the game for the first time. If it's not very easy to make a big army for first time players, it's not easy mode.

 

[pwangsta]

That's the thing, however. You aren't meant to win off the bat. By design, Colonization is a game with an enormous learning curve that requires extreme and elementary discipline on your part to master.

Again, I could understand this if there was only one difficulty level where everyone has to play. But there was a conscious decision to incorporate multiple difficulty levels into this game. Therefore, "extreme" discipline and an "enormous" learning curve should only be present and required in the higher difficulties. A game with multiple difficulties should not require either of these attributes, and if the game does require them "by design", then there were two conflicting designs involved in the creation of this game.

 

[Tmoney02]

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?

Well kind of because the way you showed to avoid that was by totally eliminating that strategy -saying you cant do that, rather than showing what to focus on to compensate or way to win with that strategy.

 

[Reveilled]

Again, I could understand this if there was only one difficulty level where everyone has to play. But there was a conscious decision to incorporate multiple difficulty levels into this game. Therefore, "extreme" discipline and an "enormous" learning curve should only be present and required in the higher difficulties. A game with multiple difficulties should not require either of these attributes, and if the game does require them "by design", then there were two conflicting designs involved in the creation of this game.

Exactly. On the Easiest setting for Civ IV, it's perfectly possible to get every religion, every wonder, and every corporation with a minimum of effort, and building only a single Warrior to guard your city until you can upgrade him to a rifleman. If you follow the tutorial tips, it's pretty damn near impossible to lose, though you're not likely to be quite so successful on your first playthrough as you could be.

That's an easy mode, and that's how easy the lowest difficulty in Colonization should be. Impossible to lose if you have a strategy, no matter how bad the strategy is.

If you don't want the game to be that easy, just play on a higher difficulty, but that option should be there for players, and following the tutorial tips should never result in a loss.

Obviously, the penalties for Liberty Bell production that exist in game now should continue to exist on higher difficulties, but if they're causing people to find easy mode too hard, then they really are making the game too hard on easy mode.

If the game was really intended to be as hard as people are claiming it to be, I reckon it would be the first time one of Sid Meier's TBSes has ever been hard to win for first timers on easy mode.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Something I have never done before, commented on a game I haven't got yet....but just read every post in this thread and I'm concerned in several ways...

I still play Col I quite often and think it a fantastic game, of course though its graphically and otherwise extremely outdated now.I was going to buy Col II for the weekend but hmmm, might wait now (also might not )

The "bells=King's Soldiers" for Col II, makes complete sense to me. It seems at the moment though, that this is completely out of whack with gameplayability. I'm sure it won't be at all difficult to patch/adjust.

What I find a huge problem, is that the game advises you, nay almost demands you produce liberty bells to get FF's bonuses etc., then makes the game unwinnable/unplayable at the end when you do so. This absolutely shouldn't be the case. As others have posted, on the very easiest level it should be winnable by a monkey on a typewriter analogy.

Well not quite, but it should be an utter cakewalk for anyone following the basic tutorial, It shouldn't really involve any "strategy" at all, just basic common sense, with albeit lots of mistakes. Here's where I think part of the problem lies. I consider myself to be an expert Civ IV player. Most of the playtesters for Col II, were no doubt expert Civ IV players too. (This happens with many game series). And such people often make terrible playtesters.(with no offence to anyone intended). They are great at coming up with weird and wonderful strategies, and "taking a game to its limits", but often miss the fact that games should be fun and playable to the non-initiated. How you can miss the fact that if you follow the game advise on the easiest level, and then end up with a virtually impossible War Of Ind is beyond me. In fact I don't think they did. I think they just said " well I'm a good strategy player", and found a way around it.

Wrong, sorry but wrong. Someone should have been told in black and white, the game advises you to do this, and if you follow the advise, you lose. So fix it. Not "don't worry I've found a way around it".

Anyways, sorry for this ramble, and no offense intended to any individuals

 

[GodBen]

It's not supposed to be easy to win. Each time you can only count on doing a little better. That's a huge learning curve, yes, and it's not for everyone. But by no means is it a bad game.

Sorry, that's just a terrible argument. Most games come with three difficulty levels, Easy, Medium and Hard. Easy is designed for players to get used to the game, or for players who aren't very good at the game they are playing. Some really detailed games will add a fourth difficulty level called "Hardcore" or "Impossible".

Colonization has seven difficulty levels! Seven!! Are you honestly saying to me that the very easiest of those should be completely impossible for new players to win? Should the REF calculation be completely the same for all seven levels as it apparently is now? What is the point of even having difficulty levels if the endgame of each level is the same?

Here's where I think part of the problem lies. I consider myself to be an expert Civ IV player. Most of the playtesters for Col II, were no doubt expert Civ IV players too. (This happens with many game series). And such people often make terrible playtesters.(with no offence to anyone intended). They are great at coming up with weird and wonderful strategies, and "taking a game to its limits", but often miss the fact that games should be fun and playable to the non-initiated. How you can miss the fact that if you follow the game advise on the easiest level, and then end up with a virtually impossible War Of Ind is beyond me. In fact I don't think they did. I think they just said " well I'm a good strategy player", and found a way around it.

I think this is right on the money. Dale was apparently a play-tester and that is pretty much exactly what he has been saying in this thread. Dale, I'm not trying to offend you, I have the utmost respect for you due to all the work you do in this community, but can you not concede that at the easiest level the game should be winnable by inexperienced players? Why can't it be that you can play the the higher difficulty where the REF is skewed against you and the rest of us can play on normal/easy difficulty levels where the REF isn't quite as tough?

There are seven difficulty levels, that's more than enough to suit everybody.

 

[de Tocqueville]

I just registered here to have my opinion on this game made public, maybe some people will call it a rant (pathetic, eh?).

I just want to say, I totally agree with all dissidents, like TFVAnguard and the guy who started the 'I am not impressed'-thread. Especially the, what I think arrogant, reply of comrade Dale, made me to come here to show my support (even if nobody cares anyway).

This game does some things different than the original Colonization, some better, and unfortunately also some worse, and I am not sure if new/changed features are overweighting over the shortcoming compared to the Original.

In this state, I actually wouldn't prefer it over the original yet for the graphics (and that only because the old graphics are REALLY old nowadays, and not because the new ones are so beautiful; they are not).

So it is a disappointment for me personally, and from an objective point of view it also should be recognized by the 'professional game media' and thus get the ratings it deserves (which I actually doubt).

If a small russian company would have made this, and it wouldn't have the big name, this game would fail with the press-front and at sales.

I would give it a D though, yet I'm still in the year 1650 or so, but with what I read here, I will have a hard time later on (which would be a big flaw, given the easy flow till now).

Thank you for reading.

 

[obsolete]

Liberty Bells.... Can't win with them & can't win without them.

Congratulations, YOU have just become a PAYING beta-tester!!

 

[Panzeh]

Given more time at the game, I do tend to agree that the REF is too large. Think about this, the REF on the maximum difficulty of original only got up to about 150-200 units. The player's ability to make units last longer by re-arming and re-horsing has been taken away, and the REF is doubled. That's going to make the revolution very very difficult without cheesing it.

 

[GodBen]

Congratulations, YOU have just become a PAYING beta-tester!!

Wow, I was a paying beta-tester for Spore, and now this! If I keep this up I might have to make a career out of it.

 

[Gliese 581]

On the easiest level the game should be winnable by everyone, but it doesn't have to be an automatic win (what's the point of that?). If a really incompetent player has about 50% that's seems ok.
I will have to wait and see if the game is so difficult as some of you claim, curse you yankees early release date!

 

[offworld]

I never start a new game on easy mode. I start on normal and expect to be slaughtered the first 4 or 5 times I play the game (if that doesn't happen that's an indication of bad AI or perhaps too simple mechanics).

I think what may be happening here is that the easy mode leads to a strategy where you gather a lot of bells early. In the harder modes you won't get any free elder statesman early. You'll have to buy them. You won't be able to afford having your non-specialist citizens spending lots of time generating bells either. You'll need them for other tasks to stay competitive with the other colonialists and to fend of the natives. Automatically the harder modes will tend towards a strategy where liberty bell generation starts later.

Never judge a game by it's easy mode (in fact, just skip it altogether). Playtesters have spend the most time in moderate and hard difficulties (where most players will be too eventually), so those will be the most balanced and most fun.

 

[Simn]

I think what may be happening here is that the easy mode leads to a strategy where you gather a lot of bells early.

It does not. The whole point is that - even at easy mode - you'll get your ass handed to you by the homeland's REF (Really Exaggerated Forces) if you start generating bells too soon. That and the fact that you don't even know what you're doing wrong (unless you're reading an internet forum about it) makes me wonder how you're supposed to find an entry to this game.

Never judge a game by it's easy mode (in fact, just skip it altogether). Playtesters have spend the most time in moderate and hard difficulties (where most players will be too eventually), so those will be the most balanced and most fun.

I'm sorry, I don't know what exactly the beta testers spent time on, but the current game certainly doesn't make it look like it was balancing issues. We're not talking about some weird bug that occurs every once in a while and might just be overlooked during testing stage, the whole bell concept is just messed up. Even if you consider this appropriate for medium to hard difficulty settings, it's way beyond reason for beginners.

The main annoyance, though, is the fact that some people (i.e. Dale) try to sell this (obvious bug) as intended feature. Dressing bugs as features is a common marketing tool, but please, there are scenarios where it's actually insulting to think customers will believe that.

Edit: about the "f" grade... I don't agree with that. The game is still somewhat entertaining, it just feels unfinished. I guess it's like watching part 1 of a movie that doesn't finish the story yet, so you'll eagerly wait for part 2 and it's revelations. Thus I'll just wait for Colonization 2 part 2 (aka a bugfix) so I can finally see the end.

 

[Lord Shadow]

Amidst all the Dale-bashing, I can't help but stand on his side, believing there's reason in his arguments, and that you guys are being too harsh on him, perhaps.

First of all, let me say I haven't actually reached the War of Independence yet. University stuff and all. But allow me to ask: how many of you have actually fought a WoI against 400-500 REF units on Pilgrim difficulty? The big number is intimidating, but let's analyze the situation...

Assuming you have accumulated Liberty Bells from the start, and at the point of the declaration you have 100% rebel sentiment, your military units should have the following bonuses to their strength.

+50% due to rebel sentiment (+100% if you're using Bolívar)
+60% due to difficulty level
+X% due to various terrain bonuses

The REF units might have a bit more raw strength, but they don't receive any bonuses whatsoever besides those involved in settlement combat. The result is continental troops being twice or perhaps thrice as good as royal regulars, meaning you might be able to win your independence despite being outnumbered 3 to 1 if you choose your battles wisely.

At sea, your ships enjoy the same sentiment and difficulty bonuses, meaning they're probably 30-40% better than the King's vessels. He might have 40-50 ships, but every Man o' War you sink means less troops you have to fight on land, which are the real threat.

Chew on that for a bit. I'm guessing many of you are speculating as much as I am.

 

[Poonchance]

In the middle of my first game...on Easiest.
I've read all these comments, and my biggest fear is - UNLIKE Civ4 - every game is going to be the same. And apparently, as Dale as not only mentioned in this thread, but elsewhere as a sure-fire strategy - was too everything BUT produce bells until the last minute, then rush as many bells quickly as possible to keep the REF down.

This feels like a "join 18 settlers in one turn, then build the Hanging Gardens" exploits of CIVs past. It's almost as if bells are EVIL. I understand the 'hey, if you're colony was saying we hate the king, you would buy troops.' Yeah, but there has to be some other equation to judge this. not just bells=Ref.

Personally, i'm a HUGE civ fan (since civ 1). And i knew this game was going to be a micromanagement affair (i played freecol, to 'demo') - and i think this game has potential. But it seems like the replayability is low. I'm sure there are balance issues...i haven't hit the end game yet, so i'm still gonna keep playing. But right now, easy seems really hard.

no one will read this, cause this thread is turning into a monster.

 

[Heathcliff]

I think the Kings forces should increase over time by an set amount. Like increase 1550, 1600, 1650, 1700, 1750. (More on each difficulty lvl of course)

Because how many troops the king can send over to America incase of an independence war, depends on Europe and Europe alone. When the European economy grows he can afford to send more troops to America, without risking the defence of their European land. If he could send more troops to America he would have, that doesn't have anything to do with how many liberty bells America is producing.