Sadly, Grade "F" for Civ IV: Colonization

[C~G]

TFVanguard, without commenting in anyway your opinion about the game since you have every right to complain about as you have acquired the product through proper channels...you should still really drop the issue about referring to Dale in every post (including saying things what he has said when he hasn't said them) or I report from this point on every time it happens.

Also I suggest you monitor yourself how you come across in your posts if you are so fond of telling how others posts might feel "hostile" to you.

It's known fact that plenty of gaming forums example this one has always few trolls that come to complain about everything in the new game example because of "sour grapes" because they cannot handle the challenge or every possible bug they have encountered or that the game is "too easy" etc..

You should expect certain level of both aggression and amusement for posts that are commenting posts that seem similar to these kinds of trolls' behaviour.

In the end it's really tiresome and it would be nice if you wouldn't take that route. Feel free BTW post comprehensive review in a thread I created earlier into this forum about the game.

Let alone don't forget to give your input how the game should be fixed/patched/modified better to suit your needs.

Sorry that you feel about the game, I don't myself have it yet so I might be disappointed too and complaining the things I feel mad about but there are several ways to do it. The way you have done it, does come out pretty irritating if spread across numerous threads.

 

[Melinko]

Well, I would feel better if someone at Firaxis would say "Yep, we screwed it up for everyone, there's a patch coming, and the second shipment of the game will have it on the CDs.. sorry... sorry everyone."

About the patch, ya I would like word of it coming too, but who knows on that side.. they maybe working on it so to rush it other then spending time spreading word, or maybe taking a break after putting out a game.. who knows on that side (Prob give it a day or two)

Now about the sorry.. our bad on the CDs...
I think EA should have to do that for the next few years! But hey we take what we can..

 

[TFVanguard]

TFVanguard, without commenting in anyway your opinion about the game since you have every right to complain about as you have acquired the product through proper channels...you should still really drop the issue about referring to Dale in every post (including saying things what he has said when he hasn't said them) or I report from this point on every time it happens.

I cited him specifically due to his first few posts, and that he was a playtester on the game. He saw these issues first, then said they weren't issues and that we all needed to 'learn how to play the game'. That's in the first page of this very thread. (Granted, it's a big thread, but it's not THAT hard to click on '1'.)

That said, I appreciate his efforts and that he's changed his stance on these issues. I refer to him now explicitly because he's working the most on the modifications that we're talking about. I'm not trying to personally attack him, or call him names, or what not.

I also have been contributing to the modification discussions, as well as looked at the design and mechanical flaws within the game scripts. So it's a far cry from me 'just complaining', as some have made out.

 

[C~G]

(Granted, it's a big thread, but it's not THAT hard to click on '1'.)

Yes, they aren't hard to find so stop referring to them. People get the idea on their own what those posts were about without you commenting them further.

I'm not trying to personally attack him, or call him names, or what not.

That's cool.

I also have been contributing to the modification discussions, as well as looked at the design and mechanical flaws within the game scripts. So it's a far cry from me 'just complaining', as some have made out.

Well, I would feel better if someone at Firaxis would say "Yep, we screwed it up for everyone, there's a patch coming, and the second shipment of the game will have it on the CDs.. sorry... sorry everyone."

You haven't ever played Championship Manager or Football Manager games then?

These games have been so buggy that usually SI (games' developer) gives patch very soon when the games comes out but usually it leaves out even some major bugs that can render the game so utterly unplayable that you cannot believe. And every freaking time every possible board about the game is filled with complainers. But funny thing is that because of company does listen to it's fans (or at least some) what they would like to see and be fixed, plenty of people keep coming back every year.

It's been only few days since Colonization came out so I think your best bet would champion list of wanted changes and bugs which you can send to Firaxis and maybe they patch the product. Things left out can be then done by modders (like adding Portugal etc.)

Might I remind you that you have already made two threads which one declares that you the game "F" rating and second one declares that you are "giving up". Let alone 95% of your posts are in some way commenting the game being poor.

So even if you might not call that all to be "complaining" but it surely can look close being such.

This was just friendly advice. And you should take it as such.

 

[TFVanguard]

You haven't ever played Championship Manager or Football Manager games then?

I blame 'grade inflation'. An 'F' doesn't mean 'worst game ever', it means it fails in some key capacity, and this game does. There are PLENTY of worse games out there... ever check out Sierra's 'Outpost', for instance? How about the ill-fated 'Master of Orion III: Revenge of the Spreadsheet'?

A lot does depend on the fanbase and how responsive the company is to it. We'll have to see what happens with this game, though. The main reason I'm concerned was that Civ4Col was meant as a 'add-on' filler and not really a top-tier title. (I had heard more than once that SEVERAL 'homage' games will appear like this, starting with Col, and including MoM, AC, and even MoO.) So I'm concerned it may not get the 'patch attention' that it really needs.

 

[Krupo]

For those still having a sook over this, I invite you to test Snoppy & my unofficial patch which addresses REF and MANY other bugs in the game.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=180830

To those still taking cheap shots at me and changing the meaning of what I posted earlier in this thread, put your fist in your mouth and help me fix the bugs ok?

I NEVER SAID YOU HAD TO PLAY BY META-GAMING ALL I SHOWED WAS IT WAS JUST AS EASY TO GET A TINY REF AS IT WAS TO GET A HUGE REF!

I played my first game - on a small (the game calls it "standard") map, fortunately, and was perplexed to see the super-sized REF.

I decided "to hell with it", can't catch up now, might as well start the war to see how bad it'll get.

Oh sweet mother, bad.

Good to know the bells are the cause of my suffering. Next game to be played less insanely.


I should add that I started playing with Col 1 in mind, thinking, "yes, my citizens will be more productive with the rebel spirit."

And on that front, it was correct. But sadly, on a smaller map it's a bit of an insane challenge to try and score enough power to beat a giant REF.

I think the suicidal "100% sentiment everywhere 100 years before revolution" tactic, which generates huge REFs, can still work, but you need to build up a proper huge EMPIRE on a HUGE map for it to work... standard won't cut it, especially if you pretty much own one island rather than a bigger chunk of the map.

 

[Lord Cain]

Let me guess, you produced bells the entire game? Try a new game but this time, don't start generating bells till at LEAST turn 100. See how big the REF is then. The REF is directly proportional to how many bells you generate.

It doesn't need balancing, you just need to learn how to play the game.

Except, having the original, even producing bells
from early on didn't create a monster REF

And in remake, since more rebel sentiament = more bonus production one should be able build bells early on, the REF should build up slowly, increasing added units as sentiment rises...

I think the early additions to REF should be probably smaller and REF shouldn't start accruing till sentiment passes a level like say 10 or 20 pct.

 

[Jeckel]

Well, I would feel better if someone at Firaxis would say "Yep, we screwed it up for everyone, there's a patch coming, and the second shipment of the game will have it on the CDs.. sorry... sorry everyone."

It would be nice if they would say something.

 

[Blackadar]

Well, I actually managed to win game 2 on the easiest difficulty level, but it sure wasn't easy. I used the "generate no Bells" method and threw everything I had at generating Bells around 1665. I had it at about 25 turns. That's the only way I had a chance at winning...

Before I get to the downside, let me say a few positives first. I like the whole concept - no big surprise since I liked the first one. The economic and trade factors within this game have enormous possibilities if you can actually get your economy going. The graphics are good and the art department did a wonderful job. The game mechanics are in place for this to be solid strategy title, if not a classic.

But having actually won a game now, I'm even more disappointed than I was before. Here's why...

1. I felt like holding back on Bells was "gaming" the system. It felt entirely unnatural and unpleasant. "Zerg rushing" liberty is so counter intuitive it just doesn't seem right. Imagine if you had to hold back on attacking Alien bases in X-Com because if you did, you'd get overwhelmed by aliens. But that horse has been beaten to death in this thread, so moving on...

2. I'm not getting any real feedback on whether strategies work or not. It takes forever and a day for me to get an economy running. I don't have a good feel for how many colonies I should start...5, 15 or 50? Should I city specialize or build everything? If you build everything, how do you find the time? Should I start one cash crop or 4 (this kind of goes hand-in-hand with the question above). Should I eyeball my neighbor's lands or should I play nicey-nice? Should I spread out or stay tight? Should I send my finished goods overseas or trade with the locals? What's an optimal city size?

There are a lot of questions in a game like this and I haven't found any real positive feedback within the game to tell me whether I'm on the right track. In Civ 4, if you grow cities too large, you get whacked with unhealthy penalties. If you spread too far apart, you can't maintain your economy. I'm not finding the same feedback mechanism in COL...

3. There are a lot of things that I can't believe play-testers missed. For example, on "noob" difficulty, the King of England had 5 Man-o-Wars when I was at 48% Independence. The next turn, I hit 50...and the King had 17 MoWs. It really defies belief that he could triple his fleet in a year.

Another example is that I don't think I'm getting any defense bonuses. I supposedly had +95% to defense, plus Bell bonuses, in my main city (with a fort). I had purchased Veterans Infantry (and Horsemen) in my city and figured I should be pretty damn well tough to dislodge. Yet the computer won the FIRST SIX battles against me...before bombardment or anything else...lost one and won the next two to take my city. I was stunned. Even with my best troops dug inside a fort with all sorts of defensive bonuses, I won 1 out of 9 battles. I let him go on to the next city...same result. In fact, the only way to victory was to attack. So I reloaded and went on the attack to win the war. According to page 33 of the manual, defensive structures "greatly increase" the defensive strength of the units inside. Yet in both of my games, forts and other defensive structures had absolutely no impact on the defensive rating of the units inside.

It's all fixable, but this isn't Sid Meier/Firaxis quality and rates as a "do not buy" right now.

 

[Lord Shadow]

Jeckel, be it good or bad, companies just don't do that.

As for the F, well, that generally means "as bad as it gets", so you're basically saying the Colonization remake is as bad as Extreme Paintbrawl. "Failing in a key capacity" sounds more like a D, but even then, I don't think the issues are as grave as you portray them.

Blackadar, the King might've had 12 of the 17 MoWs under construction when you were at 48% rebel sentiment. Or considering the Royal Expeditionary Force isn't the entire armed forces of your motherland, perhaps those MoWs (or anything from regulars to artillery) were simply assigned to it from other military units. I agree the jumps in numbers are a bit staggering, considering the low difficulty level, but they aren't unrealistic.

 

[TFVanguard]

As for the F, well, that generally means "as bad as it gets", so you're basically saying the Colonization remake is as bad as Extreme Paintbrawl. "Failing in a key capacity" sounds more like a D, but even then, I don't think the issues are as grave as you portray them.

See? That's why I say 'grade inflation'. Extreme Paintbrawl is about a what, 2 percent? Colonization (out of the box) is about a 58 percent or so. Both still FAIL, in that they're below 'acceptable for the money' scores, but there's still a heck of a lot of difference 'tween them.

 

[Lord Shadow]

But 58% is technically a C-!

More than inflation, it's massive deflation.

 

[TFVanguard]

But 58% is technically a C-!

More than inflation, it's massive deflation.

Man, talk about lower standards.

100 = A+ (or S, if you're Japanese)
90 = A
80 = B
70 = C
60 = D
50 = F

 

[Dale]

Man, talk about lower standards.

100 = A+ (or S, if you're Japanese)
90 = A
80 = B
70 = C
60 = D
50 = F

Hey, be glad you guys get A-F!

Over here:
0-49: NS (not satisfactory)
50-100: S (yep, satisfactory)

How's THAT for socialist education!

 

[Reveilled]

If I was a teacher and you handed in a paper that got you 58%, you'd be getting it back with a big fat F drawn in red pen across the front page.

I'm about halfway through my fifth game, and I'm actually going to finish this one, so I've yet to fight the war myself, but I'm playing it on my WIP mod and having a blast. Definitely a B (80) so far, though unmodded I felt it was a definite C (70). That said, I'm playing a 600 turn game at normal scaling, so I've removed the thing that caused me to start over so many times before, which was the feeling I was being rushed through the game.

I have been holding off on Bells as others have suggested, but I've been cranking out the FF Points to compensate that somewhat, and in any case the way that people were suggesting to play is more or less how I played Civ 1 anyway, building up a reserve of gold while building infrastructure so that I could pretty much buy my independence through guns and statesmen.

I'll see how the WoI goes, but I think it will be alright.

 

[Onionsoilder]

But 58% is technically a C-!

More than inflation, it's massive deflation.

Don't you mean D+? Or am I missing something?

 

[Lord Shadow]

Damn stupid marking letters.

I understood C was around 60%, so that'd make 58% something close to C-. In the three University of Cambridge exams I took, the rating system worked like this:

A: 80% and above
B: 75% to 79%
C: 60% to 74%
D: 55% to 59%
E: 54 and below

We normally rate stuff from 1 to 10 here. It's much more understandable and less subjective.

 

[much2much]

@Blackadar you got your 50% up blazingly fast? I'm guessing you used Elder Statesmen and your cities weren't too big in pop? Did you have newspapers and printing presses already?

 

[NikNak]

1. I felt like holding back on Bells was "gaming" the system. It felt entirely unnatural and unpleasant. "Zerg rushing" liberty is so counter intuitive it just doesn't seem right. Imagine if you had to hold back on attacking Alien bases in X-Com because if you did, you'd get overwhelmed by aliens. But that horse has been beaten to death in this thread, so moving on...

That's been my complaint exactly. It is meta-game strategy. That's fine at higher levels of difficulty, but at the lowest setting, players should not be getting punished for trying different strategies. In Civ IV, a newbie player is almost assured a win regardless of which victory condition they're pursuing. As the difficulties ramp up, the game slowly penalizes bad strategies and encourages advanced planning.

3. There are a lot of things that I can't believe play-testers missed. For example, on "noob" difficulty, the King of England had 5 Man-o-Wars when I was at 48% Independence. The next turn, I hit 50...and the King had 17 MoWs. It really defies belief that he could triple his fleet in a year.

See above. To repeat: This game does a fundamentally bad job teaching it's mechanics to players.

It's all fixable, but this isn't Sid Meier/Firaxis quality and rates as a "do not buy" right now.

I would agree as well, unless you're an avid player of these types of games or have a fondness for learning via punishment. Personally, I like the game, but then again, I loved the old Microprose original. I can see from quite a few posts on this board as well as at Apolyton, that there are a lot of frustrated newbies slogging through this game.

 

[smoke9999]

i call my self a pro in colonization, played it every year for some weeks cause its a goldie.

and im frustrated as hell at the moment.

Artificial Intelligence? what is that?

my other Europeans constantly get slaughtered by Indians or myself cause they don't give a . .. .. .. . about troops...

this is 1 out of 10 game killing things.

And like many others said its frustrating and stupid to find ways around having a huge REF against u. Its like exploiting game mechanics to win. boooring.