My issues with Colonization

[Felch]

I'm another old fan of Colonization who's not happy with the shift to wargaming.

It used to be that Col was mostly about building a colony in the new world. Your ties with Europe were a bit more meaningful, with wars being declared by the king, and such. Now it really is just a "prepare for independence" game, where the economics is simply an engine to drive your army. That's a totally different feel. It becomes a third rate war game with an overly complicated economic system, instead of an economic game with a military flavor.

Honestly, the WoI isn't that interesting. You've got an enemy with four different units, one of which totally outclasses you, and the rest are all basically "weak in the field, strong in the city." If the game were supposed to be a build up to the final War, why not have something more interesting? Why are there no Tory militias, no fast revenue cutters to shut down shipping, no distinction between light and heavy units, to allow the REF a chance in the wilderness? As it is, if the point of the game is to fight an awesome war at the end, Firaxis missed the point.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Aerion
DeveinCutler speaks for me as well.

Dale, Snoopy, You guys seem like the only two who are apparently happy with the design of the endgame. Pretty much everyone else thinks is sucks. Why is that?

Oh, don't get me wrong, I think the endgame could be more interesting, and either as part of the patch or more likely as a separate mod I intend to fix that. I think the game does not suck as much as most of the rest of you think because, quite frankly, it doesn't. The game is imperfect, but it is natural for people to be overly critical of specific elements that they don't agree with; that is of course How Things Work, and something game designers learn to deal with (in part by making games moddable!).

A large part of it is also simply game design theory. Some elements of Col were not balanced right, and some were probably not put in because the designers weren't aware they were important to the fans (or, they weren't important to that many fans ... the problem with this sort of thing is generally only the people who are annoyed about it speak up, so you don't know if they represent the rest of the fans or not!); but many of the decisions that were made are good game design, and were the rest of the game better would probably have not been something to be complained about at all. Unfortunately, most people don't know very much about game design theory; they know what a fun game is, instead, which is how it should be. When a game is fun, they like it, and sing its praises, often in excess of what it deserves (see Morrowind, for example, a game that is extremely popular, and even though it has some significant lacks, is generally praised in all aspects; but it is a fun game, and therefore not widely criticized); but when a game is not fun, fans look to see why it is not fun for them, and criticize aspects of it that may well not be broken, simply because they want to find an explanation for why the game is not fun.

In the case of Col, I think there are three fundamental problems, solving these would make the game directly interesting:

• Balance for easier levels
• Lack of 'fun' elements
• Weak one-dimensional endgame

The first is easily fixed (and has been in the patchmod). The second and third obviously came from the short development time, which required focus on the core gameplay and the primary endgame. The 'fun' elements (we're talking both 'Fountain of Youth') will be added by mods, I'm sure; and the third can also be added by mods, though that hopefully can be addressed in part by Firaxis, and honestly is probably the least important of these - for me at least, Col is about the part before the revolution, as it probably is for many people, and ... I just don't play the WoI if I don't want to. Nothing says you have to declare independence, after all... you might not 'win' but that's okay

Beyond that, though, I think the game is fine. Some additional documentation is probably necessary (again, short development time often will cut out some of this), such as for soldiers not counting towards your rebel %; but overall the rest of the game is fine (a few actual bugs aside of course) and when the above problems are fixed, I think the game will be a solid game with very interesting gameplay. Not that there aren't plenty of tweaks to put in (particularly in the UI), but those aren't necessary for the game to be a good game; they're just necessary to make it better.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by AdamWright
Agreed with the original poster, and to a large extent, disagree with Dale/Snoopy. I think I can sum up my view of the design choices in four words: It just isn't fun.

Want to spend time building up a large colony? Wrong! That's a *bad* choice.
Want to investigate founding fathers effects on early/mid game play, i.e. get some military help to beat off the evil French? Wrong! That's a *bad* choice.
Want to fight a war of attrition with the REF by hunkering down in huge fortresses with cannons blaring? Wrong! That's a *bad* choice.

I could go on and on. But it seems to me that, at each choice point in your strategy, the C4C designers have made it binary - you can do it right and win, or do it wrong and have a really, really, really slim chance of winning. There is no strategy - the choices are pretty much defined. Now, if you're like Dale, and think that every choice should optimise your War of Independence, that's great - the right choices are probably the choices you'd have made.

But for me, Col I was never like this - it was about, well, Colonising. The WOI was an endgame sub-game, that if you'd built a good new country, was winnable. Now, the game is better titled "Civ 4 : The War of Independence (And how to prepare for it)".

There should be more than one strategy to win a strategy game, so players with different tastes can do it. The poster who said it's like a puzzle is right - once you've "worked out" the "correct" choice at each step, that's it. It's like replaying the old point-n-click adventures. If you remember the correct response at each step, you win. Otherwise, it's Game Over.

And it's just no fun, for me.

I would point out that two of your 'bad choices' up top are not bad choices. They are more challenging directions, certainly, but that is as it should be: there should be a disincentive to building many cities just as there is an incentive to do so, or else that becomes the only path to victory. Build many cities, build up early FFs, and you will have a larger and more powerful empire when the REF comes to town; but frankly, if tripling your gun supply, and population, doesn't make fighting the REF easier, you need to focus on your gameplay, not on the game's shortcomings. It certainly makes it easier for me. Don't get me wrong, the REF is simply too big on lower levels; but above conquistador it's probably about right (and those levels SHOULD be hard). It's more of a problem that those higher levels can so easily be gamed BY the low-LB strategy, not the other way around.

The third of course is (in my opinion) how it should be also; it's boring if the best strategy is a war of attrition in cities.

The second half of your post, though, I generally agree with. Col is not (for me) about the WoI, but about the trading - and that part they got mostly right, except perhaps for trade routes, which some people seem to like and some dislike, so I'll give them some time for me to figure those out before I criticize them. I guess I'm just able to ignore the WoI, and the "win", and some of you don't seem to be able to do that... which is probably why an economic victory of some sort (probably still involving the WoI) should be possible.

[snoopy369]

By the way, if you want to continue actual discussion, and not finger-pointing, please stop using the word 'apologist'. It is a derogative word intended to imply that the person you are applying it to is not accurately portraying his opinion, but instead that of Firaxis. That makes the debate impossible, because it takes the debate away from the facts of the game and turns it into name-calling. That's not productive for anyone here (and is entirely inaccurate in any event).

[ebonyknight]

.

[ebonyknight]

.

[ParticleHustler]

Originally posted by snoopy369

for me at least, Col is about the part before the revolution, as it probably is for many people, and ... I just don't play the WoI if I don't want to. Nothing says you have to declare independence, after all... you might not 'win' but that's okay

Beyond that, though, I think the game is fine. Some additional documentation is probably necessary (again, short development time often will cut out some of this), such as for soldiers not counting towards your rebel %; but overall the rest of the game is fine (a few actual bugs aside of course) and when the above problems are fixed, I think the game will be a solid game with very interesting gameplay. Not that there aren't plenty of tweaks to put in (particularly in the UI), but those aren't necessary for the game to be a good game; they're just necessary to make it better.

While I have been critical of the fun factor issues with the game, I agree that it's not as bad or "broken" as people are saying. And you're right that we could play the game out the way we want and just not "win." My hope is that the game will be patched/fixed to the point where we can do both. Right now, it seems like the best way to accomplish that is to play on the easiest level, which essentially will give us some wiggle room in taking detours away from the "beeline to independence" endgame without making it totally impossible to win.

[snoopy369]

Definitely agreed. Economic victory is probably something we should discuss here - what kinds would make sense. Keep in mind, though, it can't be a real economic victory (ie, "get X gold") because that is essentially impossible to balance (and is sort of boring, also). It probably should include the WoI, unless you work it out as the Commonwealth victory (as well).

I'm leaning towards either a Mercenary style 'economic' victory, where you buy (from the other powers, probably) soldiers for cash; or a Commonwealth victory, where if you have a highly favorable relationship with the king (something like +6 or better), have 50%+ LBs, and 'pay' a certain gold level (10k gold?), you win. Both can work, really, the former being easier to implement (as it's still a WoI victory, just another route once you get there), the latter being perhaps more interesting, but partially violating the 'no gold victory' rule that is pretty hard and fast. It's possible the gold victory amount could vary by your largest colony size (not your current size, as that is easily cheated via disbanding colonists), say 100gp per colonist or something, but that seems still pretty easily gameable, unfortunately.

Another Commonwealth victory could be a modified Cultural victory - get 3 cities with a certain level of LB points, plus 50%+ SoI level (or 70% or ...) Again, not sure how easy to balance this would be, and not sure how true to Col this would be (you could ignore basically the entire game, and just go for elder statesmen).

A true economic-based victory must be possible in some way, though, perhaps involving goods traded ... I just haven't come up with it yet Thoughts?

[Felch]

Originally posted by snoopy369
A true economic-based victory must be possible in some way, though, perhaps involving goods traded ... I just haven't come up with it yet Thoughts?

Drive down the value of manufactured goods to be lower in Europe than the raw materials. That wouldn't be fair to the Dutch, but it would be pretty cool to take over from Europe as the manufacturing center of the empire.

That's just an idea, probably not one that would be all that much fun to play though.

[Aerion]

The fact that you can't realistically "BUY" an army from Europe is part of the problem. The cost of military units ramps up so quickly as to take that choice out of the game.

Making a colonist navy a viable option would also help a lot.

Making it possible to have more of a standing army would help

Find a way to make fortresses more resistant to european regulars and artillery would help as well. Having to dangle my cities to be a trap for REF just seems cheesy.

Soften the impact of LBs on the building of an REF force might also help.

Cap the tax rate at 50% or make a tax rate higher than 50% make the LB production go through the roof.

Have other foreign powers offer to sell or give mercenaries to you based on some criteria.

It would be nice to be able to sell goods to any european power. Perhaps even with some disadvantages. Think the english colonies severing all ties to england and trading with the Dutch. Certainly that would create some friction with King George, of course. European powers might even send a small REF to make a punitive attack on the colonies. Maybe even attempt to raze a city.

[Aerion]

Originally posted by snoopy369


Oh, don't get me wrong, I think the endgame could be more interesting, and either as part of the patch or more likely as a separate mod I intend to fix that. I think the game does not suck as much as most of the rest of you think because, quite frankly, it doesn't. The game is imperfect, but it is natural for people to be overly critical of specific elements that they don't agree with; that is of course How Things Work, and something game designers learn to deal with (in part by making games moddable!).
...

I don't think MOST of us are saying the entire game is FUBAR. We are saying the END GAME is not at all what we want it to be. And there are some glaring balance problems. For example, fortresses being totally useless is a problem for me. And overall, we just don't want to be forced into playing a one-diminsional game.

I'm glad to see that you are thinking of ways to open up the end game. Up until now, I was getting the impression from your post that you thought all was well with the game except for a few bug fixes.

[Aerion]

I guess another thing that bothers me about the end game and I just realized what it is.

Sid Meier himself calls this a trading game. Yet once you declare independence, your only real strategy is to end all production (due to greatly reduced trading options) and arm all your people (except for one statesmen per city) and send them off to war. There is no reason to continue production of goods or even trading with anyone. It would be really great if there was some reason to keep at least some of your people still working in cities. Perhaps trading with another European power or indian tribes for more artillery or guns. Recruiting mercenaries, ships or something - ANYTHING that might help the war effort!.

[devincutler]

Original Poster here.

Well, last night I finally won the game on Explorer. I was the Dutch, and I basically followed THE formula. 6 settlements (jumped up to 8 near end game just to have distant settlements to store arms and horses), with only 2 on the "King's coast" in harm's way. Wagons everywhere. Builder game for the first 1/3rd, then horses and rifles the next 1/3rd, then whip out the LBs.

Abandoned the 2 "King's coastal" cities (took out all colonists but a statesman and two fooders to avoid starvation) but always left a single infantry in them. Apparently, if you leave 1 INF in them the REF will take the time to knock down the defenses...if you don't they will just come right in...so a single dude can stop the entire REF for a turn.

Made sure the indians between my inland cities and the REF were defensive pacted with me. Didn't kill alot of REF but again...slowed them down and injured them.

When the war started, only left colonists in settlements enough to produce horses, guns, and hammers (to produce military points).

Basically, the battle was just me putting a single dude in the one city the REF targetted, letting them take it, and then taking it back over and over and over again.

The REF started with about a 3 to 1 ratio.

More comments and thoughts in next post (this one is long enough).

[devincutler]

When I finish a game of Civ, or AC or Col 1, my first reaction (often to my detriment, as I usually have other things that need doing) is to plow right into another game.

After I won Col 2, my knee jerk reaction was to fire it up again. But literally a second later, I was sort of....meh. Why bother? It will be the same game with the exact same formula. Yeah, I guess I could try a harder level, but that'll just be the same formula with more micro-management.

So I am off to other games. I am sure at some point I will pick it up again and try a harder level. But Col 2, as it stands now, seems like a game I might play once a year at most.

Having now won a game (which can put a new perspective on things), I will say the biggest needs are:

1. REF based on income or income mostly with a little LB thrown in (this is an easy patch and Snoopy/Dale have already done it)

2. More potential for combat with Europeans during the game. In Col 1 I liked that your king would DOW for you. That is very historical and a nice "game changing" random event that would help make each game different a bit.

3. Diplomacy with the Indians and other European powers AFTER the DoI. Allow us to continue to produce trade goods, spend cash, and use those FFs that give you Indian relations to possibly gain allies after DoI. As it stands now, the Lafayette FF is really nice, but not the same as the French actually joining the war. The colonists should receive MoWs and troops in force.

4. Purchase of mercenaries. Hessians and Prussians. Nuff said there.

5. Allow fortresses to attack ships. I liked this in Col 1.

6. More piracy from the AI.

7. Improved REF AI. This is a must. The AI is completely predictable. I absolutely knew which cities (even on the coast) were safe and could abandon them. This is wrong. The AI should go after all of your coastal cities and then use them to build efficiently to bolster their forces (creating Tories). For that matter, I liked that in Col 1 some cities could be Tory cities.

[peege]

First. I enjoyed the game several times over "broken" and all. Well worth the $25 I paid.

The end-game is something I haven't mastered yet, to know if there is more than one strategy. It seems like there isn't much choice there. But it only represents about .5% of the time in the game. The other 95.5% is about colonizing, trading, MM'ing, which as nerdy as it sounds, I kind of like.


The main issue with the complaints, that all of them seem to have in common is this:

"I played original COL and this isn't it"

Expectations, whether for a game or relationships, or anything you do, cause the actual thing to be less cool than what you built up in your mind. It works like that with everything in life. Expectations = Let Downs.

When you go into something with expectations High, because the previous versions of the game were fun to us then, even though we weren't expecting ANYTHING from them because they were new, leaves you coming out less than happy.

To maximize enjoyment of THINGS in life, the best approach is to see the thing for what it IS, and not what you thought it should be. Or design a game with a team of people that you hire and see how easy it is to please everyone right out of the gate.

I'm just saying that the comparisons are sort of inevitable, but also sort of irrelevant. I can still play CIV1, CIV2, CIV3, CIV4, CTP, CTP2, and COL any time I want.. I have all of them. If you want to play any one of them, boot up and play it. But this is a new and different game that should be different in ways other than new graphics. It is going to take time to fix the gameplay kinks.


I remember how Starcraft seemed unplayable after Broodwars came out. I can't even play CIV4 Warlords or vanilla anymore, cause its pointless now that BTS is out, and patched (to me anyway.) In fact, I can't remember a computer game that worked right out of the box.


We expect a lot from these games. It is amazing that we have a society where this kind of entertainment goes on, and yet, we expect so much. It's really abstract. If anyone should see the big picture, its CIV fans. 50 years ago, we'd be fixing our cars for fun instead of this. I am grateful to live in an age where so much is available. It's a shame things are taken for granted so much.

So let's not argue about it, so much as just point out what needs fixed and work together.