My issues with Colonization

[Gaz]

Hi all this is the first time ive posted on here which is suprising as im a massive Civ fan. Ive owned all the games at one time or another and even owned the console release for the Playstation 1.

I found this site after searching google for a reason to why Colonization 2 is so incomplete. Ive had the game since the day it came out and my GF bought a copy too. I was shocked to find how unbelievably lacking the game is. I know this is meant to be a updated version of Col 1 but the problem is I fail to see where the update is.

In my oppinion this game fails to do what col 1 did not only that but it fails to bring any additional content to the game. An option to play just a regular game without the need for a revolution would have been nice just to add re playability to the game. Maybe even an indian war campaign.

I made the mistake of buying this game outright simply because it was civ. Ive always trusted Sid to make the best games ever. Now im not so sure, I certainly wouldnt buy a civ 5 or any other expansions just because of what it is. From now on my confidence has gone and ill be waiting to see how others make of the game before I continue my collection.

bottom line - once you finished this game you may aswel take it back to the shop.

[snoopy369]

As a side note, Col2 is not "Col 2" but an updated (read: updated graphics) version of Col. It doesn't contain much in the way of new content, and was not marketed as such.

[Dale]

Originally posted by Gaz
Hi all this is the first time ive posted on here which is suprising as im a massive Civ fan. Ive owned all the games at one time or another and even owned the console release for the Playstation 1.

I found this site after searching google for a reason to why Colonization 2 is so incomplete. Ive had the game since the day it came out and my GF bought a copy too. I was shocked to find how unbelievably lacking the game is. I know this is meant to be a updated version of Col 1 but the problem is I fail to see where the update is.

In my oppinion this game fails to do what col 1 did not only that but it fails to bring any additional content to the game. An option to play just a regular game without the need for a revolution would have been nice just to add re playability to the game. Maybe even an indian war campaign.

I made the mistake of buying this game outright simply because it was civ. Ive always trusted Sid to make the best games ever. Now im not so sure, I certainly wouldnt buy a civ 5 or any other expansions just because of what it is. From now on my confidence has gone and ill be waiting to see how others make of the game before I continue my collection.

bottom line - once you finished this game you may aswel take it back to the shop.

Just hold out for an official patch, and it'll become the best game in the world.

Remember, BtS was pretty unplayable till the 1st patch.

And Windows Vista isn't worth the disk it's on until service pack 1. All new games need balancing.

[Unimatrix11]

I STILL havent got the game, so what follows always goes with a ´IF what is said here about the game IS true,...´. I still want to comment on some things said here:

Originally posted by snoopy369
As a side note, Col2 is not "Col 2" but an updated (read: updated graphics) version of Col. It doesn't contain much in the way of new content, and was not marketed as such.

Well, then the problem is, that most people seem to say, that it isnt quite that either: From what i hear here, it doesnt deliver the ´Col-feel´.

Regarding what was said about expectations and taking that into account, the question remains, what this game was supposed to be, and how well it met the goals set at the beginning of the developement and held up to the expectations that costumers had, resulting from marketing or not.

Because, and the firaxians surely know this, when you incur expectations (or have to deal with existing ones, simply due to the name of the product), and you cannot hold up to them, that´s commonly known as opportunistic sales strategy, which is usually short-lived as you do not create costumer-return with that.

But, as said, i am still waiting for my copy to arrive...

[Gaz]

Its not so much in my oppinion the mechanics of the game, I was aware that it would be similar to how the first game was and yes though certain elements of the game are at the moment in need of re adjusting and changes I still believe that extra content should have been added.

In this day an age a simple conversion of old games just doesnt justify a game. I guess what im trying to say is I was sorta hoping this game would have alot of extra content that just wasnt available in the first incarnation.

However i have the art skill and background to make new art content for civ (2D/3D). So if anyone is interested in modding this game Id be willing to pitch in.

[goddy]

one another question i could not find in the Civilpedia, what number of FFathers limit of Continental Congress?
i count it as 10 but someone says it 20. for i'm in the middle term of the game, i haven't got all FFathers to fill my congress, so is the limit 10?

[peege]

I managed to stuff 14 in mine before none would ask, because I turned a bunch down.

A little arrow comes up and lets you scroll to the right. The original screen only shows 10 slots though.

[Cort Haus]

Originally posted by Dale
I think you might get a bit disappointed with Col then. Because Col is, has been and always will be, a game of the road to independance and the war.

I didn't find this with Col 1 or Free Col. Yes, independence was the ultimate goal but I didn't feel rushed into it, or that everything was preparation for it. The game was about having fun building some economic stuff then getting an army together towards the end to fight the REF.

I think the OP said it very well.

[nbarclay]

I haven't bought C4C yet, but I'd like to comment on what makes a good game. The key to making a 4X game good is to have multiple strategies that are comparably effective if they are executed well. That way players who enjoy different styles of play can play in a way they enjoy and still be competitive. But because the strategies have to be executed well, the game doesn't degenerate into, "You can do whatever you want and expect to succeed."

Without that flexibility, the range of players who strongly enjoy the game is much narrower because people who don't like the style of play they are forced into don't have anywhere near as much fun as they should have been able to. Further, there is less replay value because people who are able to enjoy a variety of strategies can't experiment as much with different strategies. From what I'm reading here, it sounds as if C4C made a serious mistake in not allowing as much flexibility as it should have.

Regarding the "bigger is better" issue, there is a right way and a wrong way to avoid creating situations where a heavy emphasis on expansion is the only good strategy. The wrong way (and probably the biggest factor that undermines my fun in Civ IV) is through heavy-handed manipulations that feel like they exist solely for the purpose of punishing players for growing too quickly. The right way is by giving players enough other things that are useful enough to do that the desire to do other things will naturally slow down their expansion - or, better yet, give them a real, meaningful choice of how they want to balance expansion against other priorities. Unfortunately, from some of the messages here, I get the impression that C4C made the same mistake Civ IV did in that regard.

[Cort Haus]

Some good comments, Nathan, about the importance of these type of games having the flexibility to allow multiple strategies. In my view, Civ 4 does manage this, even if it felt the need to be 'heavy-handed' in stopping ICS. It did manage to stop ICS, but that example illustrates how the need to stop exploits can have significant consequences. As someone who predominantly likes playing with smallish empires in Civ, I appreciated the design ideas involved, even when I found it hard to break out into a bit of old-style expansionism.

WRT C4Col, I'm slowly finding my way around the game, and might even scrape out a win this time, but I'm not convinced that there is great strategic variation. Reading the threads on CFC of those who are able to beat it regularly, there is a recurring theme of 'game solved, game over', rather than 'now to play again slightly differently' which is the classic Civ attitude.

Please get the game though Nathan, your analysis here would be good for the community, and the Dale/Snoopy patch, which I haven't tried yet, sounds by all accounts to be a good piece of work.

[Dale]

Yes, unfortunately Col (both 1 & 2) does suffer a bit from the "well I won, what's next" problem. But one thing I know Snoopy is working on right now is victory conditions. So I believe the next versions of the mods will be awesome with new victory conditions, as well as the player achievements I've been working on.

[Qilue]

I think I should have read some threads on this forum before my first game (Conq difficulty).

My 150 or so dragoons, soldiers, cannons and 3 warships faced off against 147 MoW and 800+ REF regulars and cannons. I won, but it got real close and they only attacked from one direction.

[Supr49er]

Welcome to Apolyton Gaz.