Colonists and Sons of liberty membership

[Father Beast]

I just realized a little bit ago that in all my attempts, I've never finished a game of Col.

Anyway.....

Is it true that whenever you add a colonist to a colony, he's always a tory? Ive had a few instances where I took a colonist from a town with 50% membership, and my SOL membership went down one, and when I added him to another town, my tory membership in that colony went up by one.

This makes it a lot less desirable to move colonists around, if true.

BTW, I figured out why I was getting beat so much in all my games. I never put any statesmen to work. I started cranking out liberty bells after 1650 in my latest game, and was astonished by the difference it made. I used to ignore them because I considered the continental congress members to be marginal advantages.

[Anakha]

AFAIK, a new colonist produced by a colony itself (as a result of natural growth (200 food)) is automatically a SOL, while a colonist from 'outside' is automatically a Tory. Moving around colonists always results in slightly higher Tory-support, no matter which colonists, I believe.

As for not letting anyone play statesman in your games: you must have never played on the higher levels then... at Governor, you can't have more than 6 (?) Tories in your colonies without getting penalties, so if you want to run your colonies effectively, you need the liberty bells...

[Father Beast]

Originally posted by Anakha
AFAIK, a new colonist produced by a colony itself (as a result of natural growth (200 food)) is automatically a SOL, while a colonist from 'outside' is automatically a Tory. Moving around colonists always results in slightly higher Tory-support, no matter which colonists, I believe.

As for not letting anyone play statesman in your games: you must have never played on the higher levels then... at Governor, you can't have more than 6 (?) Tories in your colonies without getting penalties, so if you want to run your colonies effectively, you need the liberty bells...

only played on discoverer so far. didn't ever finish a game because of colwin being unstable, before I went to win98 and it became unplayable. at discoverer, the inefficiency begins at 10.

thanks for the answer.

[Anakha]

I'm surprised by all the posts about instability of the game, I've seen them in other threads as well. My Colwin (from Underdogs, newest version AFAIK) is very stable, haven't had a single crash in the past year or so, while playing on Win95 or Win2k...

The only problem I sometimes encounter is that mouse-support starts to falter, and I have to restart to correct the problem, but that's mere inconvenience...

[Rex Little]

Here's something to remember which will keep your Tory count from going up more than necessary. Let's say you want to swap colonists around; for instance, you just brought an expert fisherman over from the home country and you want to put him in a coastal city and move someone from the coastal city to another one further inland. If you add the fisherman on one turn, then move the other colonist out on the next, you'll wind up with one more Tory in the city than you had before. But if you add the fisherman and move out the colonist on the same turn, your Tory count won't change.

[HolyWarrior]

DOS vs. Windows

My original DOS version is VERY stable, and it runs just fine under Win98. I found a later Windows version of Col, tried it and it was buggier than an ant farm with constant crashes.

[Dauphin]

On one version of colonization (can't remember the platform) there is a bug that messes up the names of the tribes. I met the Arawaks Tobaccanist Shops, and they wanted to trade 100 cigars Elder Statemen. It made me crease up when I first saw that bug.