Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

CIV 1 + Colonization= CIV4

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    I don't know about tedious. The trade routes could be automated and once you had a Custom House, you could just sit back and let the money roll in.
    Tim Bromige

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by catullus
      Life in old threads...
      Caravans in Civ don't dissolve, they establish a trade route, which is, in fact, lots of smal camels going back and forth between the cities, trickling income each turn. It's handled transparently, of course.
      Col's trade was way cooler, but so riddled with bugs and prone to death by micro-management, that it alone made the game extremely tedious in late game play.

      C.
      Oh, I know about trade in civ... But I think the concept of Colonisation trade is much better.
      First of all, it is much more important - yes, there was no tax, which is wrong, but I would combine two ways.
      Secondly, it forced You to having good ports and navy.
      At the end of the game is was quite tedious, right,
      but in fact every game at the end gets tedious. No matter if it is civ, col, Heroes or EU...
      "I realise I hold the key to freedom,
      I cannot let my life be ruled by threads" The Web Frogs
      Middle East!

      Comment


      • #18
        How you mean there was no tax?

        Selling in the harbour, you had tax.
        Selling via custom house, you only got 50% of the price.

        Only difference a direct sell to Inidans or other's, there isn't tax.

        Or did I get you wrong

        Comment


        • #19
          I ment population taxation
          "I realise I hold the key to freedom,
          I cannot let my life be ruled by threads" The Web Frogs
          Middle East!

          Comment


          • #20
            Now I get you.

            But in early America, IIRC , there wasn't any population tax, they paid the taxes via the products they imported and exported.

            So why should Col. have it then?

            For Civ, they symplified this, as you don't deal with products anymore. Plus every nation/civilisation used different taxation systems. Remember the early Egyptians, they only taxed the food-producers, IIRC 10% of your production.
            For Aztects(?), all gold was belonging to the 'King' and had to be given to him. SO how do you want to do something like this?

            Anyway..... just two different systems in the two games

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Gilgamensch
              Now I get you.

              But in early America, IIRC , there wasn't any population tax, they paid the taxes via the products they imported and exported.
              Oh, I didn't know


              So why should Col. have it then?
              Owning a big city, even not a trade center, would result in some cash...
              On the other hand, I noticed one mistake in my conception; normally, production costs...
              And here not, unless You rush-buy something

              Anyway..... just two different systems in the two games
              I liked Colonisation system better. I just liked to trade, to produce... Getting money was harder, more... real I guess.
              "I realise I hold the key to freedom,
              I cannot let my life be ruled by threads" The Web Frogs
              Middle East!

              Comment


              • #22
                In Col, you have to manage each lumber-jack, farmer and so on yourself, so for this game it makes sense, and you need this system as it is.

                For CIV, as you don't control anymore the lowest level, it would be hard to take over this concept.

                I agree though, that the Col-model looks more real, but I think, it would be too hard to take it over. Also imagine, that you would have to handle this kind of aspect as well in CIV, THAT would be micromanagment to its best

                I already found it sometimes hard to manage my 100-300 settlers..........not talking about the normal units.........

                Comment


                • #23
                  In Col, you have to manage each lumber-jack, farmer and so on yourself, so for this game it makes sense, and you need this system as it is.

                  For CIV, as you don't control anymore the lowest level, it would be hard to take over this concept.

                  I agree though, that the Col-model looks more real, but I think, it would be too hard to take it over. Also imagine, that you would have to handle this kind of aspect as well in CIV, THAT would be micromanagment to its best

                  I already found it sometimes hard to manage my 100-300 settlers..........not talking about

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    i don't like the idea of merging either, they are both good games for what they are...dn't mess with a good thing
                    Boston Red Sox are 2004 World Series Champions!

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Next Generation Colonization

                      For those who may be interested in a Next Gen Col game, drop by our Forum.



                      Inputs are always welcome and who know, you may get addicted to the project.
                      Nobody ever defended anything successfully, there is only attack and attack and attack some more. -Gen George S. Patton

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X