Original has maps in size adjusted for the economic model of the game and doesn't even allow bigger maps. It has better way of handling fountain of youth. But it has bunch of annoying bugs, less faction variety, and bong bonus is just pure cheese in 3 out of 4 games
Freecol has more factions that adds badly needed variety, AI isn't insane nor suicidal, you can actually make it work with injuns and the map size means you can pretty much ignore the other colonizers. But it has fricked up seeding for maps, so you will never get good spots generated, the schooling system while transparent is terrible when it comes to time needed and combat is genuinely borked, where there is just too much random factor to it.
This entirely. Both have huge benefits, a third game would be ideal. I love them because it focuses on exploiting, which most 4xs don't go into very heavily.
map isn't too small in original you can ignore colonizers except when they decide to attack you
original has also cleaner UI where you can easily distinguish different types of units
yeah there should be a loyal Dominion route in addition to Independence. although technically doesn't winning your independence "only" double your score? so in theory you could get a high score without independence.
yeah there should be a loyal Dominion route in addition to Independence. although technically doesn't winning your independence "only" double your score? so in theory you could get a high score without independence.
>Why do you only win by going independent in a game about colonies going independent?
The longer it goes, the more I'm convinced the whole neo-neo-con shit is just a way to cover for the fact how fricking moronic zoomers are, rather than anything even resembling politics.
>Canada >independence
Who is the head of the Canada, you stupid moron
But sure, why not:
1869 and later in 1885
>I don't know the difference between head of state and head of government
Impressive, very nice.
[...] >Why do you only win by going independent in a game about colonies going independent?
The longer it goes, the more I'm convinced the whole neo-neo-con shit is just a way to cover for the fact how fricking moronic zoomers are, rather than anything even resembling politics.
>Why do you only win by going independent in a game about colonies going independent?
Who says that's what the game is about? It CAN be about that. Royal interactions could be expanded and an alternate goal could reasonably be to conquer all opponents, meaning all tribes and rival colonisers.
Good.
I'm tired of trillion billion boring wincons muddling the playground.
Colonization has a very simple structure - your goal is to to build an economy that can outpace the hidden CPU opponent's predetermined curve in military production - then when you judge you're in a good spot, you declare a check and match forces. Anything else is just an obstacle or boon on the way towards the grand goal and it's perfectly fine, because it keeps things clear and focused.
New civs do the exact same thing where all victory is in practice achieved via superior economic output, except you're tracking five different races and adjusting your production ratio of notes, beakers, doves and god knows what else so that you don't fall behind in any. It adds absolutely nothing of note.
>New civs do the exact same thing where all victory is in practice achieved via superior economic output, except you're tracking five different races and adjusting your production ratio of notes, beakers, doves and god knows what else so that you don't fall behind in any.
This is why replacing the commerce slider system was such a bad idea. The game is already abstract enough as it is, now I'm collecting twenty different resource types. Diplomatic favor is the one that really pisses me off, such an abstract thing made again into another resource.
Don't really understand the issue. Turn off the win conditions you don't like.
>Don't really understand the issue. Turn off the win conditions you don't like.
You need to go for religion to benefit from faith. Likewise you need to get culture to finish another tech tree.
too much micro
>too much micro
True, you can start automating it more once you're developed but the first hundred turns is basically moving the caravel around.
I love the goods production, processing and transportation aspect.
I also really like the DOS version's graphics - like Civ 1, but better.
>I love the goods production, processing and transportation aspect. >I also really like the DOS version's graphics - like Civ 1, but better.
The game is pretty deep despite its simplicity. And yes, I tried Freecol but couldn't stand the graphics.
It could have been such a great game. Too much micro, idiotic battles and AI behavior, the need to keep an eye on enemy civs because if they get independence before you do whoops your score collapses
it is what it is, the guy who bought that game in 1994 wouldn't see another title in a couple of months. what's tedious now, back then was meant to keep people occupied, give them bang for their buck.
It's a great game, but I have to play the civ 4 variant. Too many annoying things with the original's UI.
Freecol?
Nta, but in a perfect world, there would be some middle ground between original and freecol. Both have their issues. Both have their advantages
What's are the pros and cons of each?
Original has maps in size adjusted for the economic model of the game and doesn't even allow bigger maps. It has better way of handling fountain of youth. But it has bunch of annoying bugs, less faction variety, and bong bonus is just pure cheese in 3 out of 4 games
Freecol has more factions that adds badly needed variety, AI isn't insane nor suicidal, you can actually make it work with injuns and the map size means you can pretty much ignore the other colonizers. But it has fricked up seeding for maps, so you will never get good spots generated, the schooling system while transparent is terrible when it comes to time needed and combat is genuinely borked, where there is just too much random factor to it.
This entirely. Both have huge benefits, a third game would be ideal. I love them because it focuses on exploiting, which most 4xs don't go into very heavily.
map isn't too small in original you can ignore colonizers except when they decide to attack you
original has also cleaner UI where you can easily distinguish different types of units
I only played the Civ IV version, it was fun but my only complaint is that there is only one way to win
yeah there should be a loyal Dominion route in addition to Independence. although technically doesn't winning your independence "only" double your score? so in theory you could get a high score without independence.
>Why do you only win by going independent in a game about colonies going independent?
The longer it goes, the more I'm convinced the whole neo-neo-con shit is just a way to cover for the fact how fricking moronic zoomers are, rather than anything even resembling politics.
When did Canada fight its independence war from the UK?
>Canada
>independence
Who is the head of the Canada, you stupid moron
But sure, why not:
1869 and later in 1885
Last time I've checked, Canada still had a crown governor, and Charlie is its newest king.
>I don't know the difference between head of state and head of government
Impressive, very nice.
>Why do you only win by going independent in a game about colonies going independent?
Who says that's what the game is about? It CAN be about that. Royal interactions could be expanded and an alternate goal could reasonably be to conquer all opponents, meaning all tribes and rival colonisers.
Good.
I'm tired of trillion billion boring wincons muddling the playground.
Colonization has a very simple structure - your goal is to to build an economy that can outpace the hidden CPU opponent's predetermined curve in military production - then when you judge you're in a good spot, you declare a check and match forces. Anything else is just an obstacle or boon on the way towards the grand goal and it's perfectly fine, because it keeps things clear and focused.
New civs do the exact same thing where all victory is in practice achieved via superior economic output, except you're tracking five different races and adjusting your production ratio of notes, beakers, doves and god knows what else so that you don't fall behind in any. It adds absolutely nothing of note.
Don't really understand the issue. Turn off the win conditions you don't like.
>New civs do the exact same thing where all victory is in practice achieved via superior economic output, except you're tracking five different races and adjusting your production ratio of notes, beakers, doves and god knows what else so that you don't fall behind in any.
This is why replacing the commerce slider system was such a bad idea. The game is already abstract enough as it is, now I'm collecting twenty different resource types. Diplomatic favor is the one that really pisses me off, such an abstract thing made again into another resource.
>Don't really understand the issue. Turn off the win conditions you don't like.
You need to go for religion to benefit from faith. Likewise you need to get culture to finish another tech tree.
>too much micro
True, you can start automating it more once you're developed but the first hundred turns is basically moving the caravel around.
>I love the goods production, processing and transportation aspect.
>I also really like the DOS version's graphics - like Civ 1, but better.
The game is pretty deep despite its simplicity. And yes, I tried Freecol but couldn't stand the graphics.
too much micro
I love the goods production, processing and transportation aspect.
I also really like the DOS version's graphics - like Civ 1, but better.
It could have been such a great game. Too much micro, idiotic battles and AI behavior, the need to keep an eye on enemy civs because if they get independence before you do whoops your score collapses
it is what it is, the guy who bought that game in 1994 wouldn't see another title in a couple of months. what's tedious now, back then was meant to keep people occupied, give them bang for their buck.