Anyone still play Colonization?

This is better than Civ, great Indian genocide simulator for sure.

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

Homeless People Are Sexy Shirt $21.68

Schizophrenic Conspiracy Theorist Shirt $21.68

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It's a great game, but I have to play the civ 4 variant. Too many annoying things with the original's UI.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Freecol?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Nta, but in a perfect world, there would be some middle ground between original and freecol. Both have their issues. Both have their advantages

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          What's are the pros and cons of each?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            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.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              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.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              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

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I only played the Civ IV version, it was fun but my only complaint is that there is only one way to win

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        When did Canada fight its independence war from the UK?

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Canada
          >independence
          Who is the head of the Canada, you stupid moron

          But sure, why not:
          1869 and later in 1885

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          Last time I've checked, Canada still had a crown governor, and Charlie is its newest king.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >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.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      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.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Don't really understand the issue. Turn off the win conditions you don't like.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >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.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    too much micro

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    I love the goods production, processing and transportation aspect.
    I also really like the DOS version's graphics - like Civ 1, but better.

  5. 4 weeks ago
    Anonymous

    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

    • 4 weeks ago
      Anonymous

      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.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *