Colonization II

romanista · **Posted:** Mon Sep 22, 2008 9:21

http://www.eurogamer.net/game/sid-meier ... ization-pc

that looks beautiful!

(inc.freecol http://www.freecol.org/download.html is nice too)

Pod · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 2568

Freecol is pretty rubbish. It gets better each time I play it though.

Also: I boughted Civ4:Col the other day and hopefully I should get it soon, as it's released today, isn't it?

NervousPete · **Posted:** Mon Sep 22, 2008 10:13

I'd quite like this. Yes.

Not much is going to be achieved between this and Eve in't future, and it may just cure my Spore-not-very-good-blues.

RuySan · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 3542

no portuguese. no play

stupid sid meier.

romanista · **Posted:** Mon Sep 22, 2008 11:23

ah, those portuguese, we wiper your arses.. (and that got beaten by the english, but hey)

RuySan · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 3542

when? where?

Squirt · **Joined:** 31st Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 6631

I could understand limiting it to 4 nations in the original - I'm willing to accept that making more than 4 nations would be too tricky technically ( after all, as soon as you could declare independence on of the other nations would disappear to make room for the Kings forces ) but it seems like a bit of an arbitrary limit now. Why not stick in Portugal, and maybe Denmark, Sweden and Russia ( who all owned a bit of the new world at some point )?

Dudley · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 8679

I was told it's because each of the 4 nations had a distinct advantage in one of the 4 facets of the game. Any additional nations would effectively be copies of one of the existing 4.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49252

Also because no-one could be fucked coming up with a load more founding fathers?

RuySan · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 3542

the problem is not that portugal owned some of the new world "at some point", but the fact that it was the 1st colonial power and had at one point the largest empire. Not to mention some of the most well known sailors (like Vasco da Gama and Magellan) were portuguese.

Yes, portugal had almost no importance in america, and that's the reason that's not included in the games. And you should know it, you bunch of americanized sell-outs.

myp · **Posted:** Mon Sep 22, 2008 14:35

RuySan wrote:

the problem is not that portugal owned some of the new world "at some point", but the fact that it was the 1st colonial power and had at one point the largest empire. Not to mention some of the most well known sailors (like Vasco da Gama and Magellan) were portuguese.

Yes, portugal had almost no importance in america, and that's the reason that's not included in the games. And you should know it, you bunch of americanized sell-outs.

*chants* You're just a small part of Spain, small part of Spain...

Squirt · **Joined:** 31st Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 6631

RuySan wrote:

the problem is not that portugal owned some of the new world "at some point", but the fact that it was the 1st colonial power and had at one point the largest empire. Not to mention some of the most well known sailors (like Vasco da Gama and Magellan) were portuguese.

Oops - I meant Denmark, Sweden and Russia all owned a part of the Americas. Portugal owned a whacking gurt chunk of it - 7th largest Empire of all time according to wiki.

RuySan · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 3542

myoptika wrote:

RuySan wrote:

the problem is not that portugal owned some of the new world "at some point", but the fact that it was the 1st colonial power and had at one point the largest empire. Not to mention some of the most well known sailors (like Vasco da Gama and Magellan) were portuguese.

Yes, portugal had almost no importance in america, and that's the reason that's not included in the games. And you should know it, you bunch of americanized sell-outs.

*chants* You're just a small part of Spain, small part of Spain...

its funny that except people from madrid no one in spain wants to be part of spain. At least we're better than them.

myp · **Posted:** Mon Sep 22, 2008 15:29

What about Barthelowna?

-edit- I suppose they want to be Catalonia again.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49252

Back to the game, rather than tediously going over whether they should have included Portugal once again, does anyone know whether this constitutes more than a scenario? Have they done a decent job of the population mechanics, trading, and founding fathers?

RuySan · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 3542

myoptika wrote:

What about Barthelowna?

-edit- I suppose they want to be Catalonia again.

everyone i met from barcelona would be angered if someone called them spanish.

RuySan · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 3542

Craster wrote:

rather than tediously going over whether they should have included Portugal once again

it's impossible not to. PORTUGAL! PORTUGAL FTW!

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Portu-who?

So, back to Craster's question - is this any good? Also - is it a standalone or does one need Civ 4?

myp · **Posted:** Mon Sep 22, 2008 15:49

It's a standalone add-on pack(!)

Pod · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 2568

Craster wrote:

Back to the game, rather than tediously going over whether they should have included Portugal once again, does anyone know whether this constitutes more than a scenario? Have they done a decent job of the population mechanics, trading, and founding fathers?

http://fidgit.com/

check out Tommy C's little game-o-diary.

Pod · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 2568

myoptika wrote:

It's a standalone add-on pack(!)

or: An Expandalone. (not my name)

romanista · **Posted:** Mon Sep 22, 2008 18:54

RuySan wrote:

when? where?

i can give a serious reply to this although i agree they could have included them here in this new version, there is reasoning for choosing these four parties

1. sid meier is half dutch, so that helped.
2. the point is not so much the size of the portuguese empire, but that it was comparable in structure and tactics to the spanish,
3. the dutch use a radical different strategy at that point, both in east and west they weren't colonisers, they used local chiefs/sultans to their advantage and established a trading network, which was more subtle; they didn't do this for any moral reasons mind, pure financial .
4. although we lost new york, the largest city in the americas at the end of the colonization era, dutch influence in city and state remained large, at least until Martin van Buren, (4th president of the us)
5. even without territory the dutch were spins in the american trade network, for slaves, piracy and sugar..
6. and Maurits van Nassau (founder of Recife) was the best governor brazil ever had (during our reign there from 1630-1654), see here: http://www.colonialvoyage.com/brazil.html

personally if i would lose one, it would be the french...
(did like that when in brazil during euro 2004, the were all rooting for portugal,can't see the indonesians that doing for us*

* actually they were in the last euro2008, we heard, but that was more despite our presence than because of..

sinister agent · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 7046

Dudley wrote:

I was told it's because each of the 4 nations had a distinct advantage in one of the 4 facets of the game. Any additional nations would effectively be copies of one of the existing 4.

The reason given in the game's manual was that the Portugueses would have played too similarly to the Spanish. I quote:

Quote:

If we had included a fifth nation, we probably would have chosen Portugal. Although Portugal's influence was larger than the Netherland's, Portugal fell under Spanish rule for much of the time covered by the game and its policies and circumstances were very similar to Spain's.

The advantages of not having a tiny room - all your miscellaneous tat is basically left in plain sight.

Malabelm · **Posted:** Mon Sep 22, 2008 19:15

What on earth is Portugal?

If this is a standalone, I may well buy it. I absolutely loved the old one, so it's nice to hear they haven't tried to change it too much.

I really hate Civ, so if I wouldn't have to buy that: excellent.

RuySan · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 3542

sinister agent wrote:

Dudley wrote:

I was told it's because each of the 4 nations had a distinct advantage in one of the 4 facets of the game. Any additional nations would effectively be copies of one of the existing 4.

The reason given in the game's manual was that the Portugueses would have played too similarly to the Spanish. I quote:

Quote:

If we had included a fifth nation, we probably would have chosen Portugal. Although Portugal's influence was larger than the Netherland's, Portugal fell under Spanish rule for much of the time covered by the game and its policies and circumstances were very similar to Spain's.

The advantages of not having a tiny room - all your miscellaneous tat is basically left in plain sight.

Ok, i'm (kind of) convinced. I'm back to playing Conquest of the New World, though

NervousPete · **Posted:** Tue Sep 23, 2008 14:37

I'm excedingly tempted by this. May have to wait for next payday mind. Funnily enough, if the colony screens and interface were exactly like Civ's then I wouldn't have bought it - I really like that old woodcut and ye olde ink styley.

Also, has anyone seen that John Adams HBO miniseries? Sounds good and has Paul Giamatti. I haven't seen it though, and it's region 1 only, though I do have a multiregion DVD player so phew.

Kern · **Posted:** Tue Sep 23, 2008 15:02

nervouspete wrote:

Also, has anyone seen that John Adams HBO miniseries? Sounds good and has Paul Giamatti. .

I've heard good things about it, especially with regard to how it presents the arguments against rebelling.

NervousPete · **Posted:** Fri Sep 26, 2008 9:37

It's out today apparently. Ooch. I'm tempted. I've even got out a book on the early colonists to get me all atmospherised.

Anyone else getting it? Or are you all going to talk about the three F's and ignore this thread entirely? Tchaw.

GazChap · **Posted:** Fri Sep 26, 2008 10:31

I'll be buying it, but not today. Need the money for tyres

Dimrill · **Posted:** Fri Sep 26, 2008 13:24

This is now available at good reputable innerneh vendors.

Pod · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 2568

It should hopefully be in the shops as well.
I hope to buy it tonight or tmoorrow. YAY.

Stop rebeling, colonial scum!
\
:hat:

Dimrill · **Posted:** Fri Sep 26, 2008 16:47

I have installed it, but am too busy trying to beat Top Spin 2 to try it yet.

Malabelm · **Posted:** Fri Sep 26, 2008 16:59

I might buy it if I can find it stupidly cheap somewhere. Money's a bit tight.

Grim... · **Posted:** Fri Sep 26, 2008 17:04

It's quite cheap if you download it?

Malabelm · **Posted:** Fri Sep 26, 2008 17:25

Grim... wrote:

It's quite cheap if you download it?

Is there a legit source, or are you prodding me into piracy? I don't really pirate games; it's usually lots of hassle from my, admittedly limited, experience.

Pod · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 2568

It's £17 from the shops, about the same if you download it.
In other news:

WHY THE FUCK DOES EVERY SHOP IN FUCKING WATFROD CLOSE AT 5:30?! HOW ON EARTH AM I MEANT TO BUY COLONIZATION IF YOU CLOSE BEFORE I LEAVE WORK!?

I hate you, shops of Watford. Grrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr.

The Rev Owen · **Posted:** Fri Sep 26, 2008 20:49

Blockbuster?

Pod · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 2568

It's only a blockbuster vids

and it's like, 2 seconds away, rather frustratingly.

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49252

There's a huge Asda out of town, isn't there?

Pod · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 2568

Out of town is now good to me!

Dimrill · **Posted:** Sat Sep 27, 2008 11:18

Well it's definitely Colonization. Colonization living in a Civ4 skin, but it's still great. The Western Hemisphere scenario is absolutely massive.

Pod · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 2568

I had to pirate this because:

* An ATM machine stole my debit card. Both Amazon and Direct2Drive want me to input more information from that card aswell. They just wouldn't trust me

and
* I went to three shops on friday/saturday/sunday (they were closed friday, grr) and they didn't haev it. GRrrrrrr.

Anyway. It's pretty good. But, as said by myself, here:

Quote:

Turin: Were you playing the dutch?
If so, that might explain why the prices never changed.

I played it for a good many hours last night and the game is currently up to 1621 or something.(120 before I "must" declare" independance). I will agree that many of the founding farthers and downright shit, especially the ones that "give" you a certain number of things. Why would I want 3 indentured servants, when I can get a 25% increase on something?

In my game, production has suddenly become exponential. I'm shipping off lots of goods per turn and using that cash to buy lumberjacks, iron workers, farmers and carpenters, all ready to start cracking on the Confederate Navy. A few places already have the necessary docklands and infrastructure.

Additionally, the AI civs are a bit crap. I think the french got wiped out in seconds, because they never materialised. The english are stuck in the tundras of newfoundland and the spanish? Well, they set up 3 towns and had down with it. Then I bought a privateer and destroyed 4 of their caravels over the course of the game and eventually put them out of their misery and invaded the fools. I then did the same to the english, but I couldn't be bothered to invade them. Still, they can see there is a privateer there : I've accidently had him on sleep for 2 turns now. Why are you happily sailing 2 caravels laden with silver right past it? WHY?! WHY?! All that happens is I blow them both up and you spend the next 100 turns selling crap to the indians so that you may buy another.

The indians are also quite interesting in that they all quite like me, especially as I sold them all horses early one (though I've yet to see them use them). Additionally, why aren't they warring with each other? Additionally, I've stopped trading with the indians because they all want things like coats, and are only willing to give me 6gp per, whereas Amsterdamn laps them up at 10.

A humourous point is I chose the Western Hemisphere scenarion, and the game ended up putting the nidians and the aztecs in new englang and then sioux in peru

The others were roughly where they should be.

I've only just started pumping out people from my university, but I already don't like the system :/

I'd be interested to hear the developers decisions behind the founding farther choices. More often than not I just pressed "no". They were utterly useless and just ment it would take longer to get Gerogie Washington and co.

GazChap · **Posted:** Mon Sep 29, 2008 17:39

Picked it up for £17.71 at Asda on Saturday night. Haven't played it yet, on account of not being at home long enough.

Pod · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 2568

I might go to Asda to legally buy it.....but...I'll see how long I play this pirate version for ..

Zio · **Joined:** 31st Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 6093

I've got this now but only had around 5 minutes to give it a try. I've played the various Civs and Railroad Tycoons in the past, but never Colonization and it appears to be sufficiently different to require me spending a good while with it to get my head around it. Can anyone give a n00b like me some decent tips to get me started?

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49252

I made the error of assuming that a machine that would run Civ4 would run Col. Unfortunately not, as it appears they've done some graphics tweaking. Ah well.

Squirt · **Joined:** 31st Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 6631

Zio wrote:

Can anyone give a n00b like me some decent tips to get me started?

Go west, young man!

Err, other than that, I got nothing.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Craster wrote:

I made the error of assuming that a machine that would run Civ4 would run Col. Unfortunately not, as it appears they've done some graphics tweaking. Ah well.

Turn down the graffix?
RElatedly, is it just me or is GalCiv2: Dark Avatar a bit more processor and GFX card -hungry than the vanilla GalCiv2?

Cras · **Joined:** 30th Mar, 2008 **Posts:** 49252

Mr Chris wrote:

Craster wrote:

I made the error of assuming that a machine that would run Civ4 would run Col. Unfortunately not, as it appears they've done some graphics tweaking. Ah well.

Turn down the graffix?
RElatedly, is it just me or is GalCiv2: Dark Avatar a bit more processor and GFX card -hungry than the vanilla GalCiv2?

Graphics on bottom, doesn't help. Every scrap of terrain is white. Looks like Civ4:Lapland.

GC2:DA doesn't seem noticably hungrier to me. But then after the first game, I never played vanilla GalCiv2, because so much is fixed in DA.

MrChris · **Joined:** 1st Apr, 2008 **Posts:** 30498

Craster wrote:

Graphics on bottom, doesn't help. Every scrap of terrain is white. Looks like Civ4:Lapland.

Sheesh. What are you runnign it on? A laptop?

I thought your desktop was hardcore?

Quote:

GC2:DA doesn't seem noticably hungrier to me. But then after the first game, I never played vanilla GalCiv2, because so much is fixed in DA.

I hadn't played DA until last night, I'd only played vanilla. To the extent thay I actually had to hunt around for the serial number to register the bloody thing. Cuh, eh?

I guess it may have been running slow as I had Firefox on in the background.

Be Excellent To Each Other

Colonization II
or civ Iv: C

Who is online

Be Excellent To Each Other

Colonization II or civ Iv: C

Who is online

Colonization II
or civ Iv: C