Colonization

[Quip]

i had no clue as to where to post this..but they should have continued on with the colonization (series? don't wanna say series because only one version was made...Heh) it was a good game i prefer it over many of the Civ's that were made I just wish they would either come up with another version or fix some of the major problems in it like..other world powers losing control after you declare independance which just makes the game a complete waste after you Declare Independance...anyways just sharing my thoughts

-Quip Cracking Productions 1994-2000

[Solver]

While playing Civ, I thought I'd go for Colonization next, but it wasn't very succesfull, IMO. CTP and SMAC are 2 way better games, I suggest you play these.

------------------
Solver - http://www.aok.20m.com

[Quip]

i'm talking about Civilization 1 vs. Colonization = Colonization was more realistic :-)

[tonic]

A little distinction: you don't have to pay for Colonization cf Ctp and the newer games!

[Qilue]

Plus, the AI in colonization can give you a few supprises.

Example, having spent months playing SMAC, I decided to play colonization again. First game, I discovered I was on an island all alone. Being so used to SMAC's artificial idiot not doing amphibious assaults, I assumed I was safe. Then during one turn, a spanish galleon sailed up and dropped off some troops.

[DarthVeda]

Actually Colonization introduced me to the Civ series of games... so it holds a special place in my heart...

I really think they should do a Colonization II with a multiplayer feature.

[Tuna]

I hated the warfare part, but I loved to set up a proper economy. And of course the pirate ships

[Bkeela]

Colonisation in my opinion is a better game than Civilisation. Probably because it had different phases during the game:

1. Exploration and the rush for land, setting up your colonies and equipping your colonies with specialised colonists. [Those darn Tabacco growers were always the hardest to find - especially after the next phase].
2. Expansion of colonies resulting in conflict with the natives.
3. Competition with other European colonies.
4. The preparation for independence.
5. The independence conflict.

All these parts kept me interested throughout the entire game. On the other hand, when I had achieved a sophisticated civilsation in either Civ or Smac, I tended to lose interest because by the time the race for either the spaceship, or transcendance occurs, victory is already a foregone conclusion, where as the independence war in Colonisation was always a challenge.

As for a sequel, it would be nice to focus on Asia, or the Pacific colonies, or Africa rather than the America's, but on top of an independence conflict, the native peoples try to gain independence for your colonies. Rehasing the original with new graphics would be pointless.

Bkeela.


[This message has been edited by Bkeela (edited December 03, 2000).]

[Titan.]

I agree that Colonization was an awesome game. However it lacked some points that made Civilization 1 and 2 the beste games ever. For instance, there is the replayability issue. Games of colonization often end up as being the same as opposed with civ games. This is the main reason col does not stand as high as civ.

Otherwise they are both great games.

Titan.

[Bkeela]

Well, I only played about 4 nations regularly in Civ: English, Aztecs, Egyptians and Russians, so the replayability was the same for me. Plus, it had a random map generater like Civ, for those uncouth people who like to play on such in make believe worlds, so I can't see how it's any less replayable.

Bkeela.

THIS IS NICE
[This message has been edited by Andz83 (edited December 04, 2000).]