Civ4-Col

Öjevind Lång wrote:
> Warning - this is a very long post. Despite quite a bit of ranting, I
> think it contains some good information, though.
>
> "Paul Hyett" <pah RemoveThis @nojunkmailplease.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
....
>> I tend to play with the toroidal world setting, so that helps on large
>> maps.
>
> I prefer my worlds round. Heh, that sounds like something Arthur C.
> Clarke might have said. Anyway, what does "toroidal" mean?

In this context, it means that they have the same topology as a toroid
(a donut-shape). What this means in game terms is that if you move a
unit East when it is already on the East side of the map, it will
reappear on the West side of the map, and vice versa. Similarly, if you
move a unit North from the North edge of the map, it reappears on the
South edge, and vice versa.

On Sun, 5 Oct 2008 at 13:22:48, Öjevind Lång <bredband.net DeleteThis @ojevind.lang>
wrote in alt.games.civ3 :
>>
>> I tend to play with the toroidal world setting, so that helps on
>>large maps.
>
>I prefer my worlds round. Heh, that sounds like something Arthur C.
>Clarke might have said. Anyway, what does "toroidal" mean?

It basically means that if you keep sailing north, you'll eventually
re-appear on the south of the map.
>
>[snip]
>
>> On the subject of trade : at least the caravans/ships turn doesn't
>>end immediately it enters a city - that was a total PITA in the
>>original.
>
>Yes, that's a very decided improvement. It really was annoying when
>your wagon train with fresh horses for the front got stuck for the rest
>of the turn in a settlement on the road to the city where the fighting
>was going on.

And if you gave it go-to orders, it would often unnecessarily visit a
city instead of by-passing it, thereby getting stuck for a turn.
>>
>> BTW, it took me a while to suss out getting horses to multiply - now
>>you have to have 75 'seed' horses in order to even build a stable,
>>then put a specialist Rancher in to get them to breed (as if they
>>need to be told how).
>
>I think that feature is absolutely moronic. I much prefer the old model
>where the horses would naturally increase but where a stable helped. By
>all means, one could have ranchers to make them breed faster, but the
>present system is insane. Without a stable or a rancher, the horses sit
>around for a hundred years without thinking about the birds and the
>bees, so to speak.

Another thing - once you finally get them to start breeding, they behave
like a swarm of locusts, eating all the food, even in preference to the
human inhabitants...
>
>> Another thing : I'm not sure what's with the Pioneers - you set them
>>going and they *never* seem to run out of tools - not that I'm
>>complaining about that!
>
>Oh, that's a definite improvement: If you equip a colonist with fifty
>tools, he'll keep working without a need for new ones, ever. If you
>reassign him in a city, you get back the fifty tools. That old system
>where he had to be brought into a city and re-equipped all the time was
>pretty annoying.

In other words, magic tools that never run out...

>>>I swear there are bugs all over the place.
>>
>> I've yet to find a serious one, though.
>
>I have. When the enemy attacks one of your cities, the game ignores
>your instructions to the city governor to keep his cottonpickin'
>fingers off. It equips your citizens at random for defence, even if you
>have lots of troops in the city, and reassigns people in a completely
>haphazard manner.

Sounds like another thing for a patch...

> I'm sorry about the rant, but I am quite disappointed in the expansion
>packs for Civ IV. That includes Col II. Here's another rant, if you can
>take it. First the good points about Col II:
>
>1. The stunningly beautiful graphics. However, I am sure they are a
>mere bonus because the people at Firaxis happen to be working on Civ 5.

You may have mentioned that, once or twice...

>3. The introduction of cultural borders instead of having your
>competitors surround your settlements with dragoons. Grr! I still get
>angry just thinking about that one.

Or more to the point, have to bribe them to FO, or declare war on them,
whereupon they fortify & ruin your production...

>6. The fact that you no longer can get new colonists simply by
>capturing enemy soldiers... Heh.

I liked that one.

>8. The fact that an Indian village teaches the same profession any
>number of times. You can even send two colonists to it to get trained
>simultaneously.

Haven't tried that.

>10. Indians who are deeply impressed by your culture may peacefully
>dissolve a village and cede the land to you.

I've had that happen.

>11. The new school system, where you simply send the trainee to school
>and then decide which profession he will have; you don't have to take
>anyone else out of production. All you need is to pay a fee for the
>education, the size of the fee depending on how advanced a training you
>choose. Cheap for a farmer, expensive for an Elder Statesman. You
>decide and pay when the trainee has been treained.

I keep forgetting to have a good stock of money available when they
graduate, consequently getting stuck with weak graduates.
>
>But here is a partial list of all the things that are buggy or plain
>wrong:
>
>1. The rancher system, as presently implemented. Horses *should* be
>able to multiply without a human to help them by explaining the
>realities of life to them.

Plus they shouldn't multiply when there's not enough food.

>2. The lack of an option to gain independence by peaceful means. You
>know, nifty economical and political manoeuvering, that kind of thing.

But that's no different from the original.

>3. The fact that now wars in Europe have no effect on your relations
>with the other colonizing powers in the New World. In practice, you are
>independent from Day One except for the obligation to pay taxes. The
>game has lost a dynamic element here.

That's an omission, rather than a bug, surely?

>4. The buggy city governor.

In what way?

>5. The extremly convoluted and clumsy ways one has to do some things,
>such as reassigning military units fortified in cities or
>creating/editing trade routes.

Takes a bit of getting used to, that's for sure.

>6. That horrible Europe screen, which is obviously the one they used
>while building the game, and then they didn't bother to add some art.

That doesn't bother me.

>7. The fact that in diplomacy, the Indian chiefs often use incongruous
>language from Civ IV. Sitting Bull saying: "May there be peace until
>there is no more room to expand". Well, that one could be interpreted
>as meaning that he suspects you will later on encroach on his lands,
>but there are other which are completely unsuitable. Inevitably, I
>can't think of one right now, but some of them are simply ridiculous
>for Indian chiefs. I don't think you'll get Montezuma saying:
>"Excellent. I am quite pleased. Let's sit down and have a jolly cup of
>tea, shall we?" but I shouldn't be entirely surprised if that happened.

The worst is when they start quoting Bette Midler lyrics!

>8. The fact that suddenly, my merchantman got stuck in Europe and
>couldn't be budged. I tested things by buying a new merchantman, and
>that one also refused to leave the ahrbour. However, galleons and other
>ships still came and went as they pleased. Of course, that could be the
>king's revenge for my refusal to pay contributions, but in that case,
>it should be explained somehow. I think it's just a bug.

BTW, have you been submitting bugs to the forum?

>12. The lack of the old Colony information screen from the original Col
>game, the one where you could see exactly which and how many military
>units you had in your various cities.

Well, not one available on a single-click, anyway.

>14. You can no longer order a ship to "go to" a given city - only to Europe.

Hadn't noticed that.
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

"James Kuyper Jr." <jameskuyper DeleteThis @verizon.net> skrev i meddelandet
news:gcar18$kik$1@registered.motzarella.org...

[snip]

> In this context, it means that they have the same topology as a toroid (a
> donut-shape). What this means in game terms is that if you move a unit
> East when it is already on the East side of the map, it will reappear on
> the West side of the map, and vice versa. Similarly, if you move a unit
> North from the North edge of the map, it reappears on the South edge, and
> vice versa.

That sounds excellent, in my opinion. I rust the planet does not look like a
doughnut in the space view?

Öjevind

Öjevind Lång wrote:
> "James Kuyper Jr." <jameskuyper.TakeThisOut@verizon.net> skrev i meddelandet
> news:gcar18$kik$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> [snip]
>
>> In this context, it means that they have the same topology as a toroid
>> (a donut-shape). What this means in game terms is that if you move a
>> unit East when it is already on the East side of the map, it will
>> reappear on the West side of the map, and vice versa. Similarly, if
>> you move a unit North from the North edge of the map, it reappears on
>> the South edge, and vice versa.
>
> That sounds excellent, in my opinion. I rust the planet does not look
> like a doughnut in the space view?

Not in the games I've played that supported this feature; but then, most
of them didn't have a space view.

"Paul Hyett" <pah.DeleteThis@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:DmHJjQONSQ6IFwIz@blueyonder.co.uk...

[snip]

>>I prefer my worlds round. Heh, that sounds like something Arthur C. Clarke
>>might have said. Anyway, what does "toroidal" mean?
>
> It basically means that if you keep sailing north, you'll eventually
> re-appear on the south of the map.

Oh. That sunds splendid.

[snip]

>>Yes, that's a very decided improvement. It really was annoying when your
>>wagon train with fresh horses for the front got stuck for the rest of the
>>turn in a settlement on the road to the city where the fighting was going
>>on.
>
> And if you gave it go-to orders, it would often unnecessarily visit a city
> instead of by-passing it, thereby getting stuck for a turn.

I remember that. Man, did it annoy me.

>>> BTW, it took me a while to suss out getting horses to multiply - now you
>>> have to have 75 'seed' horses in order to even build a stable, then put
>>> a specialist Rancher in to get them to breed (as if they need to be
>>> told how).
>>
>>I think that feature is absolutely moronic. I much prefer the old model
>>where the horses would naturally increase but where a stable helped. By
>>all means, one could have ranchers to make them breed faster, but the
>>present system is insane. Without a stable or a rancher, the horses sit
>>around for a hundred years without thinking about the birds and the bees,
>>so to speak.
>
> Another thing - once you finally get them to start breeding, they behave
> like a swarm of locusts, eating all the food, even in preference to the
> human inhabitants...

Oh, dear. So one should only build it in food-rich citie, then. Prairie
cities, so to speak. That figures from a historical perspective too.

>>> Another thing : I'm not sure what's with the Pioneers - you set them
>>> going and they *never* seem to run out of tools - not that I'm
>>> complaining about that!
>>
>>Oh, that's a definite improvement: If you equip a colonist with fifty
>>tools, he'll keep working without a need for new ones, ever. If you
>>reassign him in a city, you get back the fifty tools. That old system
>>where he had to be brought into a city and re-equipped all the time was
>>pretty annoying.
>
> In other words, magic tools that never run out...

Well, rather regard it as some kind of basic training or whatever. Anwyay,
the old rigmarole where one had to reequip the pioneers all the time was
very frustrating.

>>>>I swear there are bugs all over the place.
>>>
>>> I've yet to find a serious one, though.
>>
>>I have. When the enemy attacks one of your cities, the game ignores your
>>instructions to the city governor to keep his cottonpickin' fingers off.
>>It equips your citizens at random for defence, even if you have lots of
>>troops in the city, and reassigns people in a completely haphazard manner.
>
> Sounds like another thing for a patch...

You can say that again!

>> I'm sorry about the rant, but I am quite disappointed in the expansion
>> packs for Civ IV. That includes Col II. Here's another rant, if you can
>> take it. First the good points about Col II:
>>
>>1. The stunningly beautiful graphics. However, I am sure they are a mere
>>bonus because the people at Firaxis happen to be working on Civ 5.
>
> You may have mentioned that, once or twice...

Yes, sorry. Still, the graphics are wodnerful. One fo the few truly
great things about Col II - which I still play, of course. In fact, the
graphics in Civ IV now feel inadequate.

[snip]

>>6. The fact that you no longer can get new colonists simply by capturing
>>enemy soldiers... Heh.
>
> I liked that one.

It was ridiculous, and also meant you had a much too easy exploit to get new
colonists.

>>8. The fact that an Indian village teaches the same profession any number
>>of times. You can even send two colonists to it to get trained
>>simultaneously.
>
> Haven't tried that.

It's magnifiecent. In my current gane, I got a Jesuit early and settled him
in a Sioux village which teaches people fishing. It keeps popping converts,
and mostly, I just tell them to stay with the Sioux until it turns into a
regular fisherman.

>>10. Indians who are deeply impressed by your culture may peacefully
>>dissolve a village and cede the land to you.
>
> I've had that happen.

It's absolutely great, though I suspect that on harder diffculty levels, the
Indians become restive about the pressure and might go to war with you.

>>11. The new school system, where you simply send the trainee to school and
>>then decide which profession he will have; you don't have to take anyone
>>else out of production. All you need is to pay a fee for the education,
>>the size of the fee depending on how advanced a training you choose. Cheap
>>for a farmer, expensive for an Elder Statesman. You decide and pay when
>>the trainee has been treained.
>
> I keep forgetting to have a good stock of money available when they
> graduate, consequently getting stuck with weak graduates.

I alwasy try to keep some extra money; I learned that from the random events
in BtS.

>>But here is a partial list of all the things that are buggy or plain
>>wrong:
>>
>>1. The rancher system, as presently implemented. Horses *should* be able
>>to multiply without a human to help them by explaining the realities of
>>life to them.
>
> Plus they shouldn't multiply when there's not enough food.

Yes, that sounds buggy too. Perhaps there should be a "prioritize humans
before horses" option. And an "eat surplus horses - increase the human
population" option?

>>2. The lack of an option to gain independence by peaceful means. You know,
>>nifty economical and political manoeuvering, that kind of thing.
>
> But that's no different from the original.

I agree. I was hoping they'd incldue that. All that they have included is a
"time" victory, but by 1792, you'd probably be ruined from paying the king's
taxes. Unless you choose to completely stop trading with Europe. Hmm...

>>3. The fact that now wars in Europe have no effect on your relations with
>>the other colonizing powers in the New World. In practice, you are
>>independent from Day One except for the obligation to pay taxes. The game
>>has lost a dynamic element here.
>
> That's an omission, rather than a bug, surely?

An omission, right. A very serious one.

>>4. The buggy city governor.
>
> In what way?

I think I told you about the weird way the city governor take sover duing an
enemy attack; it mobilizes your citizens as soldiers even if there is an
adequate garrison (I got an elder statesman, a carpenter and a blacksmith
killed that way), reassigns the colonists in very bizarre ways when the
tiles they worked are occupied by enemy troops and seems very fond on trying
to starve your popualtion to death even when there are other options.

[snip]

>>6. That horrible Europe screen, which is obviously the one they used while
>>building the game, and then they didn't bother to add some art.
>
> That doesn't bother me.

It seems very sloppy to me.

>>7. The fact that in diplomacy, the Indian chiefs often use incongruous
>>language from Civ IV. Sitting Bull saying: "May there be peace until there
>>is no more room to expand". Well, that one could be interpreted as meaning
>>that he suspects you will later on encroach on his lands, but there are
>>other which are completely unsuitable. Inevitably, I can't think of one
>>right now, but some of them are simply ridiculous for Indian chiefs. I
>>don't think you'll get Montezuma saying: "Excellent. I am quite pleased.
>>Let's sit down and have a jolly cup of tea, shall we?" but I shouldn't be
>>entirely surprised if that happened.
>
> The worst is when they start quoting Bette Midler lyrics!

LOL. I think that emans that they are completely insincere. Actually, in my
current game Mangas Coloradas used those dread words to me: "Excellent. I am
quite pleased. Let's sit down and have a jolly cup of tea, shall we?" It's
out of place, and it means they are recycling a diplomatic phrase that has
been around since Civ II. Soemone at Firaxis must be deeply in love with it.

>>8. The fact that suddenly, my merchantman got stuck in Europe and couldn't
>>be budged. I tested things by buying a new merchantman, and that one also
>>refused to leave the ahrbour. However, galleons and other ships still came
>>and went as they pleased. Of course, that could be the king's revenge for
>>my refusal to pay contributions, but in that case, it should be explained
>>somehow. I think it's just a bug.
>
> BTW, have you been submitting bugs to the forum?

Oh, yes. Other people have also experienced weird things with ships that get
stuck in Europe. One fo them managed to get a caravel free only after buying
goods in port and selling them again on the spot at a lower price. Then the
carael klet go. I don't think this is another clever trick the king uses to
squeeze money out of you, because then he would turn up to gloat at your
predicament.

>>12. The lack of the old Colony information screen from the original Col
>>game, the one where you could see exactly which and how many military
>>units you had in your various cities.
>
> Well, not one available on a single-click, anyway.

The same information is given in a very awkward way now.

Öjevind

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 at 14:12:38, Öjevind Lång <bredband.net.DeleteThis@ojevind.lang>
wrote in alt.games.civ3 :

>"Paul Hyett" <pah.DeleteThis@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
>news:DmHJjQONSQ6IFwIz@blueyonder.co.uk...
>
>[snip]
>
>>>I prefer my worlds round. Heh, that sounds like something Arthur C.
>>>Clarke might have said. Anyway, what does "toroidal" mean?
>>
>> It basically means that if you keep sailing north, you'll eventually
>>re-appear on the south of the map.
>
>Oh. That sunds splendid.

It is! If you have a Destroyer with a double movement promotion, you can
get anywhere on the planet in remarkably few turns.

Alas, that's not an option on Col 2.

There is a triple-speed promotion though, which gives Privateers at
least a *chance* of catching something...
>>
>> Another thing - once you finally get them to start breeding, they
>>behave like a swarm of locusts, eating all the food, even in
>>preference to the human inhabitants...
>
>Oh, dear. So one should only build it in food-rich citie, then. Prairie
>cities, so to speak. That figures from a historical perspective too.

I'm guessing this is a bug though, unless when the food runs out they
turn carnivorous & start eating the colonists...

>
>>>6. The fact that you no longer can get new colonists simply by
>>>capturing enemy soldiers... Heh.
>>
>> I liked that one.
>
>It was ridiculous, and also meant you had a much too easy exploit to
>get new colonists.

But given the 256 unit limit, perhaps it was a necessary programming
fudge?
>
>>>8. The fact that an Indian village teaches the same profession any
>>>number of times. You can even send two colonists to it to get trained
>>>simultaneously.
>>
>> Haven't tried that.
>
>It's magnifiecent. In my current gane, I got a Jesuit early and settled
>him in a Sioux village which teaches people fishing. It keeps popping
>converts, and mostly, I just tell them to stay with the Sioux until it
>turns into a regular fisherman.

You mean they turn into proper colonists, rather than just Indian
converts?

BTW, have you noticed the strange effect that sugar-planter training
has? You send in a male free colonist, but when they graduate, they
become a *female* sugar-planter!
>>
>> I keep forgetting to have a good stock of money available when they
>>graduate, consequently getting stuck with weak graduates.
>
>I alwasy try to keep some extra money; I learned that from the random
>events in BtS.

I never bought that add-on.
>
>>>But here is a partial list of all the things that are buggy or plain
>>>wrong:
>>>
>>>1. The rancher system, as presently implemented. Horses *should* be
>>>able to multiply without a human to help them by explaining the
>>>realities of life to them.
>>
>> Plus they shouldn't multiply when there's not enough food.
>
>Yes, that sounds buggy too. Perhaps there should be a "prioritize
>humans before horses" option. And an "eat surplus horses - increase the
>human population" option?

See above...
>
>>>2. The lack of an option to gain independence by peaceful means. You
>>>know, nifty economical and political manoeuvering, that kind of thing.
>>
>> But that's no different from the original.
>
>I agree. I was hoping they'd incldue that. All that they have included
>is a "time" victory, but by 1792, you'd probably be ruined from paying
>the king's taxes. Unless you choose to completely stop trading with
>Europe. Hmm...

One thing I really miss is the Custom House.

>>>some of them are simply ridiculous for Indian chiefs. I don't think
>>>you'll get Montezuma saying: "Excellent. I am quite pleased. Let's
>>>sit down and have a jolly cup of tea, shall we?" but I shouldn't be
>>>entirely surprised if that happened.
>>
>> The worst is when they start quoting Bette Midler lyrics!
>
>LOL. I think that emans that they are completely insincere.

Or insane?
>
>>>12. The lack of the old Colony information screen from the original
>>>Col game, the one where you could see exactly which and how many
>>>military units you had in your various cities.
>>
>> Well, not one available on a single-click, anyway.
>
>The same information is given in a very awkward way now.

Indeed.
>
BTW, I've noticed that it really slows the system down when you've been
playing a long time.
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

"Paul Hyett" <pah.DeleteThis@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:xFn1rYUMCl6IFwdj@blueyonder.co.uk...

[snip]

>>> It basically means that if you keep sailing north, you'll eventually
>>> re-appear on the south of the map.
>>
>>Oh. That sunds splendid.
>
> It is! If you have a Destroyer with a double movement promotion, you can
> get anywhere on the planet in remarkably few turns.
>
> Alas, that's not an option on Col 2.

LOL. By the way, I'm rather irritaed at the fact that in most games, the New
World stretches from pole to pole so one can't sail from the east to the
west. I think that is poor designing. I can't believe it is intentional.

> There is a triple-speed promotion though, which gives Privateers at least
> a *chance* of catching something...

Good. But my privateers generally get sunk by the caravels they attack...
More sloppy designing, I suspect.

>>> Another thing - once you finally get them to start breeding, they behave
>>> like a swarm of locusts, eating all the food, even in preference to the
>>> human inhabitants...
>>
>>Oh, dear. So one should only build it in food-rich citie, then. Prairie
>>cities, so to speak. That figures from a historical perspective too.
>
> I'm guessing this is a bug though, unless when the food runs out they turn
> carnivorous & start eating the colonists...

Oh, dear! Perhaps there should be a custom option: "No horses eating
humans". Incidentally, whereas in the original Colonization one could make
a tidy income breeding horses and selling them not only to the Indians but
also to the mother country, in this version the prices remains practically
static throughout the game. Of course, the good part of this is that one can
easily an cheaply create dragoons. One can also buy the horses ifrom the
king in order to sell them to the Indians without the price going up.

>>>>6. The fact that you no longer can get new colonists simply by capturing
>>>>enemy soldiers... Heh.
>>>
>>> I liked that one.
>>
>>It was ridiculous, and also meant you had a much too easy exploit to get
>>new colonists.
>
> But given the 256 unit limit, perhaps it was a necessary programming
> fudge?

That damned 256 unit limit. That is emphatically something I do not miss.

>>>>8. The fact that an Indian village teaches the same profession any
>>>>number of times. You can even send two colonists to it to get trained
>>>>simultaneously.
>>>
>>> Haven't tried that.

I have now decided that it's an exploit . The game designers want you to
concentrate on the big showdown with the Royal Expedioonary Force. Another
thing I really don't understand is that now, it takes rver longer for
colonists to finish their training in your schools and colleges and
universities, It should be the other way around, with rising liberty bells,
as in the original game. Again, I think it is because they want you to
concentrate on creating military units.

>>It's magnificent. In my current gane, I got a Jesuit early and settled him
>>in a Sioux village which teaches people fishing. It keeps popping
>>converts, and mostly, I just tell them to stay with the Sioux until it
>>turns into a regular fisherman.
>
> You mean they turn into proper colonists, rather than just Indian
> converts?

Yes, and then you can use them as military units.

> BTW, have you noticed the strange effect that sugar-planter training has?
> You send in a male free colonist, but when they graduate, they become a
> *female* sugar-planter!

Yes, she looks rather like the domestic adviser in the original game.

>>> I keep forgetting to have a good stock of money available when they
>>> graduate, consequently getting stuck with weak graduates.
>>
>>I alwasy try to keep some extra money; I learned that from the random
>>events in BtS.
>
> I never bought that add-on.

You didn't miss much. I have gone back to playing vanilla Civ IV. There are
some good ideas in the XPs, but they are poorly executed. They also clutter
up the game and create imbalances.
It's a pity Soren Johnson returned to his previous employer after
finishing vanilla Civ IV. I can't help suspecting that Sid Meier is a rather
big fish in his pond, that his ego takes a lot of place. At least, skilled
designers (such as Brian Reynolds and Soren Johnson) have a tendency not to
stay around very long.

[snip]

> One thing I really miss is the Custom House.

So do I. I can't see any good reason for leaving it out. Of course, there is
one small compensatory feature: if t your werehouses overflow with a
processed product not banned by the king, the surplus is "sold at a
discount", that is to say, for half the amrket price.

>>>>some of them are simply ridiculous for Indian chiefs. I don't think
>>>>you'll get Montezuma saying: "Excellent. I am quite pleased. Let's sit
>>>>down and have a jolly cup of tea, shall we?" but I shouldn't be entirely
>>>>surprised if that happened.
>>>
>>> The worst is when they start quoting Bette Midler lyrics!
>>
>>LOL. I think that means that they are completely insincere.
>
> Or insane?

Or both?

[snip]

> BTW, I've noticed that it really slows the system down when you've been
> playing a long time.

Really? I can't say I have.

Öjevind

On Wed, 8 Oct 2008 at 19:19:01, Öjevind Lång <bredband.net RemoveThis @ojevind.lang>
wrote in alt.games.civ3 :
>>
>> It is! If you have a Destroyer with a double movement promotion, you
>>can get anywhere on the planet in remarkably few turns.
>>
>> Alas, that's not an option on Col 2.
>
>LOL.

Would be handy in dealing with the King's flood of warships - one modern
Destroyer would blow his entire fleet to match-wood...

>By the way, I'm rather irritaed at the fact that in most games, the New
>World stretches from pole to pole so one can't sail from the east to
>the west. I think that is poor designing. I can't believe it is
>intentional.

Actually, it *could* be, from some of the things I've read at
CivFanatics.

Of course, you can always go into Worldbuilder & open up a gap or two,
or use that Faireweather map script I posted about, several days ago.

If you love really really really *big* maps, then it's for you!
>
>> There is a triple-speed promotion though, which gives Privateers at
>>least a *chance* of catching something...
>
>Good. But my privateers generally get sunk by the caravels they
>attack... More sloppy designing, I suspect.

Must depend on the level - I haven't lost one yet, they usually have a
90%-ish chance of winning.
>
>>
>> I'm guessing this is a bug though, unless when the food runs out they
>>turn carnivorous & start eating the colonists...
>
>Oh, dear! Perhaps there should be a custom option: "No horses eating
>humans".

Grin.

> Incidentally, whereas in the original Colonization one could make a
>tidy income breeding horses and selling them not only to the Indians
>but also to the mother country, in this version the prices remains
>practically static throughout the game. Of course, the good part of
>this is that one can easily an cheaply create dragoons. One can also
>buy the horses ifrom the king in order to sell them to the Indians
>without the price going up.

I hadn't noticed that, but then again I usually play as the Dutch.
>>
>> But given the 256 unit limit, perhaps it was a necessary programming
>>fudge?
>
>That damned 256 unit limit. That is emphatically something I do not miss.

Wonder what the limit is on this version?
>
>>>>>8. The fact that an Indian village teaches the same profession any
>>>>>number of times. You can even send two colonists to it to get
>>>>>trained simultaneously.
>>>>
>>>> Haven't tried that.
>
>I have now decided that it's an exploit .

Another possible one : you still need a Galleon to transport treasure
back to Europe, but you can load several treasure trains onto one
Galleon...

> The game designers want you to concentrate on the big showdown with
>the Royal Expedioonary Force. Another thing I really don't understand
>is that now, it takes rver longer for colonists to finish their
>training in your schools and colleges and universities

Hadn't noticed that.
>>
>> You mean they turn into proper colonists, rather than just Indian
>>converts?
>
>Yes, and then you can use them as military units.

Sounds like another bug. After all, since convert came from the village,
he ought to know the skill already...
>
>> BTW, have you noticed the strange effect that sugar-planter training
>>has? You send in a male free colonist, but when they graduate, they
>>become a *female* sugar-planter!
>
>Yes, she looks rather like the domestic adviser in the original game.

Can't remember that.
>
>> One thing I really miss is the Custom House.
>
>So do I. I can't see any good reason for leaving it out. Of course,
>there is one small compensatory feature: if t your werehouses overflow
>with a processed product not banned by the king, the surplus is "sold
>at a discount", that is to say, for half the amrket price.

I noticed that, but didn't know what to make of it.
>
>
>> BTW, I've noticed that it really slows the system down when you've
>>been playing a long time.
>
>Really? I can't say I have.
>
You should play on a huge map, then...
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

On Thu, 9 Oct 2008 at 16:48:00, Öjevind Lång <bredband.net RemoveThis @ojevind.lang>
wrote in alt.games.civ3 :
>
>>>By the way, I'm rather irritaed at the fact that in most games, the
>>>New World stretches from pole to pole so one can't sail from the east
>>>to the west. I think that is poor designing. I can't believe it is
>>>intentional.
>>
>> Actually, it *could* be, from some of the things I've read at CivFanatics.
>
>In that case, it's actually wprse. Though in a recent game, there
>actually was a passage so you could get through to the western ocean.

If you're lucky, there's a passage through the ice near the north or
south poles.
>>>
>>>I have now decided that it's an exploit .
>>
>> Another possible one : you still need a Galleon to transport treasure
>>back to Europe, but you can load several treasure trains onto one
>>Galleon...
>
>At the Civfanatics forum, there's an excellent patch by Dale and Snoopy
>which addresses that

I don't particularly want *that* one addressed - it's rather handy when
you have lots of treasure trains around.
>
>>> The game designers want you to concentrate on the big showdown with
>>>the Royal Expedioonary Force. Another thing I really don't
>>>understand is that now, it takes ever longer for colonists to finish
>>>their training in your schools and colleges and universities
>>
>> Hadn't noticed that.
>
>I'm afraid it's ture. It reall doesn't make any sense at all.

Even so, it doesn't take that long in Uni's.
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

"Paul Hyett" <pah.DeleteThis@nojunkmailplease.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:5eoHd7H2ya7IFwlU@blueyonder.co.uk...

[snip]

>>By the way, I'm rather irritaed at the fact that in most games, the New
>>World stretches from pole to pole so one can't sail from the east to the
>>west. I think that is poor designing. I can't believe it is intentional.
>
> Actually, it *could* be, from some of the things I've read at CivFanatics.

In that case, it's actually wprse. Though in a recent game, there actually
was a passage so you could get through to the western ocean.

> Of course, you can always go into Worldbuilder & open up a gap or two, or
> use that Faireweather map script I posted about, several days ago.
>
> If you love really really really *big* maps, then it's for you!

LOL.

>>> There is a triple-speed promotion though, which gives Privateers at
>>> least a *chance* of catching something...
>>
>>Good. But my privateers generally get sunk by the caravels they attack...
>>More sloppy designing, I suspect.
>
> Must depend on the level - I haven't lost one yet, they usually have a
> 90%-ish chance of winning.

I play on the next easiest level. Perhaps I've simply been unlucky.

[snip]

>>That damned 256 unit limit. That is emphatically something I do not miss.
>
> Wonder what the limit is on this version?

Very high, I should say. After all, they use the Civ IV engine. I doubt
we'll ever hit it. That sometimes happened in the original Civilization,
though, if one kept playing after victory.

>>>>>>8. The fact that an Indian village teaches the same profession any
>>>>>>number of times. You can even send two colonists to it to get trained
>>>>>>simultaneously.
>>>>>
>>>>> Haven't tried that.
>>
>>I have now decided that it's an exploit .
>
> Another possible one : you still need a Galleon to transport treasure back
> to Europe, but you can load several treasure trains onto one Galleon...

At the Civfanatics forum, there's an excellent patch by Dale and Snoopy
which addresses that, and many other bugs and imbalances too. They are still
including new things in it.

>> The game designers want you to concentrate on the big showdown with the
>> Royal Expedioonary Force. Another thing I really don't understand is that
>> now, it takes ever longer for colonists to finish their training in your
>> schools and colleges and universities
>
> Hadn't noticed that.

I'm afraid it's ture. It reall doesn't make any sense at all.

>>> You mean they turn into proper colonists, rather than just Indian
>>> converts?
>>
>>Yes, and then you can use them as military units.
>
> Sounds like another bug. After all, since convert came from the village,
> he ought to know the skill already...

Exactly. Also, I don't think one should be able to turn Indian converts into
msisioanries. The same goes for convicts and idnentured servants; turning
them into missionaries was a frequent exploit even abck in the original
Colonization game.

Öjevind

"Paul Hyett" <pah DeleteThis @nojunkmailplease.co.uk> skrev i meddelandet
news:jiNBC+RiJj7IFwUT@blueyonder.co.uk...

[snip]

> If you're lucky, there's a passage through the ice near the north or south
> poles.

In my present game, there is actually a broad passage through the middle of
the map, creating two separate continents.

[snip]

>>>> The game designers want you to concentrate on the big showdown with the
>>>> Royal Expedioonary Force. Another thing I really don't understand is
>>>> that now, it takes ever longer for colonists to finish their training
>>>> in your schools and colleges and universities
>>>
>>> Hadn't noticed that.
>>
>>I'm afraid it's ture. It reall doesn't make any sense at all.
>
> Even so, it doesn't take that long in Uni's.

I suppose that the only reason to build them, since now one can train elder
statesmen even in schools.

Öjevind

On Fri, 10 Oct 2008 at 19:09:13, Öjevind Lång
<bredband.net.RemoveThis@ojevind.lang> wrote in alt.games.civ3 :
>
>>>>> The game designers want you to concentrate on the big showdown
>>>>>with the Royal Expedioonary Force. Another thing I really don't
>>>>>understand is that now, it takes ever longer for colonists to
>>>>>finish their training in your schools and colleges and universities
>>>>
>>>> Hadn't noticed that.
>>>
>>>I'm afraid it's ture. It reall doesn't make any sense at all.
>>
>> Even so, it doesn't take that long in Uni's.
>
>I suppose that the only reason to build them, since now one can train
>elder statesmen even in schools.

You can also train three at a time too, rather than just two in a
school.

BTW, did you see my Founding Father reference post? If so, was it
useful?
--
Paul 'Charts Fan' Hyett

In article <txnymkDVhE8IFwdl RemoveThis @blueyonder.co.uk>, Paul Hyett
<pah RemoveThis @nojunkmailplease.co.uk> writes
>>
>>I suppose that the only reason to build them, since now one can train
>>elder statesmen even in schools.
>
>You can also train three at a time too, rather than just two in a
>school.
>
>BTW, did you see my Founding Father reference post? If so, was it
>useful?

Well, I thought it looked as if it might be useful - I haven't got the
new version yet - so I kept it. Thanks for taking the trouble to do it
for us.

David
--
David Littlewood