As some may already know there is a spin-off of Civilization IV that is a remake of this game. Outside of the obvious (graphics/engine-wise) are there any significant differences between the two? I think I read a complaint somewhere about how in the remake the computer can spawn a nearly limitless supply of naval ships to attack you without needing to use any resources of their own, whereas in this version they at least had to rely on tax revenue. Can anyone fill me in here? (as someone who knows hardly anything about either game)

They are two very different games. Outside of theme and basic economic function most everything else works differently. Primarily, in the original Liberty Bells are the crux of everything. You should start producing them almost immediately. Where as in the update Liberty bell production early on before you are prepared will result in almost certain doom.

Much of the complaining about the update stems from that misunderstanding and that Civ 4 players attempted to play it as Civ 4 when it is not. Personally I dont think you can go wrong with either version but I enjoy the original much more. If you are looking for multiplayer at some point, just be forewarned the original is lacking in anything but hotseat.

Yeah that's what I read in a review of the remake, that this time your King will catch on immediately that you're building Bells and will attack you full force. Start too early you will be annihilated, but also too late when your colony is well-developed and you won't be able to rally the support you need to defend yourself, meaning that there's a delicate point somewhere in the middle where you need to act. Is this accurate?

Anyway thanks, I may get this game along with some others for this week's Atari sale, and the Civ IV complete edition whenever it goes on sale on Steam again.

Admittedly I have not played Colo4 on the difficult settings so my experience is limited. But terming when to start as "delicate" seems strong. Starting early can certainly end your day quick, but starting late just results in waiting more turns to generate the needed support to declare independence. I have heard horror stories of sitting there endlessly waiting, but again, no personal experience with that.

Always preferred the original vs the CivIV. TAC sounds like it is definitely worth looking into if I can just find the disk...been looking for it for awhile now but it still eludes me.

I enjoy Freecol. Had I never played the original Colonization i would say its the best of the three. But part of the charm of Colonization for me is some of the limitations Freecol has lifted on the game. Sounds silly I suppose but it I miss goofy things like not abandoning colonies over three with a stockade, that kind of garbage.

Comparing it to CivIV, basically the same deal as the original. I know people who have liked both the original and CivIV, but never someone who liked CivIV better than the original (assuming they played both).

Another thing which differs in original vs civIV version is that in original you are able to train Veteran Soldier in Europe but in CivIV it is not possible. You are able to teach veterans in university or directly in battles.

Last I checked Freecol was getting pretty good. It's starting to capture the fun of the original.

I played the "remake" only briefly, but a huge change seemed to be that to recruit people for the Continental Congress you actually had to perform the type of activity that corresponded to them.

Like, if your soldiers fought in battle, you got points towards soldier-related CC people.

This was huge to me - e.g. in regular Col you could get Hernan Cortes after a few bells and go raiding Indians early on, but obviously not in the remake. Much worse overall.

I like TAC, but recently i've tried Dawn of a New Era. Its not perfect, and to be honest, it kinda creates a completely different game. http://www.dawnofanewera.fr/col/