I tried to like it...
It would make for a great scenario in a Civ Expansion, but as a game unto itself… It misses the mark. It may as well be called Civ Railrods, because that is about the amount of choice a player has in Colonization.
One of the charms of Civ has always been the options in winning a game. There is basically one sweet spot in strategy to effectively win the Colonization. If you stray out of that, you are probably doomed. Getting under the covers a little more there are ample ways to win the game quick via abusing the game.
Likewise the only change in units is experience from fighting or founding fathers. Three land units and a few naval units. In the scope of the game this is fine as it is mainly until the declaration of independence a trading game. I dislike automation, so I found micromanaging they way I like things to get a bit dull.
Add to this the AI is very weak, the CPU smothers the player with units not intelligence. Additionally the king is simply there to annoy the player and bleed them of money. Most of the time the King can be ignored.
Founding fathers seems a little disjointed from the game. It would have been better to have the acquisition of them be a bigger part of the game rather than a behind the scenes spreadsheet of requirements.
I never played the original version of this game (despite owning it…) so I can not compare then to now. However it is not all bad. It is an interesting snippet of time. The graphics are gorgeous (and should have been used for the base Civ IV). Once you get a colony going it is interesting to see if you can break away from Europe.
I do not regret the purchase, but on the balance I have not really enjoyed Colonization. I think it could have been far more robust in game play, mechanics and scope.