colonies

[Alex]

I like the concept of colonies, but it was badly implemented in Civ3, for the reasons outlined in other posts. Sometimes I use them in my games, but it is a rare ocurrence.

I like korn's idea of giving them an innate port feature. This would make them more useful in the game.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Alex
I like korn's idea of giving them an innate port feature. This would make them more useful in the game.

Same here

Besides, since they have a port, colonies would open you a trade route with the contient's indigenous Civs, if their coastal cities don't have any harbours. Such trading posts between Europe and the far continents were extremely important during the whole colonial era, outside of America (until the 19th century, the western presence in Africa, India and the rest of Asia were pretty much only trading posts).

[sophist]

Originally posted by Spiffor

Besides, since they have a port, colonies would open you a trade route with the contient's indigenous Civs, if their coastal cities don't have any harbours. Such trading posts between Europe and the far continents were extremely important during the whole colonial era, outside of America (until the 19th century, the western presence in Africa, India and the rest of Asia were pretty much only trading posts).

That's a good point. I think it would be especially useful if you had more advanced technology than them, so you could reach them but they couldn't reach you. In Civ3, you'd have to wait for them to get the tech (or give it to them) and also wait for them to build a harbor. This way, you can trade with them but not have to give away the tech or wait for them to build a harbor; in effect, you could monopolize their access to the outside world, at least for a time.

Now that I think about it, though, that doesn't seem to work because you'd have to establish the harbor in unowned territory. Might as well build a city, then. Perhaps a thing to do would be to build a city on their contact before establishing contact, but that assumes you want to and it's worth it. Clearly, the existing mechanism doesn't work for that.

One thing that Civ4 seems to be doing that will clear up a little confusion is by having resource-specific tile improvements. It appears that you'll need to build an improvement as well as connect a resource in order to use it. It's possible that colonies as we know them would get either eliminated or folded into that. That frees up the term for a more historically accurate usage.

Half-baked idea: there should be a way for you to found a city on foreign territory that does not cause offense. This city would be a colony in the sense of being a trading post, a way to connect your main trading network to another Civ's trading network. It would remain yours, but you would have to make certain concessions to the host nation for it not to be a threat. Think of Hong Kong or Nagasaki as examples, as well as Pondicherry, the Greek colonies of the Black Sea, Arab colonies around the Indian Ocean, and others.

You could negotiate with another nation to place a colony on their territory. This colony would have various restrictions (either by it being a special game concept or negotiated with the other civ) on it to prevent it from encroaching on their territory. If you violated those terms, it would be a casus belli. Otherwise, you have a small foothold that you can use to connect your trade network to theirs. This is also something you could demand in negotiations as well, like Commodore Perry in Japan or the British with Hong Kong. Maybe there could be a lease agreement.

I'm not sure how such a thing would work in Civ4. Apparently, the AI is much more willing to give up a city, but the level of control is pretty different. Also, it sounds like borders are either open or closed, with no middle ground where you could channel all interaction through a single city like Nagasaki. I also don't know if Civ4 supports trade monopolies; not in the sense of monopolizing supply, but demanding that another nation trade with you and only you. Those would be good things to explore.

Perhaps this mechanism could also be used to create overseas military bases, like the USA has around the world.

[Az]

I agree with Lord Nuke - this isn't the question of utility in game play, it's a question of attempted realism.

I guess it all stems for my dislike of the fact that building settler costs any resources, generally ( think colonization)

[MxM]

How about this:
The colonies should work exactly the same way as they are right now, expect that they have borders the same as the basic town (3x3). Similar like small cities, the colonies can be culturally converted (they have 0 culture).

However in future, if you want to upgrade the colony into a city, then you have to use SETTLER to plant city on top of it, or in one of the nearest tiles. In this case the colony would disappear, or become some tile improvement, depending on the recourse (e.g. mine for iron). Whatever.

The main idea is the need of the settler to convert a colony into a city, and giving borders to the colony, the same as for the smallest city.

As for ports and airports, I think this can be improvements build by worker on the tiles. As long as the colony is connected by road to port or airport, the colony will use it. Actually I think it is may be more realistic this way - quite often initially ports are separated from the place where the resource is collected.

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by sophist

All of those things can be done with a city. Plant a settler, make its single citizen an entertainer or something, build no improvements or units besides a harbor, and there you go. There's no maintenance if there are no improvements. There's no need to add a new thing or change colonies as they are to achieve that. Stop focusing on the word colony; think of it as a camp.

If you leave out colonies, then you leave out a crucial part of history, which IMO, is disappointing. If you make a city with an entertainer and build not units, you still don't have a colony. A colony does have improvements that focus on things that matter to a colony, not temples or marketplaces. A colony has half, or even less of the growth speed of a normal city. Not to mention that the city you just made cost two population/the building of a settler, while the colony only costed one population/the building of a worker. One population makes a lot of difference in the early game.

[Ninot]

I forget, could overseas colonies be made without making an accompanying port city?

[Tassadar500]

Originally posted by MxM
How about this:
The colonies should work exactly the same way as they are right now, expect that they have borders the same as the basic town (3x3). Similar like small cities, the colonies can be culturally converted (they have 0 culture).

However in future, if you want to upgrade the colony into a city, then you have to use SETTLER to plant city on top of it, or in one of the nearest tiles. In this case the colony would disappear, or become some tile improvement, depending on the recourse (e.g. mine for iron). Whatever.

The main idea is the need of the settler to convert a colony into a city, and giving borders to the colony, the same as for the smallest city.

As for ports and airports, I think this can be improvements build by worker on the tiles. As long as the colony is connected by road to port or airport, the colony will use it. Actually I think it is may be more realistic this way - quite often initially ports are separated from the place where the resource is collected.

So a colony now costs a settler and a worker? I don't like that idea.

[Az]

I'd play along, as long as the city is size 3, and the colony will have a harbor. ( not the city, though. hmmm, problem )

[MxM]

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear
So a colony now costs a settler and a worker? I don't like that idea.

No, a colony cost only a worker. The UPGRADE of a colony to a CITY cost a settler.

It is not that expensive as you may think. You put colonies in the beginning of the game, when the settlers are expensive, and you do not have extra population. You just want to claim the resource. Later, however, you can make a settler without any problem, so you do it and upgrade the colony into a city.

This gives you more options, more choices in the game. Do you build a city right now, which is more expansive now, but cheaper in a total run, or you build a colony now and have to spend a settler later? More choices = more interesting gameplay.

[Niptium]

Wait a minute. I'm talking about colony in the COLONIZATION kind of sens - not in the Civilization 3 house-on-a-hill thingie that was the most worthless thing ever.

I'm thinking about unveiling 1/3 of the map only when Navigation and caravelles are uncovered.

[sophist]

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear

If you leave out colonies, then you leave out a crucial part of history, which IMO, is disappointing.

I agree. Hence my half-baked suggestion above.

Originally posted by Lord Nuclear

If you make a city with an entertainer and build not units, you still don't have a colony. A colony does have improvements that focus on things that matter to a colony, not temples or marketplaces. A colony has half, or even less of the growth speed of a normal city. Not to mention that the city you just made cost two population/the building of a settler, while the colony only costed one population/the building of a worker. One population makes a lot of difference in the early game.

The game would suffer from having two things that are too similar to each other. That's the core of my disagreement. These things make a colony into a quasi-city, not a thing unto itself. Either make it a city or make it something unlike a city, but splitting the difference is no good for gameplay.

I also think people are getting too hung up on the name colony. Dictionary.com's (relevant) definitions of the word are:

1a. A group of emigrants or their descendants who settle in a distant territory but remain subject to or closely associated with the parent country.
1b. A territory thus settled.

2. A region politically controlled by a distant country; a dependency.

That definition says nothing about what form the settlement takes. Historical colonies were real cities. They may have been small ones, but they were real cities. The only real factor that distinguished them from their home cities was distance.

[patcon]

Originally posted by Ninot
I forget, could overseas colonies be made without making an accompanying port city?

In civ 3 you can put a colony on any resource tile you want in unclaimed territory. Once a civ's (hopefully your own) territory expands to cover the colony, the colony ceases to exist. Of course a colony does you no good at all unless a road trade route exists from the colony to one of your cities.
So yes, you could put a worker on a boat, sail to some distant shore, unload and build a colony on a resource tile. But unless that colony is connected to a city with a harbor, and you have a harbor back in your main territory, you get no benefit, nada, zip, zilch, nicht.

[MxM]

Originally posted by Niptium
Wait a minute. I'm talking about colony in the COLONIZATION kind of sens - not in the Civilization 3 house-on-a-hill thingie that was the most worthless thing ever.

I'm thinking about unveiling 1/3 of the map only when Navigation and caravelles are uncovered.

Yes, I was talking about that colony or worker camp, not colonization type of colony. This was not obvious from this thread.

[Boris Godunov]

IMO colonies in Civ3 are pretty useless. The time and cost of getting them pretty much negates their usefulness as opposed to just building a nearby city.

I like the Europa Universalis model: Start off with a trading post that can then upgrade to a colony which can then upgrade to a full-fledged city.