Colonies

[Prussia]

Then maybe it can be 30 turns, that's not the point.

[Dampier]

It would be easy enough to send a settler if I had wanted a city there. The point is to acquire the resource without the excessive drain on gold that a distant city entails. That is why I don't think the colony should grow into a city.

If, however, the colony were to revolt, then it could grow into the city of a different civ. In which case I would have to send in the troops.

[Will9]

Again I will say the when I see a colony as good option.

1: You see a resource you don't have or a city spot and you think the AI may settle a city there first so you so you make a colonist since they don't take as long to make. If want it to become a city you send more colonists, or you could stop growth if you want the gold from the resource.

2: Settling on other continents. Settlers can't be carried in caravals. It may be risky settling a colony without being able to get troops there. Because of that I have come up two militia units that can bought, or trained if you have turned growth off. The first one is a weak pikeman that can be bought with Engineering. The second one is a weak Musketman that can be bought with Gunpowder. Both Militia units can't exit a colony's borders.

3: To Provolk war. Read #11 on my earlier post.

4: To prevent other nations from settling in land you just conquered, but is curently without culture.

Also the growth at 15 turns was a guess. Mabye It could happen at thirty turns as Prussia said. Thirty turns would probably be better. Maybe even you would have to send the extra colonists for it to grow into a city.

[Prussia]

Then maybe there can be a pop-up saying, "My lord, the colony wants to become a city. Shall we allow it to?"

And you can pick whatever you want, but I just thought it would be more realistic as most colonies became cities anyways.

[patcon]

Colonies
Why?

Resources often appear in regions
(1) in which the establishment of a city is unreasonable because of surrounding terrain (e.g., bananas in the middle of the jungle, or silver in the middle of ice) and
(2) which are not likely to fall within your cultural borders within a reasonable amount of time.

How?

The establishment of colonies should not be easy and should have a degree of risk.

A specialized unit is required to establish a colony.
(1) This unit would be specific to a particular tile improvement needed to access a resource. For example, plantation colonists could only establish plantation colonies, but could establish any kind of plantation.
(2) Production of a colonist unit could not be started until all requisite techs had been discovered. That would include Writing to allow communication with the colony, whatever additional techs are needed to unlock the tile improvement, and possibly Hunting so the colony could feed itself. For example, ranching colonists would need to be outfitted with ranching equipment which wouldn't be available until Animal Husbandry was discovered.
(3) The production cost of a colonist unit should be high to reflect its capabilities. It will effectively be a scout/worker with a strength of 1 (defense only), a movement of 2, and the ability to build roads and a specific tile improvement. I would set the cost at 80 (which is midway between worker and settler and more than worker + scout) and use the worker/settler means of production.

The establishment of a colony should take some time to become productive for the founding civ.
(1) Colonies would have to be trade-connected to the founding civ to provide resources.
(a) The colonist unit could assist in this by building roads (at the usual worker rate) en route to the ultimate colony tile, or normal workers could be used.
(b) A special colonist unit would be needed to establish a harbor which would act as a coastal city for the purposes of trade routes.
(c) Colonies would serve as trade links to other civs.
(2) Once the colonist unit reaches its destination, it founds the colony. This can be thought of as two distinct, but non-interruptable, steps: establishment of a defensive position and building the relevant tile improvement.
(a) The establishment of a defensive position would take 1 turn.
(b) The building of the relevant tile improvement would take the usual rate.
(c) At the start of the founding process, the colonist unit is transformed into a movementless entity with a strength of 2.
(d) At the end of the founding process, the colony is fully active. It produces the resource, has a (purely-defensive) base strength of 2, which is modified by terrain and is augmented over time through the fortification bonus, and has a +1 line of sight around the colony. XP could be accrued through successful defense and promotions could be earned.

The establishment of colonies should have a degree of risk.
(1) Colonies would not have a cultural radius and are subject to attack by wild animals.
(2) Colonies would be attractive targets for barbarians (both animal and human) and should be more likely to be attacked than ordinary units of equivalent strength. The likelihood of attack should increase with increased distance from the homeland.
(3) Colonies would stop providing resources if their strength is dropped below 50% by attacks and would not resume until healed to at least 50%.
(4) These risks could be reduced by posting other military units on the colony tile.
(5) Colonies can be absorbed by another civ. Colonies will remain outside another civ's cultural border until that civ's border completely encircle the colony. At that point, the colony is abandoned and the tile, with its improvemments intact, is absorbed int o the new civ.
(6) Colonies can be attacked by another civ during times of war. If defeated, the colony and its improvement is pillaged (gold yield is cottage by improvement) and the victor gains a captured worker.

The founding of a colony will effect the founding of cities.
(a) Once the founding process has begun and as long as the colony remains intact, no other civ may found a city adjacent to that tile. Exception: a civ may always found a city in a tile containing its own colony.

[saad_23]

Are u guys going to keep on arguing or sum1's gonna develop a "Colony mod" also?

Silly i see loads of new ideas everyday, few of which ever turns into reality.......

[johnmcd]

Colonies would be cool, but they if are to have the ability to turn into a city it should be more like the timescale for a cottage turning into a town than anything else. Cities are hugely valuable.

[MoonWolf]

I don't agree that colonies should grow into cities. In fact, many cities today are former colonies, so when you settle a new city in Civ, this is often to gain access to certain resources (either a strategic one or simply land to be able grow), so you are actually buidling a sort of colonies.

But, building a pure colony would be nice. Patcon's ideas for how to implement these seem good. However, I think a colony should be quite expensive to keep. It will simply a sort of industrial plant that harvest raw materials for shipping to it's motherland.

Also, it should not be possible for a foreign nation to build a city closer than 2 tiles away from the colony (as with cities next to other cities). The colony's owner should though be allowed to do this as a city could represent the colony developing.

[padillah]

Originally posted by Will9
This is how I see colonies working,

1: They are settled by colonists (cost 25-50 on epic, movement 2, can be carried by caravels, require writing)

This is a little too small. Remember, 50 on epic is 25 on Normal. A Setller costs 100 on normal so 25 is right out.

2: They have borders exteding no farther than one square from the colony.

I like the idea of borders. It gives you the chance to settle in the middle of a group of beavers and get all of them. Makes resource "lumps" worthwhile.

3: They grow into cities in 15 turns (epic). The rate is doubled if a second colonist is sent and it automaticly becomes a city is a third colonist is sent.

Again, and as you've aquiesed, 15 turns is too short. I don't think colonies should be allowed to turn into cities, but I'll say why in another post.

4: They recieve no defencive bonuses, except from buildings.

5: Enemy units can enter a colonies borders.

6: They have no production, but some buildings (such as walls, courthouses, and some buildings that can't be built in cities like a trader) can be bought with gold.

7: They generate a certian amount of gold for every resource withen the colonies borders ifthe colny is conected to your trade network. The bonus less for every other source of that resourse.

Not sure this is necessary. They are already producing the resource, isn't that enough? Start adding gold to the mix and people will place colonies just to get the gold.

8: They can only be settled beyond 4 squares from cutural borders.

I think it should be the other way; they can only be settled within 4 squares outside the cultural borders. Or no distance barriers at all (other than outside the cultural borders).

9: Another city or colony can only be settled with beyond 2 squares from the colony.

I think this is needlessly limiting. If you are simply raing to a resource and get a colonist there first there should be nothing keeping you from putting a city there eventually.

10: you can prevent them from growing into cities.

They should never be cities, but I'll get to that later.

11: If left undefended they can captured without war, but all other nations will get angry at you. The formor owner can then declare war on the nation that captured the colony without other nations getting angry, and without decaring war on a nation with a defensive pact. If your enemy is in a team all other nations in the team you will declare war on all other nation on the team. If you chose to declare war defensive pacts will not be broken and teamates will follow you.

This is way to convoluted and complex. It's your territory, attacking it means war.

12: You can disband them.

Nice addition.

13: They can be traded.

Or gifted...

14: They only cost gold from distance. Cost is increased if the colony is unconected.

Why would they generate gold and cost gold? No gold. Access to resources is enough.

15: Units in the colony will only cost supply if the colony is unconnected.

Don't see a need for units in a colony.

I see colonies good in four ways: 1) to quickly get territory if you have no time to make a settler, 2) to settle on another continent, 3) to provolk war, and 4) to prevent other nations from settling in land without culture after a war.

I don't see any of those as valid reasons for a colony. You may be talking about something else.

All I'm looking for is a way to get that stupid copper way over there without having to settle a city in the middle of the desert or wait for my borders to grow which now takes 250 turns.

Tom P.

[padillah]

Originally posted by patcon
Colonies
Why?

Resources often appear in regions
(1) in which the establishment of a city is unreasonable because of surrounding terrain (e.g., bananas in the middle of the jungle, or silver in the middle of ice) and
(2) which are not likely to fall within your cultural borders within a reasonable amount of time.

How?

The establishment of colonies should not be easy and should have a degree of risk.

Why? Isn't this simply to remedy the situations mentioned above? Then why an additional degree of risk just to procure resources?

A specialized unit is required to establish a colony.
(1) This unit would be specific to a particular tile improvement needed to access a resource. For example, plantation colonists could only establish plantation colonies, but could establish any kind of plantation.

Why? Your worker isn't specialised, why should your colony be?

(2) Production of a colonist unit could not be started until all requisite techs had been discovered. That would include Writing to allow communication with the colony, whatever additional techs are needed to unlock the tile improvement, and possibly Hunting so the colony could feed itself. For example, ranching colonists would need to be outfitted with ranching equipment which wouldn't be available until Animal Husbandry was discovered.

I agree that Writing is an acceptable requisite tech to build the colonist unit. The rest just stands to reason: you can't build a pasture without AH so your colonist can't either. That just makes sense.

(3) The production cost of a colonist unit should be high to reflect its capabilities. It will effectively be a scout/worker with a strength of 1 (defense only), a movement of 2, and the ability to build roads and a specific tile improvement. I would set the cost at 80 (which is midway between worker and settler and more than worker + scout) and use the worker/settler means of production.

I would make them a little less that a worker because they are going to be consumed as they are used. 35 - 45 h would seem reasonable to me. This allows you to pop one out quicker than a worker or settler but they are consumed when they build a colony.

Think about it, you are asking me to pay more for a one-shot unit than for a unit I will have for the entire game?

The establishment of a colony should take some time to become productive for the founding civ.

Again, why? Workers can improve tiles anywhere in your borders and the resource is immediatly available. Nothing else on the trade network takes time why should colonies?

(1) Colonies would have to be trade-connected to the founding civ to provide resources.
(a) The colonist unit could assist in this by building roads (at the usual worker rate) en route to the ultimate colony tile, or normal workers could be used.

I like this addition. Makes a lot of sense.

(b) A special colonist unit would be needed to establish a harbor which would act as a coastal city for the purposes of trade routes.

Hmm, don't know what affect they would have over the ocean. I'm not sure I would allow them to be on continents you don't have a city on.

(c) Colonies would serve as trade links to other civs.

This only stands to reason. If the colony is connected to your trade network then it should provide access to your trade network.

(2) Once the colonist unit reaches its destination, it founds the colony. This can be thought of as two distinct, but non-interruptable, steps: establishment of a defensive position and building the relevant tile improvement.

Why the defensable position? Tile improvements don't have defenses (unless you station a unit there on purpose).

(a) The establishment of a defensive position would take 1 turn.
(b) The building of the relevant tile improvement would take the usual rate.
(c) At the start of the founding process, the colonist unit is transformed into a movementless entity with a strength of 2.
(d) At the end of the founding process, the colony is fully active. It produces the resource, has a (purely-defensive) base strength of 2, which is modified by terrain and is augmented over time through the fortification bonus, and has a +1 line of sight around the colony. XP could be accrued through successful defense and promotions could be earned.

Now you are starting to change the use from "Grabbing resources" to estabishing a defensive perimiter. At the top of this post you said colonies were for grabbing resources, why the switch?

The establishment of colonies should have a degree of risk.
(1) Colonies would not have a cultural radius and are subject to attack by wild animals.

Disagree. The addition of a cultural radius allows for the "grabbing" of more than one resource should the opportunity present itself. And they should at least be thought effective enough to fend off animals.

(2) Colonies would be attractive targets for barbarians (both animal and human) and should be more likely to be attacked than ordinary units of equivalent strength. The likelihood of attack should increase with increased distance from the homeland.

Why would they be any more or less attractive to barbarians? Actually they may be considered less atractive since they don't have the abundance of plunderable resources a city does.

(3) Colonies would stop providing resources if their strength is dropped below 50% by attacks and would not resume until healed to at least 50%.
(4) These risks could be reduced by posting other military units on the colony tile.

Again, this is just turning the colony into a different unit. If you want an "Outpost" unit then that's fine but this is for "grabbing resources", as you stated at the top of this post.

(5) Colonies can be absorbed by another civ. Colonies will remain outside another civ's cultural border until that civ's border completely encircle the colony. At that point, the colony is abandoned and the tile, with its improvemments intact, is absorbed int o the new civ.
(6) Colonies can be attacked by another civ during times of war. If defeated, the colony and its improvement is pillaged (gold yield is cottage by improvement) and the victor gains a captured worker.

Both valid points. These are not permanent settlements and shouldn't accrue culture or grow in any appreciable manner.

The founding of a colony will effect the founding of cities.
(a) Once the founding process has begun and as long as the colony remains intact, no other civ may found a city adjacent to that tile. Exception: a civ may always found a city in a tile containing its own colony.

Another good point.

Now on to my rationale post.

Tom P.

[Will9]

The reson I put in that colonies could be attacked without war is that they are really just land with people loyal to you living there.

I'm not sure how colonies should grow into cities or how it should take. It could take thirty turns to grow or maybe only from sending multiple colonists or maybe even sending a settler.

[padillah]

I see two units being described:
1) A colonist, used to secure resources that are in places that make a city undesirable.
2) An Outpost, used to establish and extend a defensable perimiter without having to establish new cities.

As for Colonists:
Since they are solely a "Resource Grab" they would not be able to go too far away from the borders. The trade network would have to be established for them to effectivley persue resources on another continent and that opens up too many problems. These are not "expansion" units, they are not for extending your borders to other continents. You want to go to another continent, go. Put down a settler and build a harbor. But a colonist should not be equiped to live, breed and grow on a foreign continent. That's a city's job.

The question then comes up: Are colonists one-shot units or can they build more than one colony? This question goes right to the cost of the unit and it's usefulness. The situation obviously occurs often enough for us to discuss it so it has, at least, a limited usefullness, but enough to be a "builder" unit? But, if it's a one shot and more than one opportunity arises you'll have to waste the time building another one and sending them out.

Of course since the early turns are spent growing you have plenty of chances to secure resources out of borders, giving rise to an argument for a builder unit.

I'm going to go with one-shot since that gives them a little more worthiness in the late game (who wants to build a whole unit just to get at that one last silver?).

So, as a one-shot their cost should be relective of the fact that they are going to be absorbed by the building of a colony. It should be small enough that they can be produced quickly, even in the begining when you seldom have more than 3 hammers/3 food. Also, they should only need hammers to build. Workers and Settlers use food to slow city growth as an offset to the growth advantages they offer - a colonist, by the fact that they are one-shot and can only "grab" resources, don't offer the same growth advantages. After all that, I'm thinking 30 h (even Stonehenge is only 120h).

So, now we have simple, one-shot, resource grabbers. When the cultural borders grow to include the colony it turns into a simple tile improvement and all is as it should be in the world.

*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
Outposts:
These are looking like glorified forts and an argument could be brought to add some deffensive bonuses to forts allowing them to be more useful. Especially the one square of culture to help simulat a ZOC.

Since this is a "Colonist" thread I'll old off analizing the Outpost unit.

Tom P.

[alms66]

You guys are getting very complicated with this...

Colonies should be built by Colonists (something like a settler, but cheaper - half price). Colonies should be exactly like cities, except you can build nothing there and they automatically produce 1 culture per turn, forever, no matter what. It gives you a border extension, access to resources, extends the trade network and can be destroyed in war like when you attack a size 1 city. If you want to defend it, put units there like you do with your cities. Does it really need more than that?

[zeace]

What if workers could build an "outpost" improvement which would create a 9x9 cultural border around the square. This border would be very weak, and any foriegn culture would immediately override this. The outpost would be a very time-intensive build, along the lines of clearing jungle. The outpost should be available in addition to another improvment on the tile.

These outposts could be used to gather resources, although you'd still need to build the mine/plantation/whatever. They'd also let you expand your borders, but could be easily conquered by other cities culture.

There'd probably be some expoits invloving outposting all the bottlenecks on the continent early, but all these colony ideas suffer from that problem. But this way you wouldn't need a new type of unit.

[padillah]

@alms66:
I'm with you except for the growing culture. As soon as it has groth it can be used to extend borders and that's not what this unit should be for.

Give it 1 point of culture just to establish itself and leave it at that. Everything else you said is fine by me.

@Zeace:
That's another good idea, but I think we should move the "Outpost" disuccsion to another thread. I'll try to get one started.

Tom P.

EDIT: The new Outposter thread for those of you wanting to join in that discussion.