Solver, Please Fix Colony Expense Illogic - It Ruined My First BTS Game!

[Arator]

I have a problem with colony expenses.

In my current game my capital and founding city is on a coast overlooking a narrow channel with a sizable land mass on the other side to the south. As I was soon hemmed in on the north by rivals (after founding 3 cities plus my capital), much of my expansion was on the other side of this narrow channel.

But, it seems that even though these old core cities on the south side of the channel are in close proximity to my capital (as near as only three spaces away), the game treats them as colonies and imposes additional maintenance costs that make them difficult to hold on to late in the game.

Adding to the frustration is the fact that, when granting independence, the game allows no flexability but groups all cities on a given landmass together for independence. In my case, that meant I had to let go of cities in close proximity to my capital just across the narrow channel to relieve myself of the research crushing colony costs. One of which included a significant national wonder - Ironworks - on a river and was the planned site for the Three Gorges Dam wonder.

This is not right. Why isn't proximity to capital (not just separation by water even if it is only a narrow channel) factored into the colony expense equation? And why can't one choose precisely which cities to let go of to reduce these costs?

This whole colony cost/independence mechanism seems poorly thought out. Because of the unique geography of my starting point, my expanding realm was unduly penalized and forced to cut itself in twain just as it was reaching peak momentum in the early to mid 1800's, despite the fact that all of the cities were as proximate to my capital as those in empires that were fortunate to be able to expand organically all on a single land mass.

Why should having one's civilization's core cities divided by a narrow channel of ocean impose such a penalty? And why is there so little flexability given to remediate it? I had to let go of a "colony" (but really an old core city) three spaces distant from my capital city across the channel to get out from under these colony costs. That's just not right.

Solver, can you get this fixed, please? Here's a simple solution: Only impose colony expenses on cities outside the contiguous cultural borders of the core civ (ie. the contiguous cultural area inclusive of the capital). <--- as per patcon's post below

[Solver]

As far as I understand, it's all working as intended. If you have a problem like that, you should move your capital to the bigger landmass. Colony maintenance is supposed to kick in on any landmass where you have more than one city, and that's how it works.

[Thedrin]

I'm not the biggest fan of the way this maintenance type has been implemented. Before BtS's release, I assumed that colony maintenance would only affect cities that couldn't trade with the capital until after astronomy had been researched.

[Arator]

Originally posted by Solver
As far as I understand, it's all working as intended. If you have a problem like that, you should move your capital to the bigger landmass. Colony maintenance is supposed to kick in on any landmass where you have more than one city, and that's how it works.

Wow, really?

So, my fifth core city of my civilization, the one located just three spaces from my capital city across a narrow channel of water is supposed to be considered a "colony" and be subject to exhorbitant maintenance costs (as if it were located far across the seas in another hemisphere)? Such core cities are supposed to be rendered impossible to hold on to late in the game because of "colony expenses"?

That is insane.

Here's what this preposterous mechanism sets up. If I were to play my first game over again knowing what I know now about how "colony" expenses work, rather than peacefully expand my civ across the narrow channel (I favor a peaceful-growth style of game), I would be forced to become a warmonger and attack rival cities on my capital's continent because these, apparently, are the only cities that BTS will allow me to keep late in the game. The founding of a city three squares from my capital is worthless if across water, according to this system, because I cannot keep it (or any other city founded on a nearby landmass) late in the game due to these research-crushing "colony" expenses.

This would never happen in the real world. Cities across the Bosphorus (in Europe) from Istanbul (in Asia) would not regard themselves as "colonies" and seek to become independant of Istanbul's influence, a culturally dominant mega-city (as was my capital). And yet, this is what BTS's new "colony" expense system imposes.

At least give us some flexability in coping with this. Why can't I choose exactly which cities to grant independence to? The way the current system is set up, it's all or nothing. Either I divest myself of every city on the non-capital continent (including old core cities close to my capital) or I have to watch my civ get crushed by colony expense. It's strictly lose-lose anyway I go, and renders hours of otherwise enjoyable game play and meticulous civ building null and void. It wouldn't be so bad if I could keep my old core cities. This lack of flexibility is expecially obnoxious when the old core cities this system forces me to divest contain national or world wonders that cannot be replaced once given up.

This game-breaking damage would also be mitigated if one could govern vassals post-independence just as before. That they are given over to mindless AIs after centuries of work to ruin and waste is galling. After independence is granted, we who built them up over the centuries still retain an emotional stake in their success and ought to be able to control them as a second civilization if we choose.

Finally, someone posted on another thread that there is a way to turn colony expenses off. Given their current mode of operation, I want them off. On interesting maps with close islands and land masses separated by water, they render expansion of one's core civ across water pointless and ruin the game. Is there a way to turn them off?

[Solver]

You don't incur colony costs for landmasses with one city. Colony costs for landmasses with 2 or 3 cities are minimal. So say, if you had something like the Japanese islands, your non-capital islands would have few cities on them, with little costs. It's hard for me to imagine what your map looks like if it's so bad for you.

[Arator]

Originally posted by Solver
You don't incur colony costs for landmasses with one city. Colony costs for landmasses with 2 or 3 cities are minimal. So say, if you had something like the Japanese islands, your non-capital islands would have few cities on them, with little costs. It's hard for me to imagine what your map looks like if it's so bad for you.

OK. Let me see if I can clarify. The map was Terra where all civs start in the "old world." My founding city was on the southwestern coast of the largest "old world" continent. Immediately across from my capital (only three spaces distant) was the northwestern coast of a secondary smaller "old world" continent. My capital plus three old core cities were on the north side of the channel. Having reached the limits of my northward expansion (short of war), I founded my fifth core city directly across the channel from my capital. As the game progressed, I expanded southward from that fifth city, founding six more cities, conquering one barbarian city and two rival cities on that same continent. At this point, it's the early 1800's, and I have four old core cities and one new city on the north side of the channel and 10 cities on the south side of the channel. Of these 10 cities, seven are core civ with six circling one center city, all in close proximity to the north shore core (or at least as close as cities of rival civs that had expanded all on the largest "old world" continent (without water separation).

At this point, the other civs on the large "old world" continent were as viable as ever (since they had no water separation), but mine was not, because I had reached the critical mass of cities on the southside of the channel sufficient to blow my "colony" expenses through the roof and crush my research down to zero. I had no choice but to lose some of my south shore cities and cut my civ in twain.

But, the way BTS works, this meant giving up all 10 cities on the south shore continent, even though most were as close to my capital as core cities were in rival civilizations on the main continent.

I found no other way around this and it just killed my game, rendering hours of gameplay and carefully guided growth and development of my core civ moot. Post-independence, a mindless AI takes over controlling the bulk of my core civ. I am left with only the four oldest north shore cities, a rump of my former self. That's not fun. That ruins the end game. Just as I was reaching the apogee of my "old world" power and ready to do some real damage to my rivals to the north, I've lost the core territory on the south shore that I worked so hard to expand into, secure and develop -- all because of a narrow channel of water separating the two parts of my core civ. That's crazy (and game-killing).

I like maps where there are many land masses and islands separated by water. I enjoy that dimension of exploration and settlement and the challenge of overcoming the impediment of water separation.

I can understand the colony expense/independence concept when multi-city settlements are distant from one's core civ. I do not understand its application when one's core civ is merely divided by water, not distance.

[Solver]

The map was Terra where all civs start in the "old world." My founding city was on the southwestern coast of the largest "old world" continent. Immediately across from my capital (only three spaces distant) was the northeastern coast of a secondary smaller "old world" continent.

Woah. You might have had a malfunction of the Terra script. Terra is supposed to generate one Old World continent, on which everyone starts!

Still, in your situation, I'd rebuild the Palace on the south part, which would leave me with just four cities in the north part that incur colony costs. While you'd notice them with 4 cities, they'd be far from crippling.

[Arator]

Still, in your situation, I'd rebuild the Palace on the south part, which would leave me with just four cities in the north part that incur colony costs. While you'd notice them with 4 cities, they'd be far from crippling.

Yea, but here's the catch. My capital city was exceptional. At the time of this "colony" expense crisis, it had the following wonders:

The Colossus
Ankor Wat
The Spiral Minaret
Notre Dame
The Statue of Liberty
The Statue of Zeus
The Apostolic Palace
The Temple of Solomon

Wall Street (building)
Moai Statues

It was the capital of my civ and of the dominant religion of the world, and with the combination of the Temple of Solomon and the Spiral Minaret, Bureacracy made it was a huge gold generator (soon to be even better once Wall Street was built). But, even this was not enough to overcome the "colony" expense imposed by BTS (230 gold at the time of the crisis when my research was driven down to 10%).

Shifting my capital to a lesser city on the south side of the channel meant losing the effect of Bureacracy on this exceptional city. Plus, it meant that my foremost city (by far), culturally and in every other respect, would have the indignity of not being my capital. Why should this be forced on me by a "colony" expense that makes no sense in the context of the map I'm playing on?

Is it that hard to make colony expense/independence conditioned on distance from one's core civ (rather than mere water separation)?

Also, is there a way to turn colony expense off in the meantime?

[Solver]

I do not see any catch. If you moved your capital elsewhere, the only thing you would lose is Bureaucracy in that city, as you say, which frankly isn't that great at increasing pure money. The civic has no effect whatsoever on your religious shrine or Spiral Minaret. And the 'dignity' thing is just a myth

I don't think there's an in-game way to turn colony maintenance off. You could mod it, though.

[snoopy369]

Yes, with Colony maintenance, moving your capital is key now.

In general learning more about how to play with maintenance is a good idea. Don't argue about how realistic it is... just play with it. It is there to deal with the ICS type strategies, to penalize people who take large empires over compared to those who play a smaller empire. It's a game mechanic for balance, not a historical lesson

[Wiglaf]

I didn't read all of your yapping, but I recommend building Versallis or Forbidden Palace on foreign lands. Does this help with colonies? I have no idea but it sounds plausible.

It's hard historically to maintain an empire across an ocean anyway. BTS has it right I think

[Solver]

Well, the one complaint I have about colonial maintenance is that it's too expensive to hold a sizeable continent after conquering it. You may need to vassalize the civ on it and then actually give some of their cities back to them or go bankrupt. Holding a whole continent is expensive. I finished a game today that ended in a Domination win, and all that land sure was expensive.

[Kuciwalker]

Terra script generates a Europe, Asia and Africa (with Africa having the most varied shape), but sometimes leaves Africa disconnected from the rest.

[One_more_turn]

Yes, the colony expense is forcing me to adopt State Property, even though I founded a decent corporation.

[snoopy369]

Isn't that the point of the maintenance? Forcing you to choose between vassalizing the civ and paying a fortune?