Colonies

[tniem]

Originally posted by Col Bigspear
Why is every one saying "are these colonies useful" I thought it was painfully obvious what the colonies do from looking at the walkthrough on the firaxis site. if something is outside your borders you build a colony and connect a road, thus gaining access to it. I dont think of them a colony colonies more of mining colonies eg the type that sprung up in the west of north America for the gold rush. Once your borders swallow the colony there is no use for it and it is removed from the map, that resource is now part of your country. So I think colonies will be very important in the early game. If they are, the firaxis site showed your first city being built and then a colony being built on silk outside the borders. Though I have been skeptical about the pictures being Mock-ups on other threads

I watched the slide show and thought they would be useful as well. However, since I had not seen a screenshot of them in a while, only the one that was pointed out above - I started to think that they might not be very useful.

The reason for this is simple. You need coal and it is near another resource. You could build a colony on that coal that you would have to defend to gain only the one coal resource.

Or you could build a city only costing an extra pop point. Once you have gained a little culture in the city, you now have both resources. Also since you have built a city, it will also allow you to build city walls, more units, etc to help defend the resources. As well, you can build more culture buildings to extend your borders, wonders, or units to conquer the world. Or even more cities/colonies.

Now which one would you prefer?

I, personally, would want the extra city. For only an extra pop point, I get both resources and the option of extending my nation. That is why I believe Firaxis may have had to give up on colonies or at least tweak the idea a bit.

[Col Bigspear]

You do make a good point, I guess I was only listening to myself. I'm sure your not suggesting ICS, but I do use ICS in one player games when I know i'm on a continent on my own e.g America. I certainly would not fart about building colonies when i could be building cities.
The only argument I can put forward is that you might be able to build 2/3 colonies in the time it takes to build a settler.

p.s If I ever play multiplayer, I would not do ICS. OK so if any1 sees me PLZ don't attack

[JellyDonut]

Colonies must have some advantage that Firaxis hasn't mentioned yet...

[NeoBlade]

Its obvious!

Can't you tell what colonys are for..?They're for getting resources in places that citys whouldn't go,like large deserts,tundra,mountain ranges,hilllands,swamps..you know,places where normal citys whouldn't do to well and whould become a hindrence,a weak point of your empire instead of a good addition.

BTW,I belive colonys built on the coast should have access to all colonies on the coast after the Caravel technology.It just makes sense ya know?

If you've ever played on the Austrailia map,you'd wish you had colonys too to get at all that oil in those huge deserts.

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah, I believe that a city with a harbour has access to overseas colonies that are on the coast. Most of the screenshots we have seen have been for colonies in areas close to the heart of the civilisation, and perhaps early on in the game on a good continent like some of the ones we have seen, it is best to expand and build cities to cover the resources rather than build colonies which would just be swallowed up. They will be of use in totally inhospitable climates, for example, the extreme arctic to get hidden oil or likewise in the middle of an expansive desert. Perhaps to avoid management problems in far flung cities, rather than populate distant continents to just settle a few colonies there...perhaps inland ones connected by road to a coastal colony can also trade with the homeland.

This is the intended purpose of colonies. An answer to some of the constraints that anti-ICS strategies will pose...

[tniem]

Re: Its obvious!

Originally posted by NeoBlade
Can't you tell what colonys are for..?They're for getting resources in places that citys whouldn't go,like large deserts,tundra,mountain ranges,hilllands,swamps..you know,places where normal citys whouldn't do to well and whould become a hindrence,a weak point of your empire instead of a good addition.

If you've ever played on the Austrailia map,you'd wish you had colonys too to get at all that oil in those huge deserts.

But with the expanse of borders, a city doesn't actually have to be near the resource in order to gain it if it has a lot of culture. So playing in Australia, Sydney would have enough culture to get all resources within the island. You don't have to build a city near a swamp to gain that resource, just near enough with a temple to extend your borders.

BTW,I belive colonys built on the coast should have access to all colonies on the coast after the Caravel technology.It just makes sense ya know?

This is kind of what I originally thought colonies might be for before that slide show. We will certainly see how this plays out.


PH, I guess if Firaxis has done a lot and ended ICS, colonies probably will be necessary. I just am not convinced that:

a) Firaxis has solved ICS enough where building another city isn't preferable to a colony
b) That a colony is more cost efficent than building a temple (or other culture building) and extending your border to the resource.

[TechWins]

From all the screenshots I have seen it seems as if there are an abundance of resources. If a colony can only take in one resource and a city has the potential to take in 21 (depending on the amount of resources in that cities radius) why wouldn't you build a city a over a colony? Almost all the cities in the screenshots have about 3 resources in it's radius.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Yeah, I believe that a city with a harbour has access to overseas colonies that are on the coast

Not quite. A city with a harbour has access to the good a colony provides if that colony is connected via road to another city with a harbour.

[NeoBlade]

I dun like that.The colonies of America didn't have citys for a long time but they still managed to trade with britain.I can live with it though,it also helps in makeing worldwide nations.-_^

[AroSch]

It seems to me, colonies make a lot sense. As far I know:

- Firaxis sad, you need ressources to build some units
- thes sad noone has all ressources, you must have to trade
- somewhere I read, you can´t manage large empires that easaly.

So it seems to me, colonies brings up ressources from outside our borders (from near or from far away) faster and easyer then building cities and develope them. Colonies seems to be one way to get these ressources without trading with your enimies and without building a large, heavy to handle empire.
Anyone knows how easy or heavy it is to found citys at different places? How much cost a settler, how much is a worker? Is there a movement difference between them? May be, you could build 2 workers instad one settler in the same time? And so on. I think, there is no reason now to say the colonies are unless, simply becouse we know not enough about.

[Fidel]

good questions. it is a bit odd, however, that the only picture of a colony so far is the one on firaxis resources walkthrough. not a single colony on any of the previews and screenshots. if this indicates that colonies have a very llimited usefulness and 'life span', it's kinda interesting that firaxis devoted its biggest site update to an seemingly ephemeral aspect of the game.

[seer_98]

Has Firaxis said that a colony would cost a settler? Or is it just an improvement like a road?

If the former, then colonies seem almost useless with our current information. A city would always be better.

If the latter then they make sense. I wouldn't worry about ICS if colonies can't grow, aren't affected by wonders, can't build improvements, and don't mine or farm (i.e. they just collect resources at the cost of only a tile improvement). It also makes sense for them to go away when a city border encapsulates them because the resource would be collected anway.

[tniem]

Originally posted by seer_98
Has Firaxis said that a colony would cost a settler? Or is it just an improvement like a road?

If the former, then colonies seem almost useless with our current information. A city would always be better.

If the latter then they make sense. I wouldn't worry about ICS if colonies can't grow, aren't affected by wonders, can't build improvements, and don't mine or farm (i.e. they just collect resources at the cost of only a tile improvement). It also makes sense for them to go away when a city border encapsulates them because the resource would be collected anway.

As it has been explained to us, cities are created with settlers that will now cost two pop points. Meanwhile, colonies will be built with workers that will cost one pop point. As soon as you build the colony you lose your worker. A colony cannot grow but it acts as a size one city, so if you don't defend it, an enemy only has to walk in to take the city.

[TechWins]

So it seems to me, colonies brings up ressources from outside our borders (from near or from far away) faster and easyer then building cities and develope them.

That is somewhat true but you still have to connect your colony to your capital by road and your capital has to be connected by road to all the other cities for the other to gain that resource.

Borders will expand to close places so it would be easier to build a temple than to build a colony if you have a resource near you.

Why wouldn't you rather use a 2 pop settler to build a city (21 square radius, never vanishes, can produce units, increases trade, etc...) so you can get a good resource. Than to use a 1 pop worker to build a colony (only gives you access to 1 resource).

I think, there is no reason now to say the colonies are unless, simply becouse we know not enough about.

People are going from what we know about colonies. They're saying from what we know about colonies they seem to be useless. It's not say that they couldn't be more usefull it's just right now from what we know they are useless. I know Dan has stated that they are still working on colonies but I think when Firaxis had that big update about colonies they gave most of the info. away about colonies at the point in time.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TechWins
That is somewhat true but you still have to connect your colony to your capital by road and your capital has to be connected by road to all the other cities for the other to gain that resource.

Or by harbour. I think that colonies will be mainly used to collect overseas resources. You really can't make the claim that colonies won't be useful until you see a bit more of the game mechanics.