Computer Expansion, Contiguous borders and Colonies

[redcloud]

[disclaimer: I don't have the game yet (stupid Oz release), so if I say something stupid, correct me in a _nice_ way. ]

It seems people are annoyed by the way the computer tends to plonk down cities right smack in the middle of their civ. These acts tend to create an isolated pocket of culture with it's own little border.

The solution:

Yin suggested this a while ago in another thread - the idea of contiguous borders. At the time, it seemed sort of stupid because basically it would mean that you couldn't start cities away from your main area of influence, off on other continents and so forth. It will, however, stop the somewhat stupid expansionistic attitude of the other Civilizations.

So we bring in contiguous borders to some extent. How then do we build isolated cities? The answer is COLONIES! At the moment, noone uses them (at least, that's the impression I have..).

Now,

*WE KNOW THAT HISTORICALLY MOST CITIES STARTED OFF AS COLONIES.*

(America, Australia, Canada, the West Indies, Northern and Southern Africa, South-East Asia, Hong Kong).

Firaxis just has to set it up so that after a certain amount of time, a colony can upgrade to a city. (I'll leave others to determine this "certain amount of time", as they have more playtime and education with the game than me.)

What does this do? Well for one, it's far more realistic, it gives a use for colonies, and it stymies the over-aggressive expansionistic desire of the AI to take that _one_ little square that isn't owned by you. (Sure, they can put a colony in it, but a colony has far less cultural influence than a city, and can be absorbed/conquered easier.)

Obviously colonies would have to have slightly increased resilience to the effects of culture than they currently do (apparently they are absorbed far too easily yes?), and possibly a reduced cultural border (what are they currently? - none would be best) but these are all issues that can be worked around. The real point is that this would,

1. Give them a point!
2. Stop the stupid AI city building.

Comments?

[Wrong_shui]

All colonies do is allow you to use a resource outside your borders and they need to be connected to your capitol by road either through one city already connected to your capitol or directly to it.

They have no cutural influence or population

Aslo the colonies on other continents would need to be connected to a city with a harbour by road so it can get to your capitol.

As with your idea you cant build cities on other continents the colonies would not be connected and therefore do nothing.

So your idea needs to be changed a little.

Maybe say a colony built on the coast has a harbour?

[redcloud]

Originally posted by Wrong_shui
All colonies do is allow you to use a resource outside your borders and they need to be connected to your capitol by road either through one city already connected to your capitol or directly to it.

Based on what other people are saying, they are absolutely useless, because the AI will take any land not belonging to you anyway. So even if you did want to use that resource OUTSIDE your borders, chances are it won't be outside anyone's borders for long, since the AI will tend to build everywhere. Having a road seems kind of pointless, since the idea of a colony is to be a self serving settlement, existing relatively autonomously, but still paying homage to the "motherland". As it stands, it appears that colonies are very very weak.

They have no cutural influence or population

This is kewl, and has no effect on what I'm suggesting.

[QUOTE]
Aslo the colonies on other continents would need to be connected to a city with a harbour by road so it can get to your capitol.[\QUOTE]

Maybe. This is why I'm asking for other input. Certainly the idea that a colony has a harbour is totally valid, after all, most did in real life.

As with your idea you cant build cities on other continents the colonies would not be connected and therefore do nothing.

I probably didn't explain very clearly what I meant.

So to clarify things. Proposal,

* You cannot build a city away from your current area of cultural influence. I know that small cities only have a cultural border of 1 around them. Maybe you just say that cities can only be build under a certain distance away from other cities. (4 squares) Or initial cities have an increased border. *shrug* Something could surely be worked out. That's why I'm asking for ideas. Yin had some good ideas about this a while ago.

* If you did want to build a city away from your cultural borders, you must first build a colony. After a certain amount of time, this colony can become a city. This allows you to build colonies on a different continent (eg. America, Australia - both of which started out as colonies), that can then become fully fledged cities.

This would have the effect of slowing the AI's rush for land slightly, in that it won't build stupid settlements miles behind your lines, and away from it's own territory. It can build colonies, sure, but they can be easier to deal with than cities. (Maybe it would just be replacing one evil with another, I'm not sure, but giving you better options for dealing with enemy colonies could alleviate this somewhat.)

So your idea needs to be changed a little.

Or clarified a little better ..

[cej]

I have seen a few cases where they make sense (i.e.: a resource stuck in the middle of a mountain range) and a few cases where the temporary access to a resource (i.e.: horses) is helpful.

I would like to see them a little more resistant to borders. The fact that the AI drops a city one square away negates the colonies usefulness.

What would be nice is if the population from a colony were added to a city once it hits the border for a friendly city. An enemy town would destory it if it was immediately next to the city, otherwise it should act as part of your border.

For the most part, I ignore colonies an consider them an ill conceived game play aspect.

[LRotan]

Good idea in theory. I have a question, though. If that were implemented, what would stop the AI from building colonies all over the place like it does with cities?

[Kc7mxo]

I've found colonies to be virtually useless, but not entirely so.

The only effective use i've found is in conquered nations. The one or two times I've actually bothered to conquer a piece of someone's empire its been the few scattered wonder cities. This leaves most of the strategic resources that used to be in the empire out of the borders. Since I have so many captured workers anyway . . . . . Colonies are a good use for them.

Unfortunately, I've noticed that while the AI is slower to grab land in the modern age, it'll still ship boatloads of settlers to the land i've just cleansed and grab it all. colonies just aren't what they should be.



I see two possible solutions.
1) make it so that any resource anywhere requires a colony, no freebies for being in your territory anymore.

2) Give them their own borders. One would be enough right now, but one square in all directions would be best.

[redcloud]

Originally posted by LRotan
Good idea in theory. I have a question, though. If that were implemented, what would stop the AI from building colonies all over the place like it does with cities?

What, like real life? *shock horror*

As I said, it _might_ be just replacing one evil with another. However, if you give the player more diplomatic, cultural and military options to deal with them, the effect would be a lot less. Anyway, since they have no cultural borders of their own, the more important thing is that they won't interfere with your cities all that much. Obviously you would want to make sure that they don't become cities.

Correct me if I'm wrong - workers create colonies yes? Well one way of having a look at this is to say that after a certain time a colony can become a city, but it requires a settler. So colonies just left on their own will NOT become a city. Settlers need to come to the colony. Perfectly realistic.

It's been backed up by other things I've read on the forum that basically colonies are absolutely useless because the expansion of the AI eventually swallows them up anyway. This is ridiculous. Civilizations all throughout history created colonies away from their main cultural base. MOST colonies exist OFFSHORE on far away shores, the need for roads from a colony to your capital is unrealistic. (Dutch colonies such as Java didn't send goods back to the Netherlands via roads through South East Asia, India, and the Middle East. They sent them on boats.) Sure, if it's inland near your civilization you can build a road (although in reality who wouldn't just build a city if it was on your continent), but if it's on a coastline, just give the colony a harbour. Then, inland colonies can be connected to coastal colonies by roads.

It just seems to me that these ideas would fix a whole heap of issues, make the game more historically accurate and thus far more enjoyable.

[omnix]

Colonies are there so you can gather resources from territory you would rather not build a city in to get. They are also useful in the early game when your culture isn't to advanced to get quick access to strategic resources. They give you something else to defend and consider when you wage your blood thirsty wars.

They are not useless but they do have less importance to some playing styles than others. Large empire builders will almost make no use of colonies. People who want to build a small number of super cities however will find them more useful.

I vote we drop the whole Idea of colonies becoming anything more than a tool to gather remote resources.

I mean look at your arguments.

"They are useless and serve no purpose"
fine don't build any, next issue.

"They don't grow into a city like a real coloney"
thats because firaxis made the mistake of naming them somthing that would confuse people to think they had anouther function besides being a tool to gather remote resources.

If they had named them a mining post, a trading post, a resource gathering facility, etc this would not even be a topic for conversation.

Lets cut them some slack on this issue, because it really is a non issue. they were meant only to be used to gather resources for your empire, they are not real "colonies" look past the name. If you think they are usless you don't have to build them, theres nothing to discuss here.

So much of the message board is being eaten up by a bad choice for a name.

[Bolleck70]

Only change name!

Colonies work perfectly what they are designed to. Just the name is wrong. Change it to Mining Camp and all problems vanish.

[redcloud]

Originally posted by omnix
Colonies are there so you can gather resources from territory you would rather not build a city in to get. They are also useful in the early game when your culture isn't to advanced to get quick access to strategic resources. They give you something else to defend and consider when you wage your blood thirsty wars.

That's cool. I'd love to defend them. Unfortunately I can't protect colonies from the aggressive expansion of the computer AI. Now don't get me wrong. I think the expansionistic AI is very kewl, what I am saying is that basically colonies are useless because the AI will sooner or later come and build a city in that place where you don't want to, and that colony of yours is bye-bye. You can't even stop the AI, 'cos it's a cultural takeover and colonies don't seem to have much in the way of cultural influence - which is correct, they shouldn't.

As to why they are advantageous in the early game, I agree. History disagrees however, and tells us that colonies were used most extensively during the imperial age (18th century through to the middle of the 20th century), when the major European powers (France, England, the Netherlands, Spain), sent their fleets sailing all over the world, setting up colonies and shipping exotic goods back to the motherland. So if the game is pushing you to use colonies during the ancient era, something is wrong with the game's implementation of colonies.

They are not useless but they do have less importance to some playing styles than others. Large empire builders will almost make no use of colonies. People who want to build a small number of super cities however will find them more useful.

I can see what you are saying, but I think it's plain wrong. "Large empire builders will almost make no use of colonies." [sarcasm on] Oh, yes, the English, Roman, French and Spanish empires never used colonies in real life. No sirree! Those little towns we had in America, they weren't colonies, nup.[sarcasm off]

The problem as I see it is that the game is Americanified. You guys (Firaxis) over there are so used to the idea of "the western settler" you fail to realize that COLONISTS (from England (and to a lesser extent France) - you know, that country America was COLONIZED by - and who you draw most of your culture from I might add.) COLONIZED America, Australia, South Africa, the Middle East, India and many other places all over the world. (ie. It all started with small colonies, not full blown cities.)

I vote we drop the whole Idea of colonies becoming anything more than a tool to gather remote resources.

Just because something has been implemented wrongly isn't a reason to "drop it". I truly believe that colonies are an IMPORTANT part of civilization, and _can_ have a good role in Civ III.

I mean look at your arguments.

Ok, lets,

"They are useless and serve no purpose"
fine don't build any, next issue.

So because of a flawed design, I shouldn't use colonies? Why the hell were they put in then? Why were one of the major parts of the imperial age in this world marginalized to such a degree in this game that basically they are off no use.

Your argument is flawed. I suggest you don't use soap next time you take a shower, since it's not necessary.

"They don't grow into a city like a real coloney"
thats because firaxis made the mistake of naming them somthing that would confuse people to think they had anouther function besides being a tool to gather remote resources.

If they had named them a mining post, a trading post, a resource gathering facility, etc this would not even be a topic for conversation.

Mining posts are called "mines". I think you put them on hillsides (and sometimes grass now I believe ) around your cities. If you want to believe that a "colony" can be a mining post or a trading post you are gravely mistaken. For a mining post to exist outside your borders it would need massive infrastructure, basically it would become a semi-city, or alternatively, a COLONY.

And as to why colonies should become cities, read your history. I should know, my home city of 1.2 million people started of as a far flung colony of the British Empire. (It's still far flung )

Lets cut them some slack on this issue, because it really is a non issue. they were meant only to be used to gather resources for your empire, they are not real "colonies" look past the name. If you think they are usless you don't have to build them, theres nothing to discuss here.

Cut them some slack for what is essentially a lack of design foresight? Why put the damn things in if they are so useless? It's like me selling you a car with broken lights. You don't have to use them! I mean, it means you won't be able to see well at night, but you don't HAVE to use them. My Civ III game may not be all that impaired, but if I want to use colonies in a historical context why can't I in a game called Civilization?

You are right, they aren't "real" colonies, but I can't see why they can't at least be changed to reflect colonies more accurately than they are now.

So much of the message board is being eaten up by a bad choice for a name.

No. So much of this message board is being taken up by discussions about serious design flaws, that some people seem to be prepared to ignore/dismiss.

Anyone know if Civ III is going to be opened up and things like this allowed to be modded? I can brush up on my C++ if it's going to give me a BETTER and more historically accurate game of Civ III. I'm of the opinion that many other people here think the same thing.

[refresher]

Let's look at what I was proposing in the first place..

1. Cities cannot be built unless the cultural border will be joined with your existing cultural borders. (This is kinda tricky since small cities start off with a cultural border of 1.) Maybe we make it the _future_ cultural border. We don't want to slow down the early game by making city construction too limited.

2. Colonies are used to form settlements outside of your _general_ area of cultural influence, on other continents for instance. After a certain time a settler can come along and this colony can be upgraded to a city.

These proposals address a number of issues (which you can see by reading the earlier stuff in this thread), and would IMHO greatly advance the cause of colonies and also the enjoyment of the game.