Useless colonies!

[Kolyana]

And what is stopping say "the russians" from taking over the oil rig? International curtisy and the military might of the former controllers of the oil rig. So if you want to keep you non culture producing colony defend it.

This is flawed. No one puts a detachment of marines on an oil rig, do they? Why? Because if the Russians moved in and took one, there would be an international incident .. it would be a declaration of wear.

WOW. Just like if you park a city inside your neighbors territory in CivIII.

Building an outpost uses one pop. It should count as soverign territory ... if only for that one square.

You got there first, you put your people there. The comp's sphere of control should not absorb you and disband your village.

Colonies are flawed. If the comp had a few resources with a colony on each, I'd park a city right next to them and swallow the lot.

[Capt Dizle]

I seldom post with the express intent to criticize or make fun of someone.

But....anyone who defends the current implementation of these so called colonies are plainly stupid. Thats not so awful really, it takes all kinds, and Firaxis has to get its share of the idiot market so I am not terribly upset that some of them are posting here.

I seldom intentionally insult someone but this Cybershy person has posted the lamest tripe I have seen on these boards in months. I stick my tongue out at you imbecile.

As one half lucid poster above pointed out, these are not colonies, just resource gathing facilities.

I get the feeling that this was a Sid idea given to a moron to implement.

Any number of us could come up with a half dozen better implementations of the idea in ten minutes.

[Guest]

Colonies, as is, do not work for me in the concept that was originally put forth by Firaxis some months ago. They have a place in the game, but not exactly as implemented currently, at least in my opinion.

If I have a 'colony' it should NOT be assimilated into another civ's city without first; the other civ's city either having a significant amount of culture that draws the colony into it's control(there are people in a colony, no?) or the other civ declares war and sends a unit into the colony either destroying it or capturing it for their own use.

Maybe giving colonies a border of 1 would work.

On a side note: I liked the feature in CTP that allowed you to build fortresses that counted as an improvement that your civ had control of; there were borders surrounding it. It was very good for filling in all of the 'dead zones' in you empire that you felt didn't justify having a city being built there, but you wanted to prevent the AI from building cities there with out wasting umpteen units littering the map.

[Guest]

Originally posted by barefootbadass


Wrong, if the ai can plop a city down close enough to assimilate your colony immediately you have established NO control over the area.

If I had 1,000 Mech Infantry units fortified on that colony, would you say then, that I had CONTROL of that square?

If I distributed the same 1,000 units on each tile that surrounded my colony, another civ could still build a city next to one of my stack of units and within 5 turns of building a temple, they'd have assimilated my colony that was surrounded by my units!

This is not right, in my opinion. A colony has people in it, of my nationality, if I garrison units there, it should remain my colony regardless of another civ's encroachment.

[darthx86]

Suggestion: If a colony is built next to a coast, then as long as you have a city with a harbor on the same body of water, no need for a road. This could also be applied to airports as well, maybe by using a second worker to add a harbor or airport to the colony.

On the real estate issue with colonies, I have had no problem yet, since mine were in the middle of nowhere. I suggest allowing the colony (and fort) to "own" the individual square they reside on. If an AI builds around you, the colony is still active unless they pillage the road out (see the aforementioned harbor and airport suggestions for alternative options). In essence, your colony would experience the "West Berlin" effect.

[Midway]

Totally agree with all of this.

Colonies SUCK!!!!

Forts & Colonies should have at least its' square zone of control. I agree that it could be taken by cuture. Maybe this idea of forts having a full square surrounding it as a zone of control, but if you leave this square and the AI comes in then he should get that then, unless your terrority already controls that thru cultural growth.

[Kolyana]

A colony should only control the square it's in. If you find three resources in a row that you want to claim, then you should have to put a colony on each.

This is a claim to territory just like some of the modern installations in the North Pole, or Oil Rigs, or the old mining settlements.

No troops should be required, they would be optional. Likewise with a fortress. In fact, I half think that a fortress should also count as a claim to that square ... they take so long to build that they wouldn't be a practicle way to claim large swarthes of land, but they would keep your borders intact.

[CB2034]

if they were to give colonies one square of cultural control then all the ai would do is plop a city next to it and use culture to assimilate it... and as far as forts having one square of control... i cant even think why they would implement this.
an empty fort is useless and if it has troops in it and they are next to an enemy city then you can choose whether to move or go to war... the fort thing is not broken by any means... the colonies imho are not broken either.
also,, didnt many colonies eventually become cities anyway. i remember 13 colonies that became a great nation. if u want cities then build cities.
the only time i have used colonies for an extended period of time is on islands... they work extrememly well on small islands.

[Kolyana]

Not one square ... 0 squares ... influence and zone of control only over it's own square, jes?

[Grumbold]

Some early screenshots implied that colonies would exert ownership over their own tile. I can only assume that complications with the way this fitted in to the culture/expansion/conversion model meant it had to go.

[player1]

If colonies would have a one tile border,
I think it would be ok to have colonies assimilated by strong neighbour.

In my expirience it happens very slowly, even against one size radius cities with a little units.

So you would use colony for a long time until somebody assimilates it.
Even longer if you have some units in it.

Also by one tile border you would buy some time to place some city there in a future (if needed).


Anyway, today there aren't many colonies as before. Right?

[Grumbold]

I just think of places like Gibraltar and realise there is no easy way of doing it. Giving a colony a high revolt chance that can be suppressed by military presence seems the best way. If the enemy want a protected colony, they have to go to war over it.

[knott]

My sugestion is that colonies should not be absored untill the city next to it start to create culture. It would be realistic and good for the game balance.

[Blaupanzer]

Let's see. You are the leader of a great power contending for control of land and people with other powers. You see a resource you want, plop a worker on it, and expect the rest of the world to respect your claim? You'll have to use military might to keep them away. (Dead settlers build no cities.) As quickly as you can, get a settler of your own out there. After all, the colony is of no use without a road back to your civ. What? Don't want a city in such a "useless spot?" Then forget about the resource. That's what Civ III is all about: strategic choices. Do I fight to keep other civs away, build a city, or ignore the resource once the other powers show up? The colony concept is NOT broken, it's another arrow in your strategic quiver, a temporary way to get a resource while your empire gears up to take the space permanently. The little city you build in the jungle to get those diamonds is the equivalent of the "colonies" the Europeans built in the Americas. The Civ III colony is just a small workforce working a site.

[player1]

Then why is not that an act of WAR?

SO you should be the agressor because you need to DEFEND your colony.

With 1 tile Borders. AI won't settle on the SAME space, becouse it WOULD be AN ACT OF WAR.
Plus, colonies would last A LITTLE longer, until enemy culture pops out.
(or you finally want to make city there)



The way it is now, colonies are great, but rearly usefull concept.

It is like making vacum cleaner wich can clean only persian carpets, and nothing more.

If you ask me, colonies as now, are UNFINISHED concept.
They could be GREAT, but now, they are less then average.