Useless colonies!

[player1]

Re: Proposed colony/border solution.

Originally posted by eclarkso
I think an easy solution to the relative uselessness of colonies AND the problem of the AI plopping down cities on the smallest little bit of unused land on your continent that's -just- outside your cultural borders (for the time being) is this:

when ANY city is founded (including yours, of course), its borders should not include any square currently 'owned' (via colony or cultural border) by another player. That's it. When that city acquires enough culture to grow its borders, THEN it can subsume the colony/kick back your borders, but this business of losing territory via city founding doesn't make sense to me either gameplay- or realism-wise.

Comments?

Actually, in alpha build of Civ3, starting cities didn't had a cluture border (it was 0).
But later they chaged it (and scrwed colonies).

An excellent example of to little testing.

[eclarkso]

Re: Re: Proposed colony/border solution.

Originally posted by player1


Actually, in alpha build of Civ3, starting cities didn't had a cluture border (it was 0).
But later they chaged it (and scrwed colonies).

An excellent example of to little testing.

I'm curious how you know this information? And why do you think cities should have no border to begin with and colonies should(at least, that's what you said at one point on the first page)? In any case, I'm not sure this is a case of too little testing so much as an ill-advised design decision.

I should clarify that I don't advocate a city starting with a border of zero--I just think that new borders should not overlay existing ones.

Another alternative is simply not to allow anyone to found a city where existing borders would be altered. Again, this implies that only after cultural expansion could a colony be overcome by another player or a civilization's borders shrink.

[player1]

Several months before Civ3 is released there was a resouce turtorial on www.civ3.com
There a founded city clearly didn't had a borders at start (but got them later).

Still, I think that in those days cities were allowed to put pop points in whole 21 city radius regardless of borders.

P.S.
So if they chaged it, then they should change somthing else also, and keep colonies usefull.

There are a pleny options:
1) force war if yuor new city is to close, or
2) forbid placing cities near colonies (1 tile), or
3) diable colony assimilation by enemy, or
4) make colonies to have 1 tile border, or
5) make cities have 0 tiles border (I am not sure how good this solution is), or
6) any combination of these solutions

[smellymummy]

Originally posted by player1
Several months before Civ3 is released there was a resouce turtorial on www.civ3.com
There a founded city clearly didn't had a borders at start (but got them later).

It did have borders, one tile radius, just like in the present game when you found a new city. I remember the tutorial showing how colonies are formed..

Kinda useless though if you think about it. The tutorial was the city of rome, a capital, and as we all know, capitals have a palace and 2 culture per turn right off the bat. Not worth building a worker to get that resource the tutorial showed, as it was only 2 tiles away.

edit: woops! i should of looked at civ3.com before posting, but the tutorial does show a city without borders. So I'm 100% wrong and player1 is 100% right. Very odd though, because I was rather completly sure that it was how I described it. Maybe its a colony conspiracy.... BTW this is a post edit but for some reason I don't see the "edited" tag the vB usually adds

[smellymummy]

and now i do. Weird

[badassb]

Why not make colonies develop into cities in the long term? That would solve a lot of problems. For exampe, after 20 turns or if you insert a second worker?