Do you use colonies?

[GeneralTacticus]

Originally posted by Grrr
I don't like my workers being teleported off the face of the earth!

That's the main reason I hardly ever use them. They're handy if you have no Settlers and need a resource immediately, but otherwise I think they're a waste. I reckon that you should get your worker back when the colony is disbanded (you shoud be able to do it manually, and have it happen automatically when your borders absorb it).

[Prince]

Yes, I use colonies, because it looks cool

[player1]

I voted for sometimes, but it should probably be RARELY.

They are ONLY usefull early if resourse is 2 or 3 tiles away from your cities.
Or in late game after devastating wars (also 2 or 3 tiles away).

[HalfLotus]

I put them in mountain ranges sometimes since cities cannot be built there. Post-patch, the AI is less willing to put a city in the middle of your empire, so it's not too dangerous to put a colony in an empty spot in you empire.

[kmill25]

I went to war over a colony. I recently discovered Gunpowder, and I had no saltpeter within my borders. I located some just outside of my borders in the middle of the desert. Well no need to build a city, right? Just build a colony and the saltpeter will be pumped, right?

WRONG! The damn Aztecs built a city right next to my colony and absorbed it. Well being the peace loving civ player that I am I attacked thier newly founded city and I am currently on a mission to wipe them off the face of the planet. Well maybe I'll leave them one city.

[cutlerd]

I build colonies sometimes. Obviously it is often better to build a city instead, but especially if I cannot spare the population early in the game a colony will do. Most of my colonies are used in ancient times to snag an iron resource or horse resource to get an initial arms superiority on my neighbours (usually my first tech is iron working unless I am the Iroquois or some tribe that has a good non-iron attack unit).

Devin

[Grrr]

Originally posted by cutlerd
I build colonies sometimes. Obviously it is often better to build a city instead, but especially if I cannot spare the population early in the game a colony will do. Most of my colonies are used in ancient times to snag an iron resource or horse resource to get an initial arms superiority on my neighbours (usually my first tech is iron working unless I am the Iroquois or some tribe that has a good non-iron attack unit).

Devin

Don't use them except in extreme situations where a city is IDIOTIC, in glaciers, tundra, deserts and jungles. See no use for them other wise. As I said before:

Originally posted by Grrr
I don't like my workers being teleported off the face of the earth!

[ColdWizard]

i've used colonies to secure a resource until i could build a city nearby

[Skanky Burns]

I NEVER use colonies.

If the resource is worth having, its worth building a city on/near it to keep the resource. Even in desert (which become very nice cities once railways are built) or glaciers.
The city doesnt need to be a good city, its just basically a glorified colony - that actually has borders the AI will respect. After building a temple and barracks, it can also be used to pump out military.

A colony on the other hand has no cultural borders, cant produce anything, and doesnt increase the land that i hold.

[Ecthy]

I built a colony once. MAybe even another time, but it's far better to take a settler and build a city nearby. Alas, colonies only make sense if you need a ressource or luxury quickly and can afford a worker, otherwise you can wait or force your territory to expand.

Did the AI expand less quickly, players would have more patience in the game and also take the tiem and biuld colonies. But the way it is, there is nothing mor eimportant than city building and cultural expansion, therefore colonies are unpopular. And that's the Ultimate Truth

I voted 'sometimes'

[Grumbold]

Early on it can sometimes be great to grab a luxury with a colony because you know your more ideally located cities will grow to include the square once they finally get around to completing temples and libraries. A dozen happy people is easily worth one pop point. Similarly Iron can turn up just outside your nearest cities border and you need it NOW! I've never needed to use one after 1AD though.

[kmill25]

Originally posted by kmill25
I went to war over a colony. I recently discovered Gunpowder, and I had no saltpeter within my borders. I located some just outside of my borders in the middle of the desert. Well no need to build a city, right? Just build a colony and the saltpeter will be pumped, right?

WRONG! The damn Aztecs built a city right next to my colony and absorbed it. Well being the peace loving civ player that I am I attacked thier newly founded city and I am currently on a mission to wipe them off the face of the planet. Well maybe I'll leave them one city.

A correction to my post. It was the damn persians who I went to war with. And as to update my post, the Persians have been left with one city, a war with two other civs and no trade routes as I have cut them off. I think that is proper punishment for their transgressions.

[cutlerd]

In the early game, when I tend to use colonies if at all, if an iron resource is in a spot where I do not really need or want a city (say on a sea coast surrounded by hills and mountains), it makes no sense to build a city there. Especially when, in the early game expansion is so important and that Settler I just built would be far more useful colonizing ground between me and the next civ encroaching towards my selected empire zone.

The fact is that a worker is less costly than a settler. Therefore, by definition, there is an opportunity cost to building building a city on a given spot than a colony.

Devin