Absorbing another civ's colonies...

[Drefsab]

Okay, when I don't feel like putting a city in the middle of the arctic circle, but I want the oil there, I build a colony and slap a couple of defensive units on it. Now, I don't think the Egyptians should be able to come and slap down a city there, absorbing my colony without there being some sort of declaration of war.

What do you guys think?

[star mouse]

I agree, however I feel that the colony has to be connected to a city via a road, and preferably connected to your capital.

[Kc7mxo]

I don't see why the road connection matters. Its a colony, you need the road to transfer goods, you don't need the road to exist.

Colonies should not be absorbable, but I also dislike the manner in which cities transfer. There should be some sort of warning, wherein u actually have a chance to prevent the process. Cities don't just transer their national loayalties peacefully.

What I would like is a period of independence for the city, similiar to the period where Texas was independent. That would give the controlling civ time to crush the rebellion.

but colonies should definetly not be overrun, as long as I have troops there, they should be MINE.

[Drefsab]

hmmm

Well, I can understand city reversion, though it sucks. Reversion happens due to a number of factors such as foreign nationals, distances from capitals, etc. However, there seems to be no logical reason for a colony to be absorbed by another civ... especially when I have military troops stationed there. I don't mind if another civ absorbs the colony. I just think they should have to declare war in order to do it.

[Dida]

i agree. absorbing someone else's colony should be an act of war.

[star mouse]

Originally posted by Dida
i agree. absorbing someone else's colony should be an act of war.

Not always. There are two ways a colony can be absorbed by a city:

* Someone builds a city on or next to the colony so the colony is in the city radius.
* The borders of a city grow by culture expansion, and absorb a colony that was just outside the borders.

The first one should be an act of war, but the second one is more debatable.

[Ironikinit]

So declare war if it's such a big deal.

[Grrr]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
Colonies should not be absorbable

I disagree. Unabsorbable colonies would lead to a new way to cheat. The "wall of colonies".

[Drefsab]

I disagree. Unabsorbable colonies would lead to a new way to cheat. The "wall of colonies".

umm, no. You can only build colonies on strategic/luxury resources.

So declare war if it's such a big deal.

I shouldn't have to declare war. In Civ III, there is a distinction between declaring war and having war declared on you. Especially if you are one of the representative governements who suffer from war weariness. Again I say that its fine if a Civ wants to "absorb" a colony, but doing so should be an automatic declaration of war.

[Worthingtons]

Yep, I agree, but the lesson is to use Colonies wisely, I only use a colony if the said resource is a horrible place but well inside my 'area of control' ie, not currenly in my cultural borders but no-one can get to it.

I find them useful also, when i get a resource in a not very good place right at the beggining of a game, I need the resource, but my settlers are too valuable at that time..

[Laocon]

Don't forget...

You can do it back...

I frequently absorb another civs colonies

Aside from that, think about it culturally; a colony is like two huts or something specifically located due to an important resource - it costs 1 person to create. Think of it as a 'baby' city....

Now if an opposing civ comes and places its massive city; with it's funky temples, hospitals etc two squares away then culturally, it would be very easy for the colony to flip over....

[DrFell]

Thing is, if you make colonies being absorbed a war declaration, then the human player can just place colonies all over the resources on the map and control them all. Colonies are really useless as they are right now though, with the opposing civ's aggressive city building (even in ridiculously poor locations, I've seen them spend a good 20 turns sending settlers through my territory because there were a few tundra squares at the top of my empire that I'd left unoccupied), but I'm not sure exactly how they could be improved to make them useful, as the suggestions here make them too prone to exploitation (unless AI was reprogrammed to do the same thing).

[MrWhereItsAt]

I still like the colonies-give-single-tile-of-control idea.

[Rage]

There should be an option that allows you to make absorbing colonies an act of war or you can just leave it like it is

[kailhun]

Re: hmmm

Originally posted by Drefsab
Well, I can understand city reversion, though it sucks. Reversion happens due to a number of factors such as foreign nationals, distances from capitals, etc.

Although cities can also flip if the other civ only exists as a settler on a boat. History and cultural history count for a lot.

However, there seems to be no logical reason for a colony to be absorbed by another civ... especially when I have military troops stationed there. I don't mind if another civ absorbs the colony. I just think they should have to declare war in order to do it.

The colony is not grabbed by the other civ. The nearby other civ has so much influence in your colony that your people prefer to work for them (they have the collosseum and temples the colonists go to, that's where they do they're shopping, the kids go to school, their friens are). It is not that civs doing, but the lack of interest that you are showing for your people in the colony.

Not an act of war at all.

Robert