Colonies? Are you kidding me?

[Jason Beaudoin]

Although colonies seemed like a good idea, in practice, it doesn't make any sence to produce these in the game. I never make them in my games, mostly because if the AI produces a city too close, you loose it. Makes more sense to just build a city.

Here are some ideas:

1) Grows like any other city
2) Can produce units and city improvements but not wonders
3) As the colony grows, unrest becomes more and more rampant until there is a chance it will launch a war of independence, taking other colonies with it.
4) Should not be able to build a city off your original starting continent. All cities founded far from the capital is a colony.


Any more? Disagree Agree?

[SpencerH]

Some more good ideas that are unlikely to ever be implemented by firaxis.

[Ethelred]

Colonies are best for special cases. Otherwise they are useless.

The only time or place to build one is when a resource is JUST outside your borders and you don't want to wait twenty or so turns for your border to reach the third level.

1) Grows like any other city

Why? Then its a cheap one pop city for 10 shields.

2) Can produce units and city improvements but not wonders

Same thing. Few citys ever are used for wonder building anyway. Again you trying to create a cheap settler.

3) As the colony grows, unrest becomes more and more rampant until there is a chance it will launch a war of independence, taking other colonies with it.

Freaping creaturism. Good game design should minimize features and maximize the way they interact. The problem with colonies is that they themselves fail this goal. You seem to be adding fiddlybits for little play value. No one would bother building that kind of colony. Its even less desirable than the present version.

4) Should not be able to build a city off your original starting continent. All cities founded far from the capital is a colony.

You are playing Civ III aren't you? The idea is to create a civilization not a copy of Colonialism. It would also make Archipeligo maps a worthless feature.

Colonies in Civ III are not that kind of colony. They are mere encampments for unmarried men to go make a buck like in gold mining in Alaska. When civilization comes the men pick up and leave or learn to eat with utensils and start bathing again.

Think of them as PENAL colonies. How many of those things would you want around the women and children?

The AI uses them. Thats one thing going for them. About the only thing. I gotta be desperate to build one. Haven't done it in a long time. I am all for taking them out of the game. They add little. Your idea wouldn't add so much as completely change the game. Maybe in an Age of Exploration mod it would be worthwhile.

[Thrawn05]

When ever I need a resource, it's usually in another continent. Therefore, I might as well build a couple of 1 shield cities (one for the harbor, the other for the resource).

[Mongoose]

I think that colonies ought to have an inherent port for trade network purposes. Thrawn05 touches on what is probably the biggest reason they're so useless. If you build them where it makes RL sense to...far away from your core, where a city would be problematic to build/maintain/defend, there is no game mechanism for using the resources you put the colony there to exploit.

'Course that still leaves Big Issue #2...another civ plops down a city right next to your colony and POOF, it's gone.

[benjdm]

The one time I saw colonies as useful was in a big mountain range where noone could plop a city close enough to get the iron within their borders.

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by benjdm
The one time I saw colonies as useful was in a big mountain range where noone could plop a city close enough to get the iron within their borders.

That is perhaps the only reason to use colonies. But it still woundn't hurt if colonies still had a harbor ability.

Perhaps this, you can buid three type of colonies. The first type is the same as it is now, you build it from the start, and not very expensive.

The second type requires Map Making, and can only be built on a neutral cost line, it has a harbor, and you can connect it to other colonies or cities with roads/rail roads (just like if that harbor colony was a city). This type requires a little more shields, and does not require you to have this placed on a resource like the first type. This would be great for those 1 tile islands with that major resource you need.

The third type requires Flight. And, you guessed it, it has an airpot ability just like a city. Same as the second when it comes to connections. As well as the increased cost and the ability to place it on a tile with no resources. Only this one can be placed on any neutral land tile. This would be great if a rival civ took over all the costal land nearby. Now, I'm not sure if it would be fair to the AI to airlift units in and out of this type of colony, but who knows.

Comments? Suggestions? Death Threats? (Sorry, the last one is reserved for Firaxis' programmers only )

[Shadowstrike]

Those are really good ideas Thrawn. Maybe colonies could be used to increase the size of trade networks, so if you build a harbor and a road leading to the cities on that continent, you could be connected with your capital city. That would make colonies somewhat useful.

Of course, why can't calonies act as a 1/2 a point of population city, which has a 1 in 16 chance of growing into a full fledged city 16 turns past its creations? It could provide a cheap alternative to wasting 2 population on a settler. (The numbers aren't important only the idea)

[Thrawn05]

Originally posted by Shadowstrike
Those are really good ideas Thrawn. Maybe colonies could be used to increase the size of trade networks, so if you build a harbor and a road leading to the cities on that continent, you could be connected with your capital city. That would make colonies somewhat useful.

Of course, why can't calonies act as a 1/2 a point of population city, which has a 1 in 16 chance of growing into a full fledged city 16 turns past its creations? It could provide a cheap alternative to wasting 2 population on a settler. (The numbers aren't important only the idea)

Well, you do build a colony, you lose a worker (1 pop point). I don't feel colonies need to be cities in any way, since you might as well build cities. Because if you have a colony half a world away, it would be better as a "populess" colony that can't build anything and riot then a city too currupt and potentially rioting all the time. I do see your point, but I still feel that all that Firaxis needs to do is add a couple of colony "flavors" to help spice up Civ3.

[Pius Popprasch]

Re: Colonies? Are you kidding me?

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
3) As the colony grows, unrest becomes more and more rampant until there is a chance it will launch a war of independence, taking other colonies with it.

Generating a lot of independent states it would need a different game engine. The human player has to bother and to deal with a high number of other nations which will require new interfaces.

My idea would be to really not produce any food in tundra and arctic areas. Regular cities will just die in these areas. At the moment settlers milk food out of nowhere. I'm aware that this concept would cause a severe depression among the A.I. players.

[Beren]

Re: Colonies? Are you kidding me?

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
3) As the colony grows, unrest becomes more and more rampant until there is a chance it will launch a war of independence, taking other colonies with it.

This I would like, but it should count for normal cities as well and you would get the idea which you have when you're playing a tiny map with 16 players.

Originally posted by Jason Beaudoin
4) Should not be able to build a city off your original starting continent. All cities founded far from the capital is a colony.

It seems you don't know the original intention of colonies. Colonies are used in the way the Greeks used them: exploiting resources. Not to be some kind of post-middle ages imperalistic settlement. I think it is barely used in such a way at all, because, when you play a game, by that time all interesting parts of the world have already been settled.

[The Rook]

I think they could be improved a bit. Make them junior pop 1 cities.

A) They don't grow, but can build select improvements like harbors.

B) You can add another worker to the colony and it becomes a normal city.

C) The colony is subject to swallowed by any city placed next to it, but not automatically.


Doing these things wouldn't off balance the game, and they would make colonies more useful and behave like they did in historic times.

[GeneralTacticus]

B) You can add another worker to the colony and it becomes a normal city.

This might be a little unbablancing. A Worker costs 10 shields. A settler costs 30. So two workers are cheaper than 1 Settler. Therefore, if you could use 2 workers to build a city instead of 1 settler, there would be no reason to use settlers.

[The Rook]

Hmmm, make it so that you can add a settler then, but you get the worker back.

[Whoha]

disable obtaining settlers of any kind, then colonies become important. only then do they become important(and truth be told thats kinda fun for a couple of games)