For a coherent colony system

[Trifna]

Civ 3's colony system may be simple, it's niot coherent with human and isn't very useful. It looks more like Portuguese "comptoirs" than any serious colony from French, English, Spanish or else.

Here's something very simple that would work:

A few types of occupations would exist, simply:
- Complete occupation : like conquest in Civ, Civ2, Civ3, SMAC...
- Explicit colonialism : Like French and English colonies where people are sent, assimilation is done...
- Implicit colonialism : Traffic of influence. You have a certain control by pushing the political power you like, etc. Some would say it stil exists.
- Commercial occupation : Trade routes. Like French on Africa's border or Portuguese-type. They are very profitable trades and trade routes.

Of course, there are consequences, like on local happiness, profits, access to natural ressources, etc.
Comments? Do you think it's too complicated for the average player? I don't think so...


EDIT:

For people who think it's complicated, what is complicated in THIS:

All three are conquests, they just have a few things different which are the
1- "happiness level"
2- "profit you get from it"
3- "diplomatic stance" you get with the conquered

What's complicated with these three elements?????? A 10 years old kid would have no problem with this.

[mrboo123]

yes

[Datajack Franit]

Well, there should be a way of conquering cities without erasing their national identity- if the real world worked as in civ, then India and every colonial state of the world would had never achieved freedom

That's a different thing from just building cities in a new continent- US, Australia

Colonies should count as villages with population of 1, eventually seeking to create new countries- just as in CTP, where when you were able to eradicate a civilization every city eventually revolting because of low standards of life created new AI controlled civs

[Coracle]

All that is fine.

But as for colonies. . . they are useless so long as the AI can drop a settler near it, create a town, and thus have the colony vanish while our garrison is now considered warmongers for being in "enemy territory".

We long ago asked Firaxis to consider it an act of war if someone builds a town near a colony. Firaxis ignored us of course.

[aahz_capone]

I don;'t think it sound to complicated at all. I'm for complexity in games (the reason the SMAC is better than civ3 IMHO). But the AI would have a tough time handling all these variables.

As for the town dropping, Firaxis ingored a lot yes, but that was because it's a cornerstone in theAI's strategy. What should be down is thta founding cities should be made all together harder. In histroy it's never been so that one deciede you just "make" a city (or very rarely).

Settlers should start making villages or something close to colony which does influence border until some time later. this would also counter the dujmping of cities everywhere and make fitting for new land much more "border war"style then suddenly getting into WW3 because of one size2 city. .much more realistic.

[Th0mas]

Originally posted by Coracle
*snip*
We long ago asked Firaxis to consider it an act of war if someone builds a town near a colony. Firaxis ignored us of course.

'cause they would really be disposed to listen to you Coracle

[Willem]

Originally posted by Th0mas


'cause they would really be disposed to listen to you Coracle

Whenever Coracle posts, I'm reminded of a song by Dan Hicks & The Hot Licks:

"How can I miss you if you won't go away."

[Th0mas]

Originally posted by Willem


Whenever Coracle posts, I'm reminded of a song by Dan Hicks & The Hot Licks:

"How can I miss you if you won't go away."

Ha ha

I am beginning to suspect that he is an automated script created by the sinister Apolyton 'Star Council', to keep forum post counts high....

[Trifna]

For people who think it's complicated, what is complicated in THIS:

All three are conquests, they just have a few things different which are the
1- "happiness level"
2- "profit you get from it"
3- "diplomatic stance" you get with the conquered

What's complicated with these three elements?????? A 10 years old kid would have no problem with this.

[Brizey]

DF:

The conquered citizens do maintain their nationality, and will revert to that nationality on culture flips. In fact, the imperialism dynamic is exactly what culture flips model to a certain degree.

Everyone:

I never use colonies anyway.

[Datajack Franit]

But Brizey, if you conquer the last city of a civ, all of sudden all its former citizens will stop revolting and will become normal citizens! No more chances ever for that civ to come back to life again, nor starting a new indipendent one! That's NOT realistic at all

[Changmai Beagle]

I think colonies would be great if they didn't assimilate as long as you could defend them. Macau, anyone?

[dannubis]

Colonies could be delt with fairly easy in this way:

If a strategic or luxury resource is situated inside your city radius, a road is enough to obtain the resource if one of your citizens is working it. If the resource is outside of the city radius-not cultural border- (or inside it but you have no civilians working on that tile) a colony is always needed.

As colonies can be regarded as places to work, they have no cultural importance and as a consequence they can't culturally flip. This means that you could establish a colony in a patch of no mans land that later is filled up by another civ, without you losing the colony. The supply of the recourse would of course be determined by the normal rules of the trade network (i.e. at war with -> no recourse).

Building a colony in another civ's cultral infulence is an act of war. During a war, colonies can however be build inside another players territory. This could simulate the possibility to claim a single patch of land for your civ.

On top of your colony you are allowed to stack a limited amount of troops to defend it from foreign attack. The limitation of this number should be such that no exploit can be taken to get a large number of troops deep inside enemy territory. These units can either be flown or shipped in and should be upgradable at a higher cost than normal (you would have to smuggle the necessary weapons in). Since the colony is a patch of land you own units can heal.

Also a colony should get the following attributes:
1) a coastal colony has a harbor (this means that you can have non coastal cities to have access to the sea trade network)
2) once the necessary tech is acquired there is an airport in each colony. This airport is closed when you go to war with the civ in which territory the colony is situated. (no cultural influence means no airspace of your own)

in this way colonies should be useful, you can establish colonies on the shores of distant continents, you would ensure a lot of fighting over them and they would become strategically important.

[Shr3dZ]

We long ago asked Firaxis to consider it an act of war if someone builds a town near a colony. Firaxis ignored us of course.

OR, maybe they do listen but they dont like your idea! *gasp* say it aint so!

But fo real, colonies are fairly useless when you can have an opponent just take it when (not if) he builds close to it. I think once you go thru the effeort of putting a work to make a colony there it should be yours forever (regardless of whos culture it ends up being in later) unless you go to war and someone takes it from you...

OR,

another good idea was the assimilation of it, so that, you still have it for a little bit longer and dont feel as though they raped you of your resource... maybe after 20 turns just like everything else.

[bongo]

It's really simple, if you want yo hold on to it for a longer period either build a city or defend it with so many units that your enemies will never build cities there(unit-walling anyone?).

Actually I use cities as colonies on distant islands. They will never produce anything useful but they will give me that resource.