Whats with these 'colonies'

[dainbramaged13]

hehe yeah im just kinda excited about civ3.

[Theben]

RE: Depletion of resources

I think a lot of you are jumping to conclusions about losing resources. It's not that they'll all disappear by endgame (IMHO), but that the player may wish to have several such resources under his belt. That way if you DO lose one or two, you still have the resource available to use.

And I don't see anywhere that Firaxis says resources will return after some are depleted. Dan did say you could prospect for more, tho'.

[dainbramaged13]

By the way, I don't think its too realistic not to be able to see resources if you haven't developed the tech yet. Maybe they should come in levels, you know? like you should be able to see bronze and iron deposits from the beginning. You should be able to see other things in the middle ages, maybe oil in the industrial age, whatnot. I don't know what resources will be avaiable, so i can't tell you when to put them, but i do think there should at least be SOME resources that you can see from the beginning.

[Adm.Naismith]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13
By the way, I don't think its too realistic not to be able to see resources if you haven't developed the tech yet.

I don't know what resources will be avaiable, so i can't tell you when to put them, but i do think there should at least be SOME resources that you can see from the beginning.

Sorry, but in real world mankind saw raw resources on ground, sometimes, but don't appreciate their use until discovered by science and tech advance.
In Civ III game we'll know in advance the usefulness of a resource, giving us a great starting advantage from the first era.

No, the idea of Firaxis seems the most balanced to me. I also added in another thread that I suggest resources slowly depleted, but new tech advance can let another source (of the same kind) appear later as in offshore oil after the proper sea advance.
I also suggested that some new discoveries can reduce the rate of depletion of existing resources, e.g. as with Recycling, but also with less obvious tech, as an economic advance reducing the use of gold resources

[dainbramaged13]

I know that, what i was saying (rather unintelligibly, i admit) is that certain resources be available from the beginning.

but you're probably right anyway

[Guest]

Originally posted by Harlan

Something extra needs to be given to colonies, esp. something to remain if a city border overtakes the colony. Its so strange that one would have a thriving resource extraction operation, and then a city gets close to it, and all of the sudden, nothing. Tumbleweeds. Not even a working mine remaining in the case of mined goods or farming in the case of food goods. Strange.

I agree, otherwise the cost/benefit factor of cities compared to colonies is greatly exagerated. With things are currently being explained I can see maybe one colony being built (needed) for every 10 cities max.

Originally posted by Pingu:

Anyway, on a different tach, when a colony is consumed by the expanding city, I think it would be good if some sort of tile improvement was left. This is purely decorative, and should have no effect on the game whatsoever. I just think it enriches the feel of the game, when you look at the map, and can see that the current landscpe has been influenced by the History within the game, giving your civ a more epic sort of feel.

Similarly, when you win or lose a Major battle (lots of troops killed, or saves a major city nearby), then perhaps the map should be marked with a battlefield, with a little sighnpost saying 'Battle of Cambridge - 1345AD'. This should be nothing too big, or too ostentatious, just a little reminder, you can click on it to read the details....

I know it's eye candy, but it'll give the game a really epic feel to it...


Pingu:

This seems like an excellent idea

[MrFun]

I like Pingu's idea of having some kind of landmark icon where IF you wanted to know more about some past event, you can click on it to read more.

Might be a cool idea!
But can any of you professional pessimists find something wrong with it?

[java4me]

Originally posted by dainbramaged13
hehe yeah im just kinda excited about civ3.

Aren't we all!!!

[Myronides]

I 've got another question about colonies, sorry if it's allready answered, I just can't find time to read the hole thread these days:

Say I 'm the greeks and I 'm situated near the Romans. Say I build a colony closer to roman borders than mine. I keep it carefully guarded and I keep an eye at the road (or port) connecting it to my capital as well. Eventualy the roman borders expand and they come to include the area where my colony is situated. What happens then? 1)The roman city closest to my greek colony absoreves it? (I hope not). 2)Having a greek colony with greek army units defending it inside roman bordes, makes romans angry, so they ask me to disband the colony and move my troops out, or else they attack it? (wich would be reasonable). 3)Something else? Dan? anyone?

[Harlan]

Despite the comments of Firaxians on this thread, I still don't get the usefulness of colonies vs. cities. True, there may be situations where there's a very valuable resource in a spot that you wouldn't ever want to put a city on. So one might build the occasional colony, but if I have a choice between building two colonies (and losing two population) or building one new city (and also losing two population) I would chose the later almost all the time.

Unless, of course, there's more we don't know. For instance, we know now that resources can be depleted, which would make a colony even less attractive. Imagine building a colony over a spot of Iron, only to see the Iron get depleted, and now you have a colony of nothing (does it actually disappear at this point, or remain as a painful reminder of the population point you wasted?)

Which leads to the question: can you convert a colony back into a Worker, so it can go off and put that colony somewhere else? If so, then I would keep track of when a colony of mine would be almost overrun by a city boundary, and disband it before it becomes useless. I don't imagine that would be so, since it would give a huge advantage to the human player (not to mention the big hassle of trying to figure out the exact moment to convert the colony back), so that probably means once you build a colony you're stuck with it.

The depletion of resources make colonies unattractive in another way: the value of the one trade resource a colony is built on will eventually become useless. But a city gets the trade value of any resources within the growing city boundaries. So as new resources pop up in unexpected places, chances are good a city with a big range will get some. Whereas, what are the odds of another resource coming onto the exact same spot as a depleted resource?

The other question is how do colonies relate to ICS? If there are natural limits in the game to having too many cities, then colonies might be more attractive. But if the game works like Civ2, and your empire becomes only slightly more unhappy as new cities are built, my strategy would be rush out as many cities as possible until I hit some barrier to growth, and only then make colonies.

One possible solution to this whole colonies thing: if a city boundary does come to overrun a colony, or the resource the colony is on becomes depleted, have that colony automatically turn back into a Worker (and allow one to convert back to Workers whenever you want). This solves a number of problems. One, it solves the problem of another civ's city overrunning your colony (you're peacefully cleared out cos you're too close to their heartlands). Two, it makes colonies sufficiently attractive. Three, it makes more sense. People will go for a close by resource before they go for one far away of the same thing, because they won't be so afraid of someday having the resource get overrun by a city. Four, an investment in a colony is no longer a dead end. The Workers on the edge of your empire will always be picking up and moving, pushing forward your civ's boundaries, instead of mysteriously disappearing. Five, this system would be equally fair to the AI civs, since it would happen automatically. (perhaps have a number of turns elapse between when a worker turns into a colony and vice versa, just like it takes turns between starting to build a road and finishing it. This would limit people from moving colonies willy nilly, and give a few turns to bring troops up to defend the soon to be moved Worker)

What do people think of this suggestion?

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Harlan
Despite the comments of Firaxians on this thread, I still don't get the usefulness of colonies vs. cities. True, there may be situations where there's a very valuable resource in a spot that you wouldn't ever want to put a city on. So one might build the occasional colony, but if I have a choice between building two colonies (and losing two population) or building one new city (and also losing two population) I would chose the later almost all the time.

Hypothesis:

You find a great spot for your first city. Its even on a special resource square. Whoopee. You build a temple and between that and your special resource you have enough wealth and culture to get your border to push out to 1 tile distance. Two tiles distant is another special trade resource that if utilised would help your culture to grow further or faster. You could wait 20 turns and consume 2 population to build a settler that will found a new city right on top of it to gain the resource. In the long term though the cities are so close they will be squabbling for usage of all the other tiles. Alternatively you could spend 5 turns and 1 population to build a worker that can give you access to that resource and let you settle your next city in a far better spot, perhaps even on a third resource type.

Until we actually see the game all this is going to be speculation based on smoke and mirrors. I am confident that if the playtesters discover that colonies are utterly pointless then Firaxis will do something about it. It is surely absurdly pessimistic to write them off as useless already?

[Myronides]

I 'm sure that suggestions or "solutions" regarding gameplay features proposed here cannot be included in civIII. We allready know that the code of the game is ready and the game is currently in the beta testing fase.

I had a good time playing Sid's games for years and I trust I 'll have even better time with civIII when I 'll have it installed in my computer. So, since it's practicaly ready, I think I 'll give myself a chance to study and understand the game first. I 'll start nagging about gameplay features, or demand a civIII expantion, if needed, later.

I hope firaxians wont make the same mistake all over again. They wont serve me a game full of bugs this year (see SMAC), so they can sell me an incomplete fix with a couple of minor ad-ons next year (see SMAX) that they 'll ironicaly call a game. No use to blame them for what could be a publishers mistake, of course. On the other had, I feel I have to make clear to them what would make me, the gamer, happy, and them, the developers, rich: Offer me a complete game fun to play whenever they are ready to, and listen to my proposals after I play it, to offer me an expantion after a couple of years, if nessesary, that I 'll pay for it as an expansion, not as new game. This is the only way I 'll have the currage to propose my friends to buy civIII as well, because SMAC(X) tested their trust in my judgement.

PS: I 'd gladly write an article for the column out of these things that worry me about civIII, but I lack time. Mark G. or Dan Q., couldn't you do it better than I would anyway?

[C. Gerhardt]

Comment:

according to the things earlier you only have to build a colony on a special recourse outside your borders and if the recourse is inside your borders you should connect it with a road, Right


What will happen if you build a colony on a road-connected resource inside your enemies terratory and guard it well

Will you get the resource?
Will the enemy get the resource?
Do both players get the resource?

new question:

If you build a new city with your settler will you start this city with just one or two inhabitants?

trick:

If you build a new city in your allies terratory this is an act of war.
Build your city just inside your own border and you:

1) still be allies
2) you push back your allied border and gain it for your own exploitation (an small SMAC feature)

[dainbramaged13]

One possible solution to this whole colonies thing: if a city boundary does come to overrun a colony, or the resource the colony is on becomes depleted, have that colony automatically turn back into a Worker (and allow one to convert back to Workers whenever you want). This solves a number of problems. One, it solves the problem of another civ's city overrunning your colony (you're peacefully cleared out cos you're too close to their heartlands). Two, it makes colonies sufficiently attractive. Three, it makes more sense. People will go for a close by resource before they go for one far away of the same thing, because they won't be so afraid of someday having the resource get overrun by a city. Four, an investment in a colony is no longer a dead end. The Workers on the edge of your empire will always be picking up and moving, pushing forward your civ's boundaries, instead of mysteriously disappearing. Five, this system would be equally fair to the AI civs, since it would happen automatically. (perhaps have a number of turns elapse between when a worker turns into a colony and vice versa, just like it takes turns between starting to build a road and finishing it. This would limit people from moving colonies willy nilly, and give a few turns to bring troops up to defend the soon to be moved Worker)

1st of all, its not goign to happen anyway, and 2nd of all, its not realistic! colonies just dont get up and move, the same thing with cities! I don't get why people think disbanding cities and colonies is in any way realistic?


A question that i do think is very important is what happens when a colony is consumed into ENEMIES borders?


Also, I'm pretty sure that borders of civs do not automatically meet. Only when the civs get close enough can the strategy of building a city close to the border increase your border advantage, but from the screenshots we've seen, borders aren't much beyond your cities, so...

[N35t0r]

I think that the colonies, if absorbed in your enemes' territory, should remain yours, but you should have to keep the road connection it to your cities 'clear' (ie, friendly troops being the last ones to have crossed there...


Also, will you be able to conquer land?

I mean, geting some units to fortify on the first squares of your enemie's land adjacent to yours, and getting that land for yourself...

and, will you be able to trade land in diplomacy?