A ? Regarding Distances To Luxuries

[Haertgaeden]

Greets, everyone. To start my very first post here on these forums, let me just say that I am very impressed with the quality of the strategies presented here. I've only been playing Civ III for about a week (granted, it's been for many, many hours each session). So I have a couple of questions I'm hoping I can get some input on.

How far away is it feasible to travel to secure a resource, both strat and lux? In my current game, I've gone close to twenty-plus tiles to get at my nearest source of iron. The only source of horses that I have discovered on my continent is almost three times as far away. Is it feasible to go after those horses, and establish a colony, or should I just forget about them and hope to trade once I establish contact with my opponent?

Also, how much protection should I devote to my colonies. I currently have three - one iron, one spice, and one gem colony. In previous games, unguarded colonies have been overrun without a second thought by the AI. But when I stock up on guards (usually pikemen in the early stages), I sometimes think I am overdoing it. What is an appropriate number of guards to post at a colony?

Last question - if I build a fort over a colony, do I retain all the bonuses of that fort?

Any ideas would be much welcome. Still very much a newb at this game. And if this topic has been brought up before, simply point me in the right direction please.


* Edit - Just counted up the tiles: it's 24 tiles from my nearest city to my source of iron and 62 from my nearest city to the horses.

[Willem]

Re: A ? Regarding Distances To Luxuries

Originally posted by Haertgaeden
How far away is it feasible to travel to secure a resource, both strat and lux? In my current game, I've gone close to twenty-plus tiles to get at my nearest source of iron. The only source of horses that I have discovered on my continent is almost three times as far away. Is it feasible to go after those horses, and establish a colony, or should I just forget about them and hope to trade once I establish contact with my opponent?

If you find this aspect annoying, as many people do, you can change the frequency of resources appearing in the Editor. There's a maximum number of 300 you can enter, which should create at least one resource that's fairly close to home. Should being an key word here.

Though to answer your question, it depends. If you have a strong Civ and your neighbours are runts in comparison, it may not be a big deal to control the resource. But if you're behind, securing it might be vital if you hope to avoid being crippled later on. Plus keep in mind that trading for what you need gives your trading partner an advantage if he suddenly decides to declare war on you. You might find yourself unable to build Swordsmen in order to form a counterattack for instance. And resources do disappear so if you control a number of them, you can be reasonably sure of maintaining a steady supply.

Also, how much protection should I devote to my colonies. I currently have three - one iron, one spice, and one gem colony. In previous games, unguarded colonies have been overrun without a second thought by the AI. But when I stock up on guards (usually pikemen in the early stages), I sometimes think I am overdoing it. What is an appropriate number of guards to post at a colony?

Again, that depends. If the resource is near enemy territory, by all means load it up. But it would be overkill if it was in an isolated area, or right next door to the heart of your empire. There's isn't really an appropriate number, though you should have at least one. That's something you'll have to figure out as the game progresses. If you keep losing the same resource, just keep adding more units when you take it back, until you stop your opponent from destroying it.

Last question - if I build a fort over a colony, do I retain all the bonuses of that fort?

If you can build a fort, you get all the bonuses, regardless of where it is.

[Skanky Burns]

Just remember that colonies are *extremely* vulnerable to the AI plopping cities down right next to them, thus stealing your resource. Plus they convert your colony into a road to bring the resource to their city automatically. And then complain about your troops in their territory.

Your best bet is to build a city on or next to the resource. It doesnt have to be a good city - it could just continuously pump out military units or workers - but just to ensure that that resource stays yours for as long as your military units hold out.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Just remember that colonies are *extremely* vulnerable to the AI plopping cities down right next to them, thus stealing your resource. Plus they convert your colony into a road to bring the resource to their city automatically. And then complain about your troops in their territory.

Your best bet is to build a city on or next to the resource. It doesnt have to be a good city - it could just continuously pump out military units or workers - but just to ensure that that resource stays yours for as long as your military units hold out.

Thanks for the info. I wasn't sure what happens in a case like that, I haven't come across it yet.

[Haertgaeden]

I wasn't aware of that, either. Thanks for the response.

[Arrian]

About the distance to resources - what size map are you playing? 64 tiles is a a looooooong way on some maps, and just a long way on others

Sometimes they will pop up far away, sometimes you will find iron and horses within the radius of your capitol. Luck-of-the-draw. If you can gain control of a resouce (luxury or strategic, whether you already have it or not) without screwing up your expansion or development (which, of course, is the trick), definitely grab it.

Colonies - use only as temporary stopgaps... I almost never use them (the exception being after the conquest of an area... I built a couple so I didn't have to wait for the cultural borders of my conquered/rebuilt cities to expand. These colonies lasted maybe 10-15 turns). Build a city ASAP, or the AI will, and steal your colony.

-Arrian

[Ironikinit]

Another time to use colonies is on mountainous islands where it's hard to get a city in. However, you do need a city to connect to the colony.

Edit: more to the original post, I think it's a good idea to colonize islands or any uninhabited areas that aren't completely worthless. The cities you build will be corrupt, but often islands have a way of having important resources that you might not be able to see at the moment.

To make distant cities function at least a little, build them up to 6, and make sure they stay in "We Love the King" mode. This makes it produce at least a few shields. Police stations and courthouses, (AFAIK) only effect lost commerce, not production.

[Harovan]

As stated above by others, colonies are almost useless on the long term and there is seldom a reason to build one. But including colonies in the game is generally good idea, so I would like if they could be made more worthy to build in the future, may be after a patch or so. I would suggest one of the following:

Stealing a colony by building a city on an adjacent tile should be an act of war.

- or -

Make colonies "small cities", or villages, with a 3x3 sphere of influence without population and with no chance to grow during the game. It could be captured or destroyed (razed) in a war, getting 1 enslaved worker. Plus there could be an option to convert such a village to a city by adding another worker.

Other ideas?

[Platypus]

Ironikinit: Police stations and courthouses, (AFAIK) only effect lost commerce, not production

While still under despotism, I built a courthouse in one of my distant size-6/1-shield cities and had production go up 2-shields. (I remember my reaction: Hurrah, there is hope for these guys!)

Pre-patch, I recall building a courthouse in an even more distant city (separate continent, with at least 9 ocean squares between the continents) and having the city stay at size-12/1-shield. That sure aggravated me! (Thank goodness for reading about IFE on this forum; at least I could do something with that city.)

[Hermann the Lombard]

Quick question: is it possible to build a colony just inside an opponent's border? (And keep it, of course.) I have a city on the only arable land of a small mountainous island, and the far edge of the island is *just* inside Babylon's borders, with a deposit of iron. He can't get it without taking my city (no non-adjacent sites), but I am assuming he can deny it to me until and unless I get my culture high enough.

[Arrian]

You can't build colonies inside another civ's borders. However, if you build as close to the resource as you can, and rush cultural buildings like mad, you can probably wrest control of the resource from the AI.

-Arrian

p.s. About making colonies more viable... I agree up to, but not including, the bit about making colonies into cities by adding a worker. Workers cost 10 shields, settlers cost 30, right? So at least 2 workers should be needed to turn a colony into a city.

[Haertgaeden]

Originally posted by Arrian
About the distance to resources - what size map are you playing?

I am currently playing a large map with five opponents.

Originally posted by Arrian
Colonies - use only as temporary stopgaps... I almost never use them (the exception being after the conquest of an area... I built a couple so I didn't have to wait for the cultural borders of my conquered/rebuilt cities to expand. These colonies lasted maybe 10-15 turns). Build a city ASAP, or the AI will, and steal your colony.

I never even considered building a city and then using it as a colony. I suppose if that's it's sole purpose, it doesn't really matter about the population or corruption level. I'm going to try that strategy out in my current situation.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Haertgaeden


I am currently playing a large map with five opponents.




I never even considered building a city and then using it as a colony. I suppose if that's it's sole purpose, it doesn't really matter about the population or corruption level. I'm going to try that strategy out in my current situation.

Building a city instead is also a good way of expanding your empire, and restricting your neighbour's options. If you send out some Settlers to the same area later, you can set up a front line to prevent him from advancing. You have to keep an eye out though, since he'll probably try to build some cities in behind, between your front and your main empire. One way of preventing that is to create a colourless unit, like a Privateer though land based, so you can attack his city without having to have an all out war. Or you can ask him, politely at first, to hand over the city he just built.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Arrian
p.s. About making colonies more viable... I agree up to, but not including, the bit about making colonies into cities by adding a worker. Workers cost 10 shields, settlers cost 30, right? So at least 2 workers should be needed to turn a colony into a city.

Agreed, or a settler then. I did not think about the shields. Although, colonies can be built only on resources, so even if it would be only 1 worker to be added, it could not be exploited excessively.

[Willem]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph


Agreed, or a settler then. I did not think about the shields. Although, colonies can be built only on resources, so even if it would be only 1 worker to be added, it could not be exploited excessively.

I think it should be a spontaneous thing. Every so often, a colony would randomly turn into a size 1 city. Afterall, the US started out as a bunch of puny colonies, and look what happened. Maybe have certain favourable conditions that must be present, like nearby Grassland.