Colonies

[tniem]

Originally posted by Col Bigspear
Why is every one saying "are these colonies useful" I thought it was painfully obvious what the colonies do from looking at the walkthrough on the firaxis site. if something is outside your borders you build a colony and connect a road, thus gaining access to it. I dont think of them a colony colonies more of mining colonies eg the type that sprung up in the west of north America for the gold rush. Once your borders swallow the colony there is no use for it and it is removed from the map, that resource is now part of your country. So I think colonies will be very important in the early game. If they are, the firaxis site showed your first city being built and then a colony being built on silk outside the borders. Though I have been skeptical about the pictures being Mock-ups on other threads

I watched the slide show and thought they would be useful as well. However, since I had not seen a screenshot of them in a while, only the one that was pointed out above - I started to think that they might not be very useful.

The reason for this is simple. You need coal and it is near another resource. You could build a colony on that coal that you would have to defend to gain only the one coal resource.

Or you could build a city only costing an extra pop point. Once you have gained a little culture in the city, you now have both resources. Also since you have built a city, it will also allow you to build city walls, more units, etc to help defend the resources. As well, you can build more culture buildings to extend your borders, wonders, or units to conquer the world. Or even more cities/colonies.

Now which one would you prefer?

I, personally, would want the extra city. For only an extra pop point, I get both resources and the option of extending my nation. That is why I believe Firaxis may have had to give up on colonies or at least tweak the idea a bit.

[Col Bigspear]

You do make a good point, I guess I was only listening to myself. I'm sure your not suggesting ICS, but I do use ICS in one player games when I know i'm on a continent on my own e.g America. I certainly would not fart about building colonies when i could be building cities.
The only argument I can put forward is that you might be able to build 2/3 colonies in the time it takes to build a settler.

p.s If I ever play multiplayer, I would not do ICS. OK so if any1 sees me PLZ don't attack

[JellyDonut]

Colonies must have some advantage that Firaxis hasn't mentioned yet...

[NeoBlade]

Can't you tell what colonys are for..?They're for getting resources in places that citys whouldn't go,like large deserts,tundra,mountain ranges,hilllands,swamps..you know,places where normal citys whouldn't do to well and whould become a hindrence,a weak point of your empire instead of a good addition.

BTW,I belive colonys built on the coast should have access to all colonies on the coast after the Caravel technology.It just makes sense ya know?

If you've ever played on the Austrailia map,you'd wish you had colonys too to get at all that oil in those huge deserts.

[Provost Harrison]

Yeah, I believe that a city with a harbour has access to overseas colonies that are on the coast. Most of the screenshots we have seen have been for colonies in areas close to the heart of the civilisation, and perhaps early on in the game on a good continent like some of the ones we have seen, it is best to expand and build cities to cover the resources rather than build colonies which would just be swallowed up. They will be of use in totally inhospitable climates, for example, the extreme arctic to get hidden oil or likewise in the middle of an expansive desert. Perhaps to avoid management problems in far flung cities, rather than populate distant continents to just settle a few colonies there...perhaps inland ones connected by road to a coastal colony can also trade with the homeland.

This is the intended purpose of colonies. An answer to some of the constraints that anti-ICS strategies will pose...

[tniem]

Originally posted by NeoBlade
Can't you tell what colonys are for..?They're for getting resources in places that citys whouldn't go,like large deserts,tundra,mountain ranges,hilllands,swamps..you know,places where normal citys whouldn't do to well and whould become a hindrence,a weak point of your empire instead of a good addition.

If you've ever played on the Austrailia map,you'd wish you had colonys too to get at all that oil in those huge deserts.

But with the expanse of borders, a city doesn't actually have to be near the resource in order to gain it if it has a lot of culture. So playing in Australia, Sydney would have enough culture to get all resources within the island. You don't have to build a city near a swamp to gain that resource, just near enough with a temple to extend your borders.

BTW,I belive colonys built on the coast should have access to all colonies on the coast after the Caravel technology.It just makes sense ya know?

This is kind of what I originally thought colonies might be for before that slide show. We will certainly see how this plays out.


PH, I guess if Firaxis has done a lot and ended ICS, colonies probably will be necessary. I just am not convinced that:

a) Firaxis has solved ICS enough where building another city isn't preferable to a colony
b) That a colony is more cost efficent than building a temple (or other culture building) and extending your border to the resource.

[TechWins]

From all the screenshots I have seen it seems as if there are an abundance of resources. If a colony can only take in one resource and a city has the potential to take in 21 (depending on the amount of resources in that cities radius) why wouldn't you build a city a over a colony? Almost all the cities in the screenshots have about 3 resources in it's radius.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
Yeah, I believe that a city with a harbour has access to overseas colonies that are on the coast

Not quite. A city with a harbour has access to the good a colony provides if that colony is connected via road to another city with a harbour.

[NeoBlade]

I dun like that.The colonies of America didn't have citys for a long time but they still managed to trade with britain.I can live with it though,it also helps in makeing worldwide nations.-_^

[AroSch]

It seems to me, colonies make a lot sense. As far I know:

- Firaxis sad, you need ressources to build some units
- thes sad noone has all ressources, you must have to trade
- somewhere I read, you can´t manage large empires that easaly.

So it seems to me, colonies brings up ressources from outside our borders (from near or from far away) faster and easyer then building cities and develope them. Colonies seems to be one way to get these ressources without trading with your enimies and without building a large, heavy to handle empire.
Anyone knows how easy or heavy it is to found citys at different places? How much cost a settler, how much is a worker? Is there a movement difference between them? May be, you could build 2 workers instad one settler in the same time? And so on. I think, there is no reason now to say the colonies are unless, simply becouse we know not enough about.

[LaRusso]

good questions. it is a bit odd, however, that the only picture of a colony so far is the one on firaxis resources walkthrough. not a single colony on any of the previews and screenshots. if this indicates that colonies have a very llimited usefulness and 'life span', it's kinda interesting that firaxis devoted its biggest site update to an seemingly ephemeral aspect of the game.

[seer_98]

Has Firaxis said that a colony would cost a settler? Or is it just an improvement like a road?

If the former, then colonies seem almost useless with our current information. A city would always be better.

If the latter then they make sense. I wouldn't worry about ICS if colonies can't grow, aren't affected by wonders, can't build improvements, and don't mine or farm (i.e. they just collect resources at the cost of only a tile improvement). It also makes sense for them to go away when a city border encapsulates them because the resource would be collected anway.

[tniem]

Originally posted by seer_98
Has Firaxis said that a colony would cost a settler? Or is it just an improvement like a road?

If the former, then colonies seem almost useless with our current information. A city would always be better.

If the latter then they make sense. I wouldn't worry about ICS if colonies can't grow, aren't affected by wonders, can't build improvements, and don't mine or farm (i.e. they just collect resources at the cost of only a tile improvement). It also makes sense for them to go away when a city border encapsulates them because the resource would be collected anway.

As it has been explained to us, cities are created with settlers that will now cost two pop points. Meanwhile, colonies will be built with workers that will cost one pop point. As soon as you build the colony you lose your worker. A colony cannot grow but it acts as a size one city, so if you don't defend it, an enemy only has to walk in to take the city.

[TechWins]

So it seems to me, colonies brings up ressources from outside our borders (from near or from far away) faster and easyer then building cities and develope them.

That is somewhat true but you still have to connect your colony to your capital by road and your capital has to be connected by road to all the other cities for the other to gain that resource.

Borders will expand to close places so it would be easier to build a temple than to build a colony if you have a resource near you.

Why wouldn't you rather use a 2 pop settler to build a city (21 square radius, never vanishes, can produce units, increases trade, etc...) so you can get a good resource. Than to use a 1 pop worker to build a colony (only gives you access to 1 resource).

I think, there is no reason now to say the colonies are unless, simply becouse we know not enough about.

People are going from what we know about colonies. They're saying from what we know about colonies they seem to be useless. It's not say that they couldn't be more usefull it's just right now from what we know they are useless. I know Dan has stated that they are still working on colonies but I think when Firaxis had that big update about colonies they gave most of the info. away about colonies at the point in time.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by TechWins
That is somewhat true but you still have to connect your colony to your capital by road and your capital has to be connected by road to all the other cities for the other to gain that resource.

Or by harbour. I think that colonies will be mainly used to collect overseas resources. You really can't make the claim that colonies won't be useful until you see a bit more of the game mechanics.

[Grumbold]

Posts about colonies seem to be getting more and more pessimistic the longer we go without any additional information. To try and counteract a little of the tide I would like to say that even as currently specified I can think of some very good reasons to use colonies under specific circumstances.

There have always been games where a few turns delay in getting a unit, building or wonder completed can make a huge difference. Planting a colony on a luxury good could make a difference to how fast your borders expand to all connected cities. Getting one on a metal could give your those better units to resist an attack with a few turns earlier. Given all the time in the world to scout out the terrain and plan your optimum city based expansion plan, I'm sure colonies could be made almost totally irrelevant. However you should always be fighting to expand faster and further than your opponents and, if used properly, colonies will help to achieve this.

[Inverse Icarus]

settlers cost 2 POPULATION POINTS. (a size 3 city becomes a 1)

workers cost 1 POPULATION POINTS. (a size 3 becomes a 2)

as foir shields required, i dont know.

[TechWins]

You really can't make the claim that colonies won't be useful until you see a bit more of the game mechanics.

I'm saying from what I know colonies appear to be useless. Yeah, maybe you're right when I do start to play the game I will find some good reasons to use colonies but as of right now it seems to me that colonies are useless.

If colonies are to become useful I think it would be more towards the end of the game. I say this because your borders won't be able to expand much because of lack of room with all the other civs (this situation is hypothetical). So you can only build colonies to get a resource near you. That is actually the first thing I've found semi-useful about colonies. I'm not really helping my arguement out by giving a reason why colonies could be useful but it doesn't matter to me.

[KrazyHorse]

The thing is, gaining access now to resource which will only be within your border in 30 turns may well be to your advantage. Also, has anybody noted that colonies are not really the norm, historically? They're more of an exception, and I'm happy to see that the Civ3 screenshots aren't filled with them.

[TechWins]

The thing is, gaining access now to resource which will only be within your border in 30 turns may well be to your advantage.

Well, that depends on how long it will take to build a certain cultural expansion improvement and how long it will take you to build a colony.

Originally posted by TechWins


Well, that depends on how long it will take to build a certain cultural expansion improvement and how long it will take you to build a colony.

OK gentlemen let's do the number and math. You/we start our first city. (sound like Indy "Start your engine") Now we will all have to think for a moment, do we need a soldier or worker first. Of course if the worker is complete before the city gain 2 pop points. then your building time will/maybe be wasted. But wait, Firaxis has not told us, which turn will the BARBARIANS show up. Turn 10, 20, 30. (In CTP 2 they start on turn 20. But you can change that by editing the files. However Civ 2 did not allow that change did they?)
So we build a warrior first (5 to 7/8/9 turns). Now is the city at 2 pop points? If yes than we still have to decide whether to build another warrior or worker. Now you could build the one you did not last time. We have no idea how long to build a worker (10 turns?). By now we hope the city will be large enough to build a settler. In Civ 2 a settler can take up to 20 turns in the BC time frame. Let's do the math. At lease 30 turns or so you will have 2 warrior and 1 worker. I think the colony just might be very useful at this stage. Around turn 50 we get a settler. This settler will have to travel at lease 5 tiles to start another city. So now we are at turn 55 or so, and if a Temple is availble to build, we are in the 5th turn of building it. In Civ 2 it take 10 turns for a Temple right? But how far away is the colony. How many tile from city center will a temple extend our borders? The city itself will be two tiles when it gain the 10 pop point from city center (21 tiles).
Around turn 60 we might have 2 cities, 3 warriors, 0/1 worker (If you build a colony), and one city improvement. City one better start building a new worker. City two should be building warriors for a short time until you have around 6/7/8 warriors. 4 warrior for defence and 2 or more for scouting the area. IMO colonies will be very important at the start of the game. When some of you say thing on the site, please do the math before you type. Maybe you will answer your own question. If you answer your own question, than please type the question and answer so all of us can read it.
This game is going to be fun. One thing is for sure, will never again play it like we did Civ 1 and 2.

[TechWins]

Joseph1944,

You also have to remember that at the beginning of the game you start off with a free worker and settler. Of course you're going to use the settler right away to get a city going. You'll then probably use the worker for a few tile improvements around your city. During this whole time you have built a warrior and you discovered your first tech, Alphabet. You then decide to learn ceremonial burial to get some culture in your city. Your city is also now at 2pop. So after your first warrior you decide to build another warrior. Your done having your worker doing tile improvements so you decide to have build a road to a resource that is in your city radius (can you harvest a resource that is in your city radius without any borders? I'm wondering because it has only been stated that you can't harvest a resource that is out of your city radius without borders.) If that isn't the case, then you probably would have your worker go build a colony on a resource. After your worker has lead a road to a resource then colonized on that resource. You'll be discovering your tech, ceremonial burial, and be done building your unit, a warrior. You'll then decide to pick x tech and decide to build a temple for culture. After another 10 turns the temple has been built and the colony may have been swallowed up by your borders depending on how far you built it away from your city. You then decide to build another warrior because you finally gained 3pop status. About another 10 turns go by and you have your settler. You go build your city at some other location and now you'll only be having that resource going to one city because you don't have a worker to build a road to that other city. The colony may or may not be there but if it is gone you pretty much wasted a worker just so you could have a resource going to one city for 20 turns (I know the resource will still be there it's just that it won't be coming from the colony). If the colony didn't get swallowed up you would have wasted a worker just so you could be giving a resource to one city until the two cities are connected. Right now everything is what ifs. I could go on and on about if it did this and that. There's just too many variables. None of us here can truely support our opinion 100% because none of us know everything to do so. Even though, not being able to support my opinion fully I still do believe that colonis aren't very useful. They may not be useless but they don't seem to be that useful to me.

[Kenobi]

Here's an idea: why not allow the 1 pop point in a colony to be added to a city when the city's "culture radius" envelops the colony? It's illogical that the people who go off to build this colony just disappear.

That is, you start off with a settler and worker. The settler builds a city, the worker goes off to establish a colony. Once the city expands to absorb the colony, the worker's pop point gets added back into the city. It would be a bit like a major city absorbing regional towns as suburbs.

That way the colony isn't a wasted population point and provides rapid access to a resource.

Likewise, you could build a colony overseas initially. Later, you build a city nearby and absorb the the pop point, kickstarting the city.

[JellyDonut]

Colonies should be very useful when playing OCC

[tniem]

can you harvest a resource that is in your city radius without any borders? I'm wondering because it has only been stated that you can't harvest a resource that is out of your city radius without borders

The way I understand it no. You need a border to harvest a resource. Period.

Here's an idea: why not allow the 1 pop point in a colony to be added to a city when the city's "culture radius" envelops the colony? It's illogical that the people who go off to build this colony just disappear.

Great idea Kenobi. Welcome to the forums.

However, I believe Dan said that this is not going to happen. When asked when the concept was originally shown to us gamers, he said that the pop point would be lost when a colony was swallowed by a border. Obviously they are the ones playing the game, so Firaxis if you have found colonies to be useless than please consider adding the pop point back to a city when a colony gets destroyed.

[TechWins]

The way I understand it no. You need a border to harvest a resource. Period.

See now I don't understand why it would be that way. You should be able the resource if it's in your city radius, regardless of borders. I think the way you should be able to harvest the resource, if it's in your city radius, is you would put one of your food allocation thingies on the resource to harvest it, while still gaining the normal food/trade/production you would recieve. I also think it should be this way because from what I've seen there aren't any things like pheasant, silk, iron, that can help out your trade like they did in Civ2. If the special resources are in your city radius they should provide the same as what they did in Civ2 and what they are to be providing in Civ3. If you understand what I mean. Sorry about this post not being very clear but it was hard for me to put that idea into words for some reason, maybe because I'm getting tired.

Tniem, the first time I saw your thread, colonies, I knew it would wind up getting a lot of posts in it.

Great idea Kenobi. Welcome to the forums.

I too agree this idea should be used. As you stated, though, Dan said it won't be this way, which is too bad.

[Provost Harrison]

He's right, a resource needs to be within your border to harvest it, irrespective of your city radius...

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by TechWins
See now I don't understand why it would be that way.

That would explain why you are so insistent that colonies serve no purpose. Their key use is in grabbing that resource immediately that is not conveniently placed for plonking a city right on top of. If a newly founded city could harvest all resources within its 21 square radius then there truly would be no practical need to expend a pop point to get that third tile distance, you'd just build your city slightly closer.

If it takes 10 turns to build a temple, 20 to build a library, and with those active and one luxury resource being connected to the city it still takes 40 more turns to get your border out to size 2 then you can see why colonies do represent a considerable speed advantage. Just getting a 1 tile border could take 20 turns. We just don't know how they will balance it, but if borders inflate rapidly then it seems rather pointless to play with border growth at all.

Originally posted by TechWins
You should be able the resource if it's in your city radius, regardless of borders. I think the way you should be able to harvest the resource, if it's in your city radius, is you would put one of your food allocation thingies on the resource to harvest it, while still gaining the normal food/trade/production you would recieve. I also think it should be this way because from what I've seen there aren't any things like pheasant, silk, iron, that can help out your trade like they did in Civ2. If the special resources are in your city radius they should provide the same as what they did in Civ2 and what they are to be providing in Civ3. If you understand what I mean. Tniem, the first time I saw your thread, colonies, I knew it would wind up getting a lot of posts in it.

I too agree this idea should be used. As you stated, though, Dan said it won't be this way, which is too bad.

Dan did say or was it the Firaxis site, any resource inside of your City radius will be your automatic as long as you connect it by road and you make the proper discovery (such as Iron Working). Any resource outside of the City radius but inside of your borders is still your as long as you are connect by road and proper discovery. Until you can build a culture building, a resource located let's said 3 to 5 tiles from city center will need a colony. Or you can wait until you have a border, however if another civ come along and build a colony you will loose the resource until your border expand to their colony and swallow it up.
I don't know about you guys, but if another civs builds any colony near my Cities there will be WAR. I want a buffer zone. And when I find a colony sitting on a resource that I need, War until I have the colony. To hell with Trade.

Tech; I started a MPG game last night, It said 20 turns to build a temple that early in the game.

Note to Mark G. The spell check is not working for the 2nd day in a row.

[TechWins]

That would explain why you are so insistent that colonies serve no purpose.

I see that colonies can have a purpose but I feel that they don't seem to be very useful. I'm not sure how valuable that resource really is going to be for me to use 1pop point on it. Maybe Firaxis could go into detail some time about how important getting a luxury resource right away is. It might all depend on how much happiness a temple will provide if any happiness at all for you to have a big need of getting a luxury resource.

Will there still be resources like wine, buffalo, wheat, ect... that will help your food/trade/production like they did in Civ2? That's why I'm skeptical about if a resource is in your 21 city radius you might still be able to get the extra food/trade/production from it like you could in Civ2 and possibly the function that resource would normally provide. This may only be possible if you do have borders, but will it be possible to get the function of a Civ2 resource and a Civ3?

Just getting a 1 tile border could take 20 turns. We just don't know how they will balance it, but if borders inflate rapidly then it seems rather pointless to play with border growth at all.

It appeared to me that in the resource/colony preview the border increased by 2 tiles when the cultural improvement (I can't remember what improvement it was) was built. It could also depend on the improvement for how much your borders will expand. Hypothetically, a library could only expand your borders 1 tile and a temple could expand your borders 2 tiles.