Useless colonies!

[Kolyana]

I'm currently playing a game on Steya's (?) World map. It's realy is a great location and the areas of the world are well defined.

Africa is fairly resource rich. I started in Europe, broke down through Germany, France and Spain and started landing settlers into Northern and Western Africa.

America started somewhere around SW Russia. I managed to bottle up three other nations pretty good, so they were forced to colonize eastwards and eventually spread south, southwest and into north eastern Africa.

Thing is, by the time I spread south and started looking inland, America had captured a lot of the resources with ... you guessed it ... Colonies.

The middle of Africa is mostly barren plains and desert, not good for cities at all - without a lot of hard work - so he had these huge snaking lines of roads leading from the NE of the country, winding their way through the middle and into the heart of ivory and rubber territory.

Now, had these colonies had any weight atached to them, this would have been a setback. As it was, i just marched a settler up next to him, planted my flag and stole every resource off him. His long snaking roads and colonies meant diddly squat under the onslaught of my peasants 6000 miles from home.

Now, if the game was slightly more realistic I may accept this ... accept it only because planting cities in inhospitable regions is generally not a great idea. Therefore colonies fill that void.

*HOWEVER* I saw the computer plant a city in 3 tiles of barren land, 2 tiles of barren land, and then launch his ships through the med. sea to check out an island that was ONE square in size. One barren island, one square, surrounded by water and no resources. What did he do? Plonk a settler on it and found a city.

This is okay, especially if I convince myself that the computer was doign this from a strategic angle and to get dominance in a vital sea corridor (but we all know that he wasn't) ... but my point here is that the computer is clearly playing by the rules of "See one square of unoccupied land? OCCUPY IT!"

With these rules, the colony seems somewhat redundant and vulnerable. Wrose, I argue that it's a waste of a worker. You can also garrison the hell out of it, and we all know that a newly planted city will still assimilate it.

Blaupanzer can argue what he likes. The breakdown is simple:

1. ONE citizen creates a colony that has no defense against assimilation.

2. TWO citizens make a settler that will absorb any colony instantly with no culture being involved.

3. The one citizen that made up your colony obviously feels ready to desert at a moments notice as soon as anyone else plonks a city right next door.

Sorry, but something here isn't adding up right. In a game that encourages blistering growth and the colonization of every single map square, colonies have no place.

In a realistic environment of not being able to support a city in remote locations, they do.

But, at the end of the day, you can put a city anywhere in the game ... so the issue is mute and the colonies are useless.

[Sytass]

"But, at the end of the day, you can put a city anywhere in the game ... so the issue is mute and the colonies are useless."

Hm, maybe it shouldn't be possible to sustain cities in certain regions (middle of desert) until certain technologies arise and make the land more favorable, like electricity alllows you to irrigate anywhere? But it would take some serious tweaks of how much food is produced on which tile of land with what improvements.

[Pingu:]

Colonies, good idea, but not finished off...

I had a silk resourse on the polar tip of my continent, surrounded by glaciers and mountans. There's no way I was going to settle it. So I put a colony there, with a fortress on the mountain top, with rifleman and knight in it..

The Persians came and settled on the tundra, and I had to go war. Didn't last very long, but the Persians hated me for ever... and it was them being the agressor. This has to be fixed...

I definately think that colonies and/or fortresses should exert some sort of limited border of their own, when occupied by troops (radius 1?).

Settling and absorbing a defended colony should equate to a declaration of war.

(on a connected note, does anyone think that fortress ZOCs should be more powerful??).

ALTERNATIVELY: perhaps settling in the ZOC of an occupied fortress without a right of passage agreeement should equate to a declaration of war??


Pingu:

[Kolyana]

Pingu: The fortress zones of control don't work at the moment, that's something for the patch. Apparently.

Sytass: When I typed that summary sentence I must admit I thought "Yeah, that's why colonies exist, because they're in places no city is likely to thrive."

Adjusting the food angle could do it, only allowing any food from desert or that sort of region after certain advances is a possibility that I like.

Ultimately some colonies become cities, so I have no problems in this sense ... just the current application. It's weak.

Originally posted by Kolyana

Ultimately some colonies become cities, so I have no problems in this sense ... just the current application. It's weak.

And how!

[player1]

Just put settler on the place of colony & press B button.

[Hywel Dda]

I have personally only found *one* good use for colonies, which is to gain early access to resources that are currently outside my cultural influence in places where there is no real chance of attack: e.g. near the coast, or between two of your own cities whose borders have not expanded to touch eachother yet.

In this sense I agree with the original poster: colonies on your border are too prone to attack and there's no sense in wasting defensive units on them. Let the AI take the resource and get it back (by war or negotiation) later on.

But gaining early access to a resource near a newly planted city, that will eventually expand to include the resource, is a good tactic if there were sound reasons (e.g. good food squares) for not planting the city next to the resource in the first place.

I have some sympathy for Pingu (put his colony somewhere that looked unattackable but got attacked anyway) but I think this was just bad luck. I certainly do *not* agree that colonies should have borders/cultural influence. Then they'd just be cities.

[jkjones]

Interesting thread on colonies - thanks to everyone who has had good suggestions. To date, I haven't made much use of colonies - I've been acting like the AI and plunking down cities near desired resources instead of colonies to get the benefit of borders, pinning them in, etc. Also, it is easier to send one settler to "occupy" a clump of resources instead of 3-6 workers to establish colonies.

So - for a question - have you all seen the AI use many colonies? In the games I've played, it is almost exclusively city focused - every Civ (including myself) simply establishes cities to occupy every last bit of land. Maybe I'm just not seeing the colonies that the other Civs are establishing?

The only game where I've seen any colonies occured when the French and I eliminated the English & Germans who occupied the mid-portion of a Pangean continent that had us on opposite ends. (The English & Germans had made the mistake of attacking "peaceful builder" me - whoops - I made sure that could never happen again!) Anyhow, on that now unoccupied expanse of resource rich land, the French went out and established colonies everywhere; I let them have it as I was getting ready to start my space ship. The French didn't get much USE out of their new colonies however, I went out and pillaged all the roads & other improvements that were leftover vestiges of the former occupants (I needed something to do with my fleet of bombers & battleships and mechanized infrantry - the latter are very effective at the pillaging routine with their two movement points - move/pillage or pillage/pillage vs. "your bombardment failed").

So - anyone else see the AI use many colonies?

[bahoo]

Originally posted by fred
Colonies work fine.

No I'm sorry, you're wrong, I will elaborate...

It is not the colony's fault that the computer likes to expand their empire while you are unwilling to support a villiage.

Not a problem, the computer can expand as much as they want, I don't care.

The reason why there is no border? Let me see a border is based upon culture. Does an oil rig in the middle of the Atlantic generate any culture? Minimal if any.

Quite correct. Did I put an oil rig there because I wanted culture, NO. My oil rig is there to PRODUCE OIL.

Now to look at this more indepth, you are commiting a worker (population of 1) to a colony. To a city you commit a settler (pop 2). Now we look at the oil rig are there colonists on the oil rig farming, building houses, churches, temples, libraries, universities so that the oil rig workers can send their children.... ops i forgot the oil rig is full of workers and just workers. There are no families.

Again correct. My oil rig is to produce oil. Oil workers can go to church and see there families on their days off. When they're on the rig, they pump oil, that's their job.

And what is stopping say "the russians" from taking over the oil rig? International curtisy and the military might of the former controllers of the oil rig. So if you want to keep you non culture producing colony defend it.

Exactly what I thought, I put 2 soldiers in my colony with the notion that if the computer wanted the oil there, they would have to come kill my soldiers and destroy the colony...Guess what, it didn't work. They built a city next to it, my colony disappeared (in spite of the 2 infantry there), and then the computer proceeded to demand I get my 2 infantry out of his land.

And as you can see a colony is not a colony as in the sense of "the founding colonies of america". Its a little tiny workshop/ trading post. They do not generate borders past the wall the surrounds them.

Fine by me, all I want is the resource there.

A colony should not generate any borders, it would totally unbalance the game. I would just build colonies around another civ and block them off from the rest of the map. Since they have no corruption, no settler req. only workers which are cheap.

I don't quite see how that is an effective strategy. The computer could just come attack and take your colonies. And in the case you defended them, exactly how is surrounding the computer with defended colonies any different than surrounding the computer with fortified soldiers?

If you know how to use colonies effectively use them, if not too bad for you. Its imporant to learn strategies. If you want a game that molds exactly to your play make your own game. Its not the game/designers fault that you are unable to use one of the many features of the game effectively. Colonies offer great uses, if used right. Try and adapt to your game instead of complaining.

Ok, there may be some obtuse workaround strategy that makes them useful or a few rare cases, but in my experience, any case where you could build a colony, you'd be better off building a population 1 city there.

And just to prove it can be used correctly, the computer built atleast 6 colonies around resources near me, that they needed. They were out of the reach of my borders and provided much needed resources to the computer player, since i had the resources already, and felt no agression to the player i let them exist. But the computer player could provide neccesary resources (iron, saltpeter) to the civ which was half way across the map, situated right in the middle of my land. And the amount of colonies all over the map was fairly large in the mid medival age. Of course a lot disappear with borders and expanding. But they are required in the early game more then later game. And they are used effectively to gain those resources you dont have early in the game so that you can start producing the neccesary military units. They are and will be highly effective when expanding early in the game, if used correctly.

Well, you could've done the same thing the computer does. Slap a city next to all of his 6 colonies, and guess what, they would be instantly assimilated with no provocation of war.

I don't know why anyone would use colonies. But sure, there is a lot of people here saying "look, you can use them like this". That's good and all, but I'd like to see ONE GOOD LOGICAL EXPLANATION as to how building a city next to a colony (mine/oil rig/whatever) that is guarded by TROOPS would cause the colony to disappear and cease functioning. It just doesn't make sense whatsoever, sorry.

If the computer wants your resource, they should have to send a soldier and kill your soldiers and take the colony, that is sensible.

[player1]

Maybe building city 2 or less tiles near opponents colonies should be regarded as an act of war (he should still be able to build his own colonies closer without getting in war).

Yep, this could be some kind of solution.

[Pyrodrew]

Building cities near other cities or colonies should NOT be considered an act of war if it's not in your borders... because it's NOT in your borders.

I agree that colonies should have a 0 border radius (a border only on the square they occupy), but have no/little culture (not to influence/absorb cities anyways). If you plant your city near my colony I should keep getting the resource... but after several years (20-40turns or so) I should realize that if I do not buy/take your city or build a city of my own there that I may lose that colony to your city's culture.

I have found a few limited ways to use colonies, although I agree they could be improved - as I suggest above.

[Padmewan]

I find it odd that when a colony gets absorbed, either by yourself or the AI, that the worker just *poof* disappears. This is the same game that gets its panties in a knot when you try to disband a worker. Where do those poor people go?

As a side comment... does the AI's city hunger work against it in the later game, as corruption basically cripples it?

[player1]

Originally posted by Pyrodrew
Building cities near other cities or colonies should NOT be considered an act of war if it's not in your borders... because it's NOT in your borders.

It is not your border, but it IS your territory.
If somebody puts city just by your colony, wich kills the conoly, then it should be regarded as act of war since colony is YOUR territoy, not his (borers or not).

Maybe my 2 tiles - act of war idea is a little to much.
But building city just near the colony (right near it, ONE tile), should be act war.

X X X X X-empty tile
X C X X C-old colony T-new town (city)
X X T X this should be declaration of war
X X X X

Also when enemy city culture expands your colony should not be automaticly assimilated. There should be rules just like those for cities.
Extra units will help, but when city comes to radius 3 or 4 (I think that colony with units should hold on enemy 2 tiles radius culture, if city defection rules apply), then it is over.

Anyway, in these cases (enemy city 2 or 3 tiles from your colony), you should build new city on top of colonies (to prevent defection).

[Pyrodrew]

Originally posted by player1
If somebody puts city just by your colony, wich kills the conoly, then it should be regarded as act of war since colony is YOUR territoy, not his (borers or not).

Cities shouldn't automatically kill colonies. If they didn't we wouldn't have to worry about it being considered "an act of war".

Also when enemy city culture expands your colony should not be automaticly assimilated. There should be rules just like those for cities.
Extra units will help, but when city comes to radius 3 or 4 (I think that colony with units should hold on enemy 2 tiles radius culture, if city defection rules apply), then it is over.

Cities are currently not lost or gained through "culture border expansion". I've gained cities when none of my surrounding cities had any "culture border expansion" at the time. Cities are assimliated over time through "influence" (F5 shows your most influencial cities). I never heard or read anywhere that military units prevented a city from being culturally assimilated.

Anyway, in these cases (enemy city 2 or 3 tiles from your colony), you should build new city on top of colonies (to prevent defection).

Agreed.

[eclarkso]

I think an easy solution to the relative uselessness of colonies AND the problem of the AI plopping down cities on the smallest little bit of unused land on your continent that's -just- outside your cultural borders (for the time being) is this:

when ANY city is founded (including yours, of course), its borders should not include any square currently 'owned' (via colony or cultural border) by another player. That's it. When that city acquires enough culture to grow its borders, THEN it can subsume the colony/kick back your borders, but this business of losing territory via city founding doesn't make sense to me either gameplay- or realism-wise.

Comments?

[player1]

Originally posted by eclarkso
I think an easy solution to the relative uselessness of colonies AND the problem of the AI plopping down cities on the smallest little bit of unused land on your continent that's -just- outside your cultural borders (for the time being) is this:

when ANY city is founded (including yours, of course), its borders should not include any square currently 'owned' (via colony or cultural border) by another player. That's it. When that city acquires enough culture to grow its borders, THEN it can subsume the colony/kick back your borders, but this business of losing territory via city founding doesn't make sense to me either gameplay- or realism-wise.

Comments?

Actually, in alpha build of Civ3, starting cities didn't had a cluture border (it was 0).
But later they chaged it (and scrwed colonies).

An excellent example of to little testing.

[eclarkso]

Originally posted by player1


Actually, in alpha build of Civ3, starting cities didn't had a cluture border (it was 0).
But later they chaged it (and scrwed colonies).

An excellent example of to little testing.

I'm curious how you know this information? And why do you think cities should have no border to begin with and colonies should(at least, that's what you said at one point on the first page)? In any case, I'm not sure this is a case of too little testing so much as an ill-advised design decision.

I should clarify that I don't advocate a city starting with a border of zero--I just think that new borders should not overlay existing ones.

Another alternative is simply not to allow anyone to found a city where existing borders would be altered. Again, this implies that only after cultural expansion could a colony be overcome by another player or a civilization's borders shrink.

[player1]

Several months before Civ3 is released there was a resouce turtorial on www.civ3.com
There a founded city clearly didn't had a borders at start (but got them later).

Still, I think that in those days cities were allowed to put pop points in whole 21 city radius regardless of borders.

P.S.
So if they chaged it, then they should change somthing else also, and keep colonies usefull.

There are a pleny options:
1) force war if yuor new city is to close, or
2) forbid placing cities near colonies (1 tile), or
3) diable colony assimilation by enemy, or
4) make colonies to have 1 tile border, or
5) make cities have 0 tiles border (I am not sure how good this solution is), or
6) any combination of these solutions

[smellymummy]

Originally posted by player1
Several months before Civ3 is released there was a resouce turtorial on www.civ3.com
There a founded city clearly didn't had a borders at start (but got them later).

It did have borders, one tile radius, just like in the present game when you found a new city. I remember the tutorial showing how colonies are formed..

Kinda useless though if you think about it. The tutorial was the city of rome, a capital, and as we all know, capitals have a palace and 2 culture per turn right off the bat. Not worth building a worker to get that resource the tutorial showed, as it was only 2 tiles away.

edit: woops! i should of looked at civ3.com before posting, but the tutorial does show a city without borders. So I'm 100% wrong and player1 is 100% right. Very odd though, because I was rather completly sure that it was how I described it. Maybe its a colony conspiracy.... BTW this is a post edit but for some reason I don't see the "edited" tag the vB usually adds

[smellymummy]

and now i do. Weird

[badassb]

Why not make colonies develop into cities in the long term? That would solve a lot of problems. For exampe, after 20 turns or if you insert a second worker?