Colonisation

UltraSonix · June 12, 2000, 00:33

I was thinking that maybe there should be a colonisation option in Civ3.

Maybe it could work something like:
1. Send a settler to "The New World", you know, another island.
2. Tell it to begin colonising.
3. And from then on the settler is controlled by the computer and a new civ of sorts is created. The new civ will have all your techs etc, and you can select how money money to donate to it.
4. But then the colony/ies would pay you a certain amount of money and unconditionally help you in any way you desired - fight wars etc.
5. But maybe then after a while they might want independence and you have the option of declaring war to get the colonies back under your total control, or letting them become independent.
6. If war is declared and it fails, then the colony/ies become a normal separate civ (like US to Britain). If you let them become independent then they'll still become another civ but then will respect your civ a lot, and will help you a lot, like in wars etc (like Australia/New Zealand to Britain). This relationship (called a Commonwealth maybe?) could be one higher than an alliance and breaking it for any reason would loose heaps of reputation.

This idea would add heaps of historical accuracy to the game but won't really impact on gameplay, as you can simply choose not to do colonising.

A benefit for doing this system could be that your could then order your colonies (if they are now a Commonwealth then they might charge a small sum) to attack a rival civ without you incurring any loss of reputation.

I got this idea when someone mentioned the game Colonisation in some other thread.
Anyone got any more related ideas or additional benefits it could give?

(BTW for the Aussie readers out there, I'm actually a Republican...)

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

abuzayd · June 12, 2000, 11:51

cool idea, i loved that old Colonization game...

i think it would work best if there were two other improvements in Civ 3:

(1) better AI (of course) so the colony doesn't just become a nuisance.

(2) if they had (a la Colonization) a more sophisticated trade model, one that represented raw materials and finished products. at least in the case of North America, that was one of the motivating factors for early colonization.

Another idea: as long as your empire has a colony, it should maybe count as an additional 10% happiness on your Taxation equation (or SI or whatever) to represent the function of colonies as a "release valve" for discontented citizens.

Quartz Dragon · June 12, 2000, 13:25

Another idea would be to choose whether the colony was a penal colony or not.

I was wondering if anybody wants multiple worlds ability (al la Civ:ToT)?

UltraSonix · June 13, 2000, 02:48

Yeah baby! Abuzayd, that's a great idea! In the old days all England did was shove convicts ontop a ship and send them to here in Australia. So having a colony should increase happiness as well! Cool idea!

(The multiple worlds thing's being mentioned quite a few times, but I personally think it's not civ)

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited June 13, 2000).]

abuzayd · June 13, 2000, 11:41

re: multiple worlds. I just got TOT last month, and have played it a little. I think multiple worlds is cool for fantasy and sci-fi games, but for regular civ I have enough fun with one world, thank you.

BTW has anyone played that Imperialism II game? I think that's sort of like colonization.

Stuff2 · June 13, 2000, 16:13

I think it should work this way.

If you seattle far away from the capitol you have to establish some kind of provincial government(in order to have some kind of control). This is why provinces is needed. Provinces will tend to be more hard to appease the further away from the capitol they are. FE U do something that your people dislike. The nearest provinces will maybe have some demonstrations and be a bit unhappy, but the real distant provinces will dislike your every move (unless it's for their benefit). Therefore. Keeping a large empire will always be a difficult task. And breakaways will increase in probability as u expand over bigger areas.

June 13, 2000, 16:49

Why not make it even more accurate and make it so the colony will eventually dominate you in all the sports that you invented

quote:

unconditionally help you in any way you desired - fight wars etc.

Hehe, this is what got us slaughtered in Gallipoli - undying love for the mother country.

Par4 · June 13, 2000, 18:15

Colonies.
Cities established in recently explored land or land very far away, like an ocean away. They should specialize and need low taxes and little government(you) at first to attract settlers. Migration model needed here. Most should specialize in raw materials or food manufacturing or large projects need a big population something most colonies don't have for many years. Penal colonies, no voice in government and produce nothing just police there and criminals. Can riot and force military units to be dispatched to install marshall law. I think they should raise happiness in all of you cities because the people know bad criminals are a long way away on another island or continent. Maybe lower police costs?

My $.02

------------------
I use this email
(stupid cant use hotmail)
gamma_par4@hotmail.com
Don't ask for golf tips
Your game will get worse
HappyLand
There is no spoon,
But there is a knife

UltraSonix · June 14, 2000, 02:16

Noooo! Not the migration model! How about we just keep it to the colony model, above, which I thought could work well without unbalancing the game (which is a key issue, of course).

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

phunny pharmer · June 14, 2000, 14:43

Could you please elaborate as to how colonization will be helpful in the short term? Why would I want to spend a unit or two so that they can build an empire and rebel against me? What will I stand to gain?
Will colonization be spontaneous, and not under human control? As in, if you explore an unknown land area and you have enough technology, a colony spontaneously appears? This would provide a boost to exploration (as if there aren't enough incentives already).
Regardless, it sounds like a relatively interesting way to solve large micromanagement (wow, that's almost an oxymoron) problems.

abuzayd · June 14, 2000, 17:17

quote:

Originally posted by phunny pharmer on 06-14-2000 02:43 PM
Could you please elaborate as to how colonization will be helpful in the short term? Why would I want to spend a unit or two so that they can build an empire and rebel against me? What will I stand to gain?

This is a good point. Historically speaking, I doubt many empires ever expected their colonies to become fully independent, sometimes hostile sovereign powers. Why did they expand so much?

(1) population pressure. For example, in early Greek civilization, the land wouldn't support high densities of population, so they had to send out colonies to the east and west. The colonization of the Antipodes by Britain in the 18th century might also be seen as a sort of Malthusian response to population pressure in the industrialized centers. (Correct me if I'm wrong, O Aussie historians....)

(2) economics. The classic Old World/New World model involved exploiting the vast raw materials of the New World, bringing them to the skilled workshops of the Old, then reselling them to the colonists back in the New... marking up prices at each juncture.

(3) politics and ideology. Even the terms New and Old World imply an ideology of progress that is tied in with the period of colonization... a mindset that (for better or for worse) carried over into the colonies' establishment of independence in the 18th century. This ideology took the form of "converting the heathen" inhabitants to Christianity, of attempting to set up utopian communities (many Puritans, for example, moved to America because the political climate in Britain wasn't religiously intolerant enough), and so forth.

These are things I can think of... I'm sure there are more, and I don't mean to suggest that these three were not hopelessly intertwined.

Having pondered this, I think that the "colonization" model should be integrated, as others have suggested above, with the expansion of the civilization. Cities that are founded a certain distance away from the center should have a greater chance of rebelling and potentially becoming sovereign nations.

But... there should be some definite short-term benefits (reflecting things such as those above) and reasons for founding cities far away from the capital. I'm not sure if an immigration model is necessary for this, but I definitely think a more complex economic and happiness model is required.

Also (sorry for posting so long here), when you think about it very few colonies remain permanent enemies with their mother-country. Even the U.S., which makes such a big deal about its revolution, has been pretty close allies with Britain since the turn of the 20th century.
[This message has been edited by abuzayd (edited June 14, 2000).]

MidKnight Lament · June 15, 2000, 03:44

quote:

Originally posted by Dracon on 06-13-2000 04:49 PM
Why not make it even more accurate and make it so the colony will eventually dominate you in all the sports that you invented

Sounds historically accurate to me.

- MKL

Markus The Mighty · June 18, 2000, 10:26

I agree with this colonization stuff, but i want to say something about the "Commonwealth" thing:
Why couldn't that be a diplomatic option? In fact there are some civilizations formed only by some form of melting together.
Take, for example, Germany, which used to be formed by some sort of Commonwealth of various small states (e.g. Bavaria, Hannover, the Saxons...) And the Mongol Empire after Genghis Khan's death was in fact a Commonwealth pact between a couple of empires formed by the successors of Genghis.
...

UltraSonix · June 19, 2000, 02:55

The commonwealth idea is a diplomatic thing (see my post in Skirmish vs War, but I thought it could also tie in with the colonisation idea.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

Grier · June 21, 2000, 04:53

Someone above asked "what would be the benefit of building a colony only to have them rebel against you?"

My answer would be that the short term gain should out-weight the long-term loss. Trade is what makes the world go round, and with a colony you effectivly have an exclusive trade deal (large financial reward). When the time comes that the colony wants independence then you can either let it go peacefully and then maintain an above average level of trade (e.g Britain and Australia). Alternativly, you could try and keep hold of the colony (by force) and keep the high level of trade. This could succeed (e.g England and Scotland) or it could fail after a time (e.g Britain and America). If it fails then the colony would have full independence and may not like the mother empire very much (i.e very low trade).

UltraSonix · June 22, 2000, 02:07

When I proposed this colonies idea, I couldn't think of many pros, but Grier's idea above is a good one.

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards...

abuzayd · June 23, 2000, 00:50

in addition to trade, colonies should also have some affect on your population and happiness (see above).