Do you use colonies?

Jonny · January 6, 2002, 20:07

Do you use colonies in Civ3?

I use them sometimes. I usually use them in the middle or the end of the game when a city is razed that had a resource in its area to claim the resource, or to keep a potentially deadly resource (such as gunpouder, oil, rubber) out of the hands of rival civilizations that will soon be claimed. I also often later build cities over colones (or next to them).

Grrr · January 6, 2002, 20:13

I only use colonies where I really can't place a city, for instance to get saltpeter from the middle of a desert. I don't like the fact that opponents can build cities next to them and as a result disband them. Thats why I generally place a musketman on every tile around a colony.

Playa del Carmen · January 6, 2002, 21:00

I usually don't set up colonies for the same reason mentioned above; other Civs set up a city near by and the colony's gone.

That is why I set up cities near AI colonies.

I deprive them of their resource.

Grrr · January 6, 2002, 21:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Playa del Carmen
I usually don't set up colonies for the same reason mentioned above; other Civs set up a city near by and the colony's gone.

That is why I set up cities near AI colonies.

I deprive them of their resource.

Yes, but I regard this as cheating!

The Mad Monk · January 6, 2002, 21:18

Even in a desert, I will build a city, because I just feel more comportable with it. I use as many workers as necessary to get the irrigation flowing quickly--and yes, this usually means sending a small army.

Playa del Carmen · January 6, 2002, 21:23

Quote:

Originally posted by Grrr

Yes, but I regard this as cheating!

Perhaps, but I'm cute enough to get away with it.

Whoha · January 6, 2002, 21:46

only if im playing a game where settlers have been disabled, otherwise its pointless

MrWhereItsAt · January 6, 2002, 21:54

Grrr, I'm shocked! How can that be cheating, especially if the AI does it back to you! Isn't it just evening the score?

And I regard colonies as a stopgap - they eventually are absorbed by my cities in the midgame, when there is no land left anywhere (curse you, AIIII!). They can be useful if you have some spare workers (which I certainly have more of than settlers).

Plus you get the resource without having to build a city and micromanage, micromanage, stress about waste, deal with USEless governors etc. etc.

Grrr · January 6, 2002, 22:00

Quote:

Originally posted by MrWhereItsAt
Grrr, I'm shocked! How can that be cheating, especially if the AI does it back to you! Isn't it just evening the score?

Evening up the score, maybe, but I don't like my workers being teleported off the face of the earth! and the AI wont either.

MrWhereItsAt · January 6, 2002, 22:07

The AI deserves everything it gets.

Wait till I get nukes...

Sean · January 6, 2002, 22:13

I have not used a colony yet! I just rely on building cities, borders growing outwards (thanks to my culture), and if need be, a well placed military strike.

Grrr · January 6, 2002, 22:19

Sean, have you not even used a colony in the middle of a glacier or something similar. And MrWhereIt'sAt, the AI may deserve everything it gets, but is it really FUN to see ones colonys stolen by other civs.

BTW is this becoming a New Zealand thread or what?

Marquis de Sodaq · January 6, 2002, 23:34

Building colonies is a good way to put captured workers to use. The lazy sods only work at half speed, so I make them gather my goodies in the steaming jungle or barren desert.

Grrr · January 6, 2002, 23:41

Quote:

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
Building colonies is a good way to put captured workers to use. The lazy sods only work at half speed, so I make them gather my goodies in the steaming jungle or barren desert.

That is a really good idea for those lazy workers from razed cities. Raze the city and build a colony in it's place.

Torkkeli · January 7, 2002, 04:07

Colonies?
Yes, but only in the early stages of the game when my focus on city-building is on the border to my rivals.
Its a good way to get the resources without "wasting" a settler.

But as soon as I have blocked my rivals I go and build cities near the resources just in case...

GeneralTacticus · January 7, 2002, 04:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Grrr
I don't like my workers being teleported off the face of the earth!

That's the main reason I hardly ever use them. They're handy if you have no Settlers and need a resource immediately, but otherwise I think they're a waste. I reckon that you should get your worker back when the colony is disbanded (you shoud be able to do it manually, and have it happen automatically when your borders absorb it).

Prince · January 7, 2002, 06:46

Yes, I use colonies, because it looks cool

player1 · January 7, 2002, 07:00

I voted for sometimes, but it should probably be RARELY.

They are ONLY usefull early if resourse is 2 or 3 tiles away from your cities.
Or in late game after devastating wars (also 2 or 3 tiles away).

HalfLotus · January 7, 2002, 14:08

I put them in mountain ranges sometimes since cities cannot be built there. Post-patch, the AI is less willing to put a city in the middle of your empire, so it's not too dangerous to put a colony in an empty spot in you empire.

kmill25 · January 7, 2002, 17:38

I went to war over a colony. I recently discovered Gunpowder, and I had no saltpeter within my borders. I located some just outside of my borders in the middle of the desert. Well no need to build a city, right? Just build a colony and the saltpeter will be pumped, right?

WRONG! The damn Aztecs built a city right next to my colony and absorbed it. Well being the peace loving civ player that I am I attacked thier newly founded city and I am currently on a mission to wipe them off the face of the planet. Well maybe I'll leave them one city.

cutlerd · January 7, 2002, 17:47

I build colonies sometimes. Obviously it is often better to build a city instead, but especially if I cannot spare the population early in the game a colony will do. Most of my colonies are used in ancient times to snag an iron resource or horse resource to get an initial arms superiority on my neighbours (usually my first tech is iron working unless I am the Iroquois or some tribe that has a good non-iron attack unit).

Devin

Grrr · January 8, 2002, 01:42

Quote:

Originally posted by cutlerd
I build colonies sometimes. Obviously it is often better to build a city instead, but especially if I cannot spare the population early in the game a colony will do. Most of my colonies are used in ancient times to snag an iron resource or horse resource to get an initial arms superiority on my neighbours (usually my first tech is iron working unless I am the Iroquois or some tribe that has a good non-iron attack unit).

Devin

Don't use them except in extreme situations where a city is IDIOTIC, in glaciers, tundra, deserts and jungles. See no use for them other wise. As I said before:

Quote:

Originally posted by Grrr
I don't like my workers being teleported off the face of the earth!

ColdWizard · January 8, 2002, 04:17

i've used colonies to secure a resource until i could build a city nearby

Skanky Burns · January 8, 2002, 04:29

I NEVER use colonies.

If the resource is worth having, its worth building a city on/near it to keep the resource. Even in desert (which become very nice cities once railways are built) or glaciers.
The city doesnt need to be a good city, its just basically a glorified colony - that actually has borders the AI will respect. After building a temple and barracks, it can also be used to pump out military.

A colony on the other hand has no cultural borders, cant produce anything, and doesnt increase the land that i hold.

Ecthy · January 8, 2002, 07:21

I built a colony once. MAybe even another time, but it's far better to take a settler and build a city nearby. Alas, colonies only make sense if you need a ressource or luxury quickly and can afford a worker, otherwise you can wait or force your territory to expand.

Did the AI expand less quickly, players would have more patience in the game and also take the tiem and biuld colonies. But the way it is, there is nothing mor eimportant than city building and cultural expansion, therefore colonies are unpopular. And that's the Ultimate Truth

I voted 'sometimes'

Grumbold · January 8, 2002, 07:31

Early on it can sometimes be great to grab a luxury with a colony because you know your more ideally located cities will grow to include the square once they finally get around to completing temples and libraries. A dozen happy people is easily worth one pop point. Similarly Iron can turn up just outside your nearest cities border and you need it NOW! I've never needed to use one after 1AD though.

kmill25 · January 8, 2002, 11:59

Quote:

Originally posted by kmill25
I went to war over a colony. I recently discovered Gunpowder, and I had no saltpeter within my borders. I located some just outside of my borders in the middle of the desert. Well no need to build a city, right? Just build a colony and the saltpeter will be pumped, right?

WRONG! The damn Aztecs built a city right next to my colony and absorbed it. Well being the peace loving civ player that I am I attacked thier newly founded city and I am currently on a mission to wipe them off the face of the planet. Well maybe I'll leave them one city.

A correction to my post. It was the damn persians who I went to war with. And as to update my post, the Persians have been left with one city, a war with two other civs and no trade routes as I have cut them off. I think that is proper punishment for their transgressions.

cutlerd · January 8, 2002, 15:37

In the early game, when I tend to use colonies if at all, if an iron resource is in a spot where I do not really need or want a city (say on a sea coast surrounded by hills and mountains), it makes no sense to build a city there. Especially when, in the early game expansion is so important and that Settler I just built would be far more useful colonizing ground between me and the next civ encroaching towards my selected empire zone.

The fact is that a worker is less costly than a settler. Therefore, by definition, there is an opportunity cost to building building a city on a given spot than a colony.

Devin