Absorbing another civ's colonies...

Drefsab · February 10, 2002, 20:50

Okay, when I don't feel like putting a city in the middle of the arctic circle, but I want the oil there, I build a colony and slap a couple of defensive units on it. Now, I don't think the Egyptians should be able to come and slap down a city there, absorbing my colony without there being some sort of declaration of war.

What do you guys think?

star mouse · February 10, 2002, 21:17

I agree, however I feel that the colony has to be connected to a city via a road, and preferably connected to your capital.

Kc7mxo · February 10, 2002, 21:30

I don't see why the road connection matters. Its a colony, you need the road to transfer goods, you don't need the road to exist.

Colonies should not be absorbable, but I also dislike the manner in which cities transfer. There should be some sort of warning, wherein u actually have a chance to prevent the process. Cities don't just transer their national loayalties peacefully.

What I would like is a period of independence for the city, similiar to the period where Texas was independent. That would give the controlling civ time to crush the rebellion.

but colonies should definetly not be overrun, as long as I have troops there, they should be MINE.

Drefsab · February 10, 2002, 22:40

Well, I can understand city reversion, though it sucks. Reversion happens due to a number of factors such as foreign nationals, distances from capitals, etc. However, there seems to be no logical reason for a colony to be absorbed by another civ... especially when I have military troops stationed there. I don't mind if another civ absorbs the colony. I just think they should have to declare war in order to do it.

Dida · February 10, 2002, 23:44

i agree. absorbing someone else's colony should be an act of war.

star mouse · February 11, 2002, 01:48

Quote:

Originally posted by Dida
i agree. absorbing someone else's colony should be an act of war.

Not always. There are two ways a colony can be absorbed by a city:

* Someone builds a city on or next to the colony so the colony is in the city radius.
* The borders of a city grow by culture expansion, and absorb a colony that was just outside the borders.

The first one should be an act of war, but the second one is more debatable.

Ironikinit · February 11, 2002, 02:11

So declare war if it's such a big deal.

Grrr · February 11, 2002, 02:19

Quote:

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
Colonies should not be absorbable

I disagree. Unabsorbable colonies would lead to a new way to cheat. The "wall of colonies".

Drefsab · February 11, 2002, 02:50

Quote:

I disagree. Unabsorbable colonies would lead to a new way to cheat. The "wall of colonies".

umm, no. You can only build colonies on strategic/luxury resources.

Quote:

So declare war if it's such a big deal.

I shouldn't have to declare war. In Civ III, there is a distinction between declaring war and having war declared on you. Especially if you are one of the representative governements who suffer from war weariness. Again I say that its fine if a Civ wants to "absorb" a colony, but doing so should be an automatic declaration of war.

Worthingtons · February 11, 2002, 03:02

Yep, I agree, but the lesson is to use Colonies wisely, I only use a colony if the said resource is a horrible place but well inside my 'area of control' ie, not currenly in my cultural borders but no-one can get to it.

I find them useful also, when i get a resource in a not very good place right at the beggining of a game, I need the resource, but my settlers are too valuable at that time..

Laocon · February 11, 2002, 04:00

You can do it back...

I frequently absorb another civs colonies

Aside from that, think about it culturally; a colony is like two huts or something specifically located due to an important resource - it costs 1 person to create. Think of it as a 'baby' city....

Now if an opposing civ comes and places its massive city; with it's funky temples, hospitals etc two squares away then culturally, it would be very easy for the colony to flip over....

DrFell · February 11, 2002, 05:54

Thing is, if you make colonies being absorbed a war declaration, then the human player can just place colonies all over the resources on the map and control them all. Colonies are really useless as they are right now though, with the opposing civ's aggressive city building (even in ridiculously poor locations, I've seen them spend a good 20 turns sending settlers through my territory because there were a few tundra squares at the top of my empire that I'd left unoccupied), but I'm not sure exactly how they could be improved to make them useful, as the suggestions here make them too prone to exploitation (unless AI was reprogrammed to do the same thing).

MrWhereItsAt · February 11, 2002, 06:06

I still like the colonies-give-single-tile-of-control idea.

Rage · February 11, 2002, 09:19

There should be an option that allows you to make absorbing colonies an act of war or you can just leave it like it is

kailhun · February 11, 2002, 09:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Drefsab
Well, I can understand city reversion, though it sucks. Reversion happens due to a number of factors such as foreign nationals, distances from capitals, etc.

Although cities can also flip if the other civ only exists as a settler on a boat. History and cultural history count for a lot.

Quote:

However, there seems to be no logical reason for a colony to be absorbed by another civ... especially when I have military troops stationed there. I don't mind if another civ absorbs the colony. I just think they should have to declare war in order to do it.

The colony is not grabbed by the other civ. The nearby other civ has so much influence in your colony that your people prefer to work for them (they have the collosseum and temples the colonists go to, that's where they do they're shopping, the kids go to school, their friens are). It is not that civs doing, but the lack of interest that you are showing for your people in the colony.

Not an act of war at all.

Robert

DrFell · February 11, 2002, 11:07

If you think about it though, that might be classified an act of war, as even though the people want to work for the nearby civ, it should not be their choice, as the reason they are there is due to the original civ placing the colony. One way or another they are traitors to the original civ, and the civ who accepted them could take blame too. Imagine if China had 'absorbed' Hong Kong in the days of imperialism. That is an example right there that would start a war. Same as if Spain absorbed Gibralter.

kailhun · February 11, 2002, 13:36

Quote:

Originally posted by DrFell
If you think about it though, that might be classified an act of war, as even though the people want to work for the nearby civ, it should not be their choice, as the reason they are there is due to the original civ placing the colony. One way or another they are traitors to the original civ, and the civ who accepted them could take blame too. Imagine if China had 'absorbed' Hong Kong in the days of imperialism. That is an example right there that would start a war. Same as if Spain absorbed Gibralter.

In those days looking at someone funny could be construed as an act of war. If your civ is looking for a fight, any excuse will do.

An act of war is something that causes a state of war to exist between two civs. A reason to start a war is something else. Absorbing a colony (even Hong Kong or Gibraltar) is a reason to go to war, but does not cause a state of war to exist between China and Britain respectively Spain and Britain.

Robert

The Eliminator · February 11, 2002, 16:39

Hong Kong was a lease of Chinese territory, so you could hardly call it being "absorbed."

Gibraltar is more of what people are thinking with the colony problem in Civ. The British culture is very strong in Gibraltar, and the only way it could be "absorbed" is through force. If Spain occupied Gibraltar, I would argue that a state of war would exist between Spain and the UK.

Plopping a city beside a colony is an act of war, because the AI is forcing your colony to be destroyed. The gradual overtaking of a colony by culture expansion is not an act of war.

Ironikinit · February 11, 2002, 16:49

I disagree that colonies are completely useless.

I may not use them every game, but they can be helpful after taking new cities and I don't want to wait for culture expansion, and they can also be helpful in mountains.

I think it would be nice if when a colony is absorbed the population of the city went up one.

Drefsab · February 11, 2002, 22:04

Yes, I agree with Eliminator. Having your colony absorbed by another Civ's culture is fine. However, setting down a City next to a colony is claiming land that another Civ has already claimed. This is an act of war.

I noticed a comment up the page about sending workers around to all the strategic resources on the map. This cheese tactic is easily solved by the fact that a colony has to be connected by a road/harbor in order to be part of a civ.

DrFell · February 12, 2002, 07:13

'An act of war is something that causes a state of war to exist between two civs. A reason to start a war is something else. Absorbing a colony (even Hong Kong or Gibraltar) is a reason to go to war, but does not cause a state of war to exist between China and Britain respectively Spain and Britain.'

True, but it's hard to imagine them not going to war over something like that. Taking a colony is basically stealing a reasource from the original colony owners. Perhaps absorbing a colony should be a reason to go to war without and kind of reputation hit (and make the AI likely to go to war also).

Ironikinit · February 12, 2002, 07:33

Your argument would make sense if war broke out when cities flip. They don't, and it doesn't.

If it makes you mad, declare war.

Libertarian · February 12, 2002, 07:44

Non sequitur. A colony is not analogous to a city.

Grumbold · February 12, 2002, 07:54

I do not like the concept of colonies protected by military garrison being absorbable. While a unit enforces the fact that that tile is national territory it should remain so. If the unit marches out, fair enough.

A common arguement for the present conversion of cities regardless of military occupation is that the population, when roused, vastly outnumbers even a large army. Even if this were true for cities it certainly is not for colonies.

The whole cultural concept is interesting but IMO poorly implemented in Civ III. I don't expect much to change in forthcoming patches but hopefully it willl be thought through properly in any future Civ games.

DrFell · February 12, 2002, 08:00

Quote:

Originally posted by Ironikinit
Your argument would make sense if war broke out when cities flip. They don't, and it doesn't.

If it makes you mad, declare war.

So if the middle east cut off the USA's oil supply today, you're saying there wouldn't be a war? Look what happened when Japan got it's oil supplies cut off.

I don't build colonies generally so I've never had one absorbed, and I would indeed declare war if it happened. Having units in the colony should stop it being absorbed though.

Grumbold · February 12, 2002, 08:13

What Civ III is lacking here is anything like the concept of a "Casus Belli" that is used in EU. It may well be that if Chicago revolts and wants to join Canada and Canada then accepts their appeal that war has not broken out. However the USA should have a right to declare war against Canada in the near future without the severe diplomatic penalties it would normally incur had there been no good reason for doing so. The penalties for unprovoked wars make starting them a very serious business. In Civ it is the USA that will be seen as the aggressor and treaty-breaker when Canada should be seen as at least equally guiilty.

Ironikinit · February 12, 2002, 08:25

OK, for starters, the US doesn't have any colonies in the Middle East. Trade partners, yes, colonies, no.

The WWII Japan example: Uh, yeah, there was a war. The country that had its oil supply cut ran took the equivilent of the Civ 3 penalties because it declared war with bombs. Having it's oil supply cut was not considered an act of war. A provocation, maybe, but not an act of war.

Generally, the AI is easy enough to bait into declaring war. I don't find it so difficult to avoid doing so myself. Some AI behaviors become de facto casus belli, such as repeatedly trespassing. If the human player repeatedly tells its rival to leave, war will be declared in most cases. The casus belli rule was an interesting part of EU, tho, and could possibly adopted in another civ type game. I liked the bad boy rule, too.

Libertarian · February 12, 2002, 08:26

Stop equivocating. Your analogy failed.

kailhun · February 12, 2002, 08:29

Quote:

Originally posted by DrFell

So if the middle east cut off the USA's oil supply today, you're saying there wouldn't be a war? Look what happened when Japan got it's oil supplies cut off.

There may or may not be a war. The US is pretty 'careful' about sending it's own soldiers into warzones.

But cutting off the US oil supplies doesn't cause a state of war. It is a reason for the US to go to war, but a declaration of war or attack is needed before a state of war exists.

So absorbing a colony is a reason to go to war, but does not cause a war by itself. I don't think there is any reason for this. If the absorbed civ decides not to do anything (for now), there is no war. I would prefer to keep this option to suddenly being at war over a colony I may not even care so much about.

It may lead to a souring of diplomatic relations. However this would have little effect in civ3 as the AI civs are generaly pissed at you anyway. And if you're pissed at them, you can effect this by ending trade agreements or denying them stuff. Of course this is not really an option as it is better to have the cash than useless luxuries lying around and if you deny the naughty civ a tech, but not the others, they will sell the tech in question to the naughty civ.
There is little else for it than to either decalre war or grin and bear it. Very realistic really.

Quote:

I don't build colonies generally so I've never had one absorbed, and I would indeed declare war if it happened. Having units in the colony should stop it being absorbed though.

I think I build a colony once. It got absorbed, but a few hundred (?) years later I absorbed the empire. A fair trade, I think.

Robert

DrFell · February 12, 2002, 08:45

'But cutting off the US oil supplies doesn't cause a state of war. It is a reason for the US to go to war, but a declaration of war or attack is needed before a state of war exists.'

Yep, but I'm not saying it should be auto-war because a colony was absorbed. It should just be considered an aggressive act by the AI and give the player some freedom to declare war without a damaged reputation.

'OK, for starters, the US doesn't have any colonies in the Middle East. Trade partners, yes, colonies, no. '

That's not the idea. The idea is that if you're going to cut off a country's supply of X, and if that item is important to them, then they are going to get pissed, and rightfully so, and possibly take action to get their supply back.