Absorbing another civ's colonies... - Page 2

DrFell · February 12, 2002, 08:47

'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.'

Yeah I love going over the top like that too - they killed my horseman, I raze their capital

Ironikinit · February 12, 2002, 09:07

Quote:

Originally posted by DrFell
'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.

Ah, well, I was mistaken. I thought the topic was colonies and whether or not their loss should be the same as a declaration of war.

What you said already happens in the game. All the time. You've played it, right?

DrFell · February 12, 2002, 09:25

Umm, the idea is that absorbing a colony is cutting off a civ's resource supply. Yet in the game right now it's a free way of doing it, without any conaequences. Just build a city next to the colony, absorb it, and you get the resource too.

Ironikinit · February 12, 2002, 09:53

Yes, and if I follow you, you're saying that that should mean an automatic declaration of war.

I'd use colonies less than I do now if that were the case.

People have already given perfectly good reasons for the rule being as it is. Do you really want the AI, which has production advantages, to be able to claim every resources and luxury on the map and your only recourse to be war, rather than cultural absorbtion?

Libertarian · February 12, 2002, 10:14

Quote:

Do you really want the AI, which has production advantages, to be able to claim every resources and luxury on the map and your only recourse to be war, rather than cultural absorbtion [sic]?

That's not cultural absorption. It's absorption by occupation of terrain. As to the "cultural" aspect of Civ3 in general, Firaxis mistook culture for hegemony.

DrFell · February 12, 2002, 11:28

'Yes, and if I follow you, you're saying that that should mean an automatic declaration of war.'

I never once said it should be an automatic declaration of war. It should make war very likely though. An AI who has their colony absorbed should go straight to 'furious' at least.

'Do you really want the AI, which has production advantages, to be able to claim every resources and luxury on the map and your only recourse to be war, rather than cultural absorbtion?'

I've never seen the AIs get all the resources on the map, although I've been stuck in resourceless area before. I've also very rarely seen the AI use colonies. However isn't it realistic that your only choice is war or trading? I can't think of any examples of real-life cultural absorbtion in this case that didn't result in some kind of war or hostilities.

Ironikinit · February 12, 2002, 12:41

Well, if the AI could count on never having its colonies absorbed, then I think we could expect to see more AI colonies.

I don't know if losing colonies will affect the AI's attitude. I'd expect it to, but as you said, the AI doesn't use colonies very often, and when it does, it uses them in hard to reach areas. AFAIK, the situation is as you wish it, other than that they can be absorbed, even if garrisoned.

As the game is right now, there isn't a casus belli function. The foreign advisor never pops up to say, "We can declare war without diplomatic penalty, do you wish to do so?" It might be nice if it did have that rule, but it doesn't. As it is, the only options are peace or war. Remember, if we can do it, the AI can do it, so if we absorb a colony then the onus of declaring war would be on us. These last comments aren't directed at you, DrFell, but at the original post.