Whats with these 'colonies'

[dainbramaged13]

Did I miss something? in one of the recent news items (im not sure which), i found a few mysteries. What are these colonies? are they really cities? why doesn't your border follow them? did i hear something about workers building them instead of settlers? can someone clear me up, and tell me whether my confusions are bsed on something, or just me being stupid?

[Wittlich]

quote: Originally posted by dainbramaged13 on 05-16-2001 06:36 PM Did I miss something? in one of the recent news items (im not sure which), i found a few mysteries. What are these colonies? are they really cities? why doesn't your border follow them? did i hear something about workers building them instead of settlers? can someone clear me up, and tell me whether my confusions are bsed on something, or just me being stupid?

Dainbramaged, according to various press releases a "colony" can be built by a worker (not a settler). This colony is placed on top of a resource (silk, wool, gold, etc.). If the resource is within your city's radius, then no colony is necessary to harvest the resource. However, if the resource is located a few squares OUTSIDE your city's radius, you build a worker and move him to the resource. Then with the worker, you build a colony (a colony is not a city, but rather an extension or suburb of a city). Once the colony is built, you connect the colony with your city or cities. The resource HAS to be connected to one or more of your cities by some form of communication system (be it a road, railroad, maglev, airport, or even sea port) in order for you to use the resource in question.

Once the city grows enough to naturally encompass the resource in question, the colony disappears since the resource is now within the city's radius.

I hope this cleared up you confusion concerning Colonies Dainbramaged.

- Wittlich

------------------
After all is said and done, usually more is said than done.


[This message has been edited by Wittlich (edited May 16, 2001).]

[Provost Harrison]

Ah, thanks for the clarification. I thought it was some kind of terrain improvement at first. It is certainly an interesting concept though and a good one IMO

[Jarouik]

I just wanted to make a correction to the explanation above... actually, a colony has nothing to do with whether the resource is inside or outside your city radius. A colony is required if you want access to a special resource that is outside your civilization's borders, which are determined by your culture rating and are completely separate from your city radius, which does not expand.

Note also that a colony and the special resources you access with them have nothing to do with the usual food/shields/trade you harvest from your city radius; when you e.g. have a colony on top an iron special resource, all the cities connected to it by e.g. road have access to iron, which is only needed so that you can build certain units etc. Once your culture rating grows enough so that your nation's borders expand and the resource will fall within your borders, a colony is no longer needed, just the connecting roads will suffice. In general, the more improvements a particular city has, the larger the area around it that belongs within your borders.

Yes, I know it takes a little bit of explanation to elucidate the difference between the usual food/shields/arrows resources you had in Civ 2 and the new special resources, which are used in the new trading system as well... it seems there are lots of misunderstandings regarding the issue of city radius vs. expanding borders.

[raingoon]

Yeah, this is helping me understand the fact I did not understand much about city radius. I think I get the culture=borders relationship, which IMO is very cool. But I still don't quite understand if the city radius really stays the same? Did I read somewhere that it expanded as your city grew? Or no. What is the radius in Civ 3, same as in Civ 2?

[Wittlich]

Raingoon, as your city grows, your city radius will also grow (similiar to CTP2).


------------------
After all is said and done, usually more is said than done.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

No, your city radius doesnt grow. Your borders of your civ grows.

------------------
Nothing can stop the course of History.

quote: Originally posted by Jarouik on 05-17-2001 10:53 AM I just wanted to make a correction to the explanation above... actually, a colony has nothing to do with whether the resource is inside or outside your city radius. A colony is required if you want access to a special resource that is outside your civilization's borders, which are determined by your culture rating and are completely separate from your city radius, which does not expand. Note also that a colony and the special resources you access with them have nothing to do with the usual food/shields/trade you harvest from your city radius; when you e.g. have a colony on top an iron special resource, all the cities connected to it by e.g. road have access to iron, which is only needed so that you can build certain units etc. Once your culture rating grows enough so that your nation's borders expand and the resource will fall within your borders, a colony is no longer needed, just the connecting roads will suffice. In general, the more improvements a particular city has, the larger the area around it that belongs within your borders. Yes, I know it takes a little bit of explanation to elucidate the difference between the usual food/shields/arrows resources you had in Civ 2 and the new special resources, which are used in the new trading system as well... it seems there are lots of misunderstandings regarding the issue of city radius vs. expanding borders.

So when your border extends to the colony, do you get your worker back after the colony disapears? I should think so, or at least the city size should be enlarged to show the inclusion of the colony. Maybe someone from Firaxis knows?

[Jarouik]

quote: Originally posted by raingoon on 05-17-2001 05:12 PM Yeah, this is helping me understand the fact I did not understand much about city radius. I think I get the culture=borders relationship, which IMO is very cool. But I still don't quite understand if the city radius really stays the same? Did I read somewhere that it expanded as your city grew? Or no. What is the radius in Civ 3, same as in Civ 2?

All the city screens we have seen, as well as the picture of a settler showing the city radius of a city if it were found on the square the settler is on, have displayed the same 21-square radius as in Civ 1 and 2. In addition, Firaxis has confirmed that even though your borders haven't expanded far enough, you can still use any of the tiles within your city area. Add to this the confusion of many people thinking your city radius would grow due to the fact that your borders, which are shown on the main map around the cities, actually grow, and the unclear wording of a Firaxis member about how the amount of land you can use increases as your city grows, just as before (apparently meaning that as you get more citizens, you can work more tiles at once, just as in Civ 2) - so all in all I think it is safe to say your city radius does not expand, at least not until Firaxis explicitly says it will.

Bigfree:
Settler makes cities.
Worker makes settlements, and is gone forever.
New Worker, build roads, rails, etc.




------------------

quote: Originally posted by joseph1944 on 05-18-2001 05:07 PM Bigfree: Settler makes cities. Worker makes settlements, and is gone forever. New Worker, build roads, rails, etc.

Joseph:

Settler built> City size decreases
Settler joins city> City size increases

Yes?

Then why wouldn't you get back a "Worker", when in effect, he has re-joined the city?

That shouldn't be too much to comprehend.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

To prevent ICS

------------------
Nothing can stop the course of History.

[polymths]

quote: Originally posted by bigfree1 on 05-18-2001 07:49 PM Joseph: Settler built> City size decreases Settler joins city> City size increases Yes? Then why wouldn't you get back a "Worker", when in effect, he has re-joined the city? That shouldn't be too much to comprehend.

Settlers do decrease the city size. However, I do not know whether workers decrease city size. Note that settlers and workers are different in Civ3. Settlers in Civ3 only are for building new cities nothing more, while workers do all the road building, irrigation, colony building, etc.

In any case, it was confirmed by Firaxis some time ago that once you build a colony with a worker, the worker is consumed, and if that colony is later absorbed because it falls within your borders, you do not get the worker back.

quote: Originally posted by polymths on 05-18-2001 07:55 PM In any case, it was confirmed by Firaxis some time ago that once you build a colony with a worker, the worker is consumed, and if that colony is later absorbed because it falls within your borders, you do not get the worker back.

Where was this information found? I've never seen this stated clearly.
Also, I do believe that your city size does decrease when you build a worker (by one) and by two when you build a settler.

If they want to prevent ICS then why can a settler be added to a city and not a worker (at least according to you logic)?

In Firaxis April update.
After typing the above I took another look at Firaxis site. A settler cost 2 foods and the worker cost 1 food plus shields to build. As stated the settler can only build a new city or add pop. points to an existing city. The worker build everthing else. However the worker can also add pop. points to existing city. And as stated if he the worker builds a colony he is lost forever and you must build a new worker. As I wrote the other day we will have to build military units to protect our worker because Firaxis said a lone worker will be killed by the AI as soon as they see him unless you have a treaty with them.

------------------

[This message has been edited by joseph1944 (edited May 18, 2001).]

Joseph, you seem to be dancing around my point. Which is; If a settler can be added into a city to increases its population, then why can't a worker be added? it may be that that is just the way it is. But, I feel that is wrong considering the fact it cost a population point to build nad the resource wold have been available to the city once its borders extended to it. So if the borders encompasses the resouce (the colony) the worker should be added back to the city.

Explain the logic of why a settler is added back in but not a worker?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Do you even know what ICS is? How is adding a settler to your city pop ICS?
A settler is a special unit which decreses your pop points in the city which you built it. NO other unit does that. The worker is jsut like any other unit. Therefore, its like getting your tank killed and then having it bck in your city.

------------------
Nothing can stop the course of History.
[This message has been edited by Lawrence of Arabia (edited May 19, 2001).]

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia on 05-19-2001 12:01 PM Do you even know what ICS is? How is adding a settler to your city pop ICS? A settler is a special unit which decreses your pop points in the city which you built it. NO other unit does that. The worker is jsut like any other unit. Therefore, its like getting your tank killed and then having it bck in your city.

You, sir, are a moron! Do you even know that?

The settler unit costs two population points to build and the worker has a cost of one (It is not like a "tank" no matter how much you brain may sound like one when its trying to post a decent reply).

Yes, I do know what ICS is. My point was that adding a worker back to the city after its borders extended to the colony would not be a source of ICS anymore than adding a settler would be. (Actually Firaxis handled this well by making a settler cost two poulation points) I was a post by you that suggested that in the first place, or can you remeber that far back?

It seems as though you are able to read, but I question your ability to comprehend. Do me a favor? Know the facts before you go jumping all over someone.


I wrote:

quote: Originally posted by bigfree1 on 05-18-2001 07:49 PM Joseph: Settler built> City size decreases Settler joins city> City size increases Yes? Then why wouldn't you get back a "Worker", when in effect, he has re-joined the city? That shouldn't be too much to comprehend.

Then you wrote:

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia on 05-18-2001 07:52 PM To prevent ICS

You were the one who suggested that adding a worker (and therefore a settler, since both cost population points to build) back to a city would somehow enable ICS. With that logic a settler being added back would cause it even faster.

How can you think this way? If you take two population points from one city and give it to another how is that enabling ICS?

My original point (and still is the main one) is that if a worker costs a population point to build and is absorbed when it builds a colony, then when the colony is absorbed by the city why isn't the worker added to the city since the colony no longer exists?


To me, my friend, the egg lies on you face!

[Beckdawg]

boys boys! Calm down. U are arguing over something that neither of u and i have a clue about. That is the kind of decison the big boys make not us. I wish we could choose every thing but if that was the case it wouldn't always be a good game cuz there are some dumb ideas. this isn't one but there are dumb ones. Any ways calm down. lol Make peace now war but i guess it didn't work in civ 2 so y would it here

------------------
"If peeping your pants is cool, consider me Miles Davis" - Billy Madison
don't have ICQ but my AIM is beckdawg83 and MSN is beckdawg83@hotmail.com

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by bigfree1 on 05-19-2001 02:44 AM Joseph, you seem to be dancing around my point. Which is; If a settler can be added into a city to increases its population, then why can't a worker be added?

OK then, lets get this thing straightened out once and for all:
[*] A settler subtracts 2 pop from mother-city, and adds 2 pop IF merged with an already established city. [*] Once a settler has merged with a city, that indevidual settler-unit is lost for ever (of course).[*] If instead a settler found a new city, that indevidual settler-unit is likewise lost forever (obviously).
[*] A worker subtracts 1 pop from mother-city, and adds 1 pop IF merged with an already established city. [*] Once a worker has merged with a city, that indevidual worker-unit is lost forever (of course).[*] If instead a worker found a new colony, and that colony later gets swallowed up by culture-borders, that indevidual worker is not regained. That indevidual unit will not pop up visibly again.

NOTE: It does NOT say anything about subtracted 1 pop not being regained - it specifically says that the unit will not be regained. Thus: most probably you will get that pop-point back, but if you also want a replacement-worker for that lost colony-founding worker you have to build a new one.

-------------------- edited:
Hmm! This is complicated stuff (or is it really?). Come to think of it:

Once a colony have been founded outside your culture-borders, that colony-square is automatically harvested, then road-connected to a city. That mobile worker-unit have in effect been automatically transformed into a rooted 1 pop colony-workforce. So you dont lose anything. Yes, your city-population has decreased 1 pop, but that 1 pop have just emigrated to a colony - you still rule and exploit them.
Now, once your culture-borders had swallowed up that colony, the former colony resource-tile is still harvested (because its still road-connected). Nothing have changed. There is no lost 1 pop to regain - its a mirage.

Infact: you can regard all road-connected special resource/luxury squares within your culture-borders as "invisibe colonies" (or suburbs/villages, if your prefer that) - still alive and kicking. In terms of under-the-hood game-mechanics, they still are. Wheter visible (and later invisible) colonies are reflected on an indevidual city pop-points level, is unimportant. The important thing is that they are reflected on an overal empire pop-points level.

In other words:
[*] Total number of city-pops living within your empire.[*] Total number of visible colony-pops living within your empire. [*] Total number of swallowed up colony-pops living in within your empire.

All above added together constitues your total EMPIRE-population.

Above doesnt complicates the basic 21-square city-area workforce-allocation at all. In a 10-pop city you vill still have 9 city-area food/ shield/ trade-harvesting tiles to allocate. Simple and uncomplicated - as ever.
The workforce needed for special resources/ luxury-harvesting is allocated by a completely separate system: transforming 1-pop workers into permanent visible (and later swallowed up) colonies. Or if the special resource/ luxury already is within your culture-borders: Just city-connect it with a road.
----------------------------

Jeffrey Morris, FIRAXIS explains it in the Civ III site updated thread:

quote: Originally posted by Jeffrey Morris FIRAXIS on 05-12-2001 09:37 PM Workers are increasingly becoming mobile "population points", and building colonies is one of their more spectacular abilities. Unlike terrain improvements, colonies consume the worker, much like a city consumes the settler. You don't get the worker back if your territory merges with the colony (the editors will probably allow this to be customized). Workers can also be merged with cities, captured if unattended, and even traded with your neighbors. In this game you need to defend your TERRITORY, not just your cities, or you will be swiftly punished. I find myself building hillside fortresses more in this game than Civ2/SMAC et al. One advanage of this terrain improvement is the zone of control it gives units normally without one (read: most ancient and middle ages units). But it's their ability to protect vital trade roads, colonies, and goods that makes them invaluable. Jeff

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 21, 2001).]

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by bigfree1 on 05-20-2001 03:40 AM Yes, I do know what ICS is. My point was that adding a worker back to the city after its borders extended to the colony would not be a source of ICS anymore than adding a settler would be. (Actually Firaxis handled this well by making a settler cost two poulation points) I was a post by you that suggested that in the first place, or can you remeber that far back?

-------------------- edited:
Read the edited inserted text in my prior reply - perhaps the whole worker = 1 subtracted pop, is a non-issue.
---------------------------

What would promote ICS however, is if colonies could evolve into cities all by themselves over time (unless swallowed up by any culture-borders prior to that). However colonies always remains colonies, until they eventually gets swallowed up. You can of course choose place a settler directly on top of a colony to found a city, but thats an entirely different thing.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 20, 2001).]

I know what the "rules" are according to the information that has benn provided for us to this moment is. It would alleviate some of my concern if it were true that a population point were added to your city once its borders extended to the colony.

If you just wait till your borders extend to a resource, then a colony is not neccessary. In fact nothing is required except that it be coonected by some means of tranportaion (road, port,....). So if nothing is else is neccessary, what happened to the colony? In "real life" if something simular were to happen I'm sure that a colony would merge with the city, instead of just being "lost." It would seem fair to add a population point to the city whose border extended to the colony, to show inclusion of the colony.

That is all I wanted, I want the rules to be fair and evenly applied.

Anothe thing Firaxis did in the past to prevent ICS was to increase unhappiness in a Civ that went over a predetermined number of cities for the type of government it was ruled by.

Why not just make a general rule that would apply to all civs (in addition to the governmental type rule). The rule could be dependent upon the total map area (area available for founding cities) so that larger maps would allow more cities to be built without the unhappiness rule kicking in. Also make the rule a little more bitting, the one in Civ 2 is hardly worth noting when expanding your empire.

Sorry if I seem to take this a bit far, I just need to see some logic to the rules. Too me, that means a better game!

[Ralf]

quote: Originally posted by bigfree1 on 05-21-2001 01:08 AM I know what the "rules" are according to the information that has benn provided for us to this moment is. It would alleviate some of my concern if it were true that a population point were added to your city once its borders extended to the colony. [...] That is all I wanted, I want the rules to be fair and evenly applied.

Have you read the inserted edited text in my previous lengthy reply? The so called "lost" pop-point that according to you, must be reclaimed, is an illusion - a misunderstanding from your part. Infact, in most cases such a reclaimed pop-point would be an unfair & non-justified rule. Read the inserted edited text.

quote: If you just wait till your borders extend to a resource, then a colony is not neccessary. In fact nothing is required except that it be coonected by some means of tranportaion (road, port,....). So if nothing is else is neccessary, what happened to the colony?

Yes, but you just cannot afford to wait that long - for several reasons. First of all: You perhaps cannot see ANY resources, and only SOME luxuries at all on the map, in the early beginning of the game. These only comes available gradually after your discover certain techs. Therefore you cannot plan in advance where you most optimally should found your cities. Also, these resources & luxuries are not evenly distributed at all, as they where in Civ-2. So you are more or less forced to make use of these colonies, for that reason alone.
Secondly; You can only expand your culture-border by building costly city-improvements & wonders as far as I have understood it. Long before you have reach that far into the game, you must however defend your cities with good enough units - units that require special resources in order to be built. Yet another reason why you cannot just sit and wait. You can trade these resources of course, but establish contact with all the AI-civs takes time, and you want to be self-supplying and independent as much as possible anyway. You have to build colonies as well.

Finaly; you can can build colonies on areas unsuitable to maintain whole cities, and by that pick-and-choose attractive single tiles. The concept of building fortresses also becomes much more needed then in Civ-2. To me, colonies is an interesting and worthwhile concept and I like it.

[This message has been edited by Ralf (edited May 21, 2001).]

You can only build colonies on a tile in which it is possible for your cities borders to extend to that tile (even though the borders don't currently extend that far).

So if no extra building (cost associated to the owner of the city) is needed for the resource to eventually be available to the city, then why do you lose the colony (not being added to the city population.)

I understand that that may just be "the way it is" but I would like a little logic applied to the reasoning.

So far, I have seen none!

Also, why can't you build a colony outside of the max city borders limit? In real life, they exist! They are hard to maintain, but they exist. In Civ 3 they would be just as hard to maintain, which would provide balance for allowing them to be built in the first place.


I see many quotes from Firaxis sources and a few conjectures thrown in to boot, but nothing resembling concrete logic has turned up.

Can we get a Firaxian to provide some guidance here?

[Lawrence of Arabia]

Bigfree:
Where does it say that you can only build colonies where your civs borders will eventually go?
You have to build at least a temple to get your culture going. Of course, you can leave it at that, but your borders will expand very slowly.

Also, why can't you build a colony outside of the max city borders limit?

Yes you can build a colony outside of your borders.
Ralf you did a outstanding job explaining this new ideal. The one thing you did not mention is if you don't go outside of your border and look around, one of the other Civs may build a colony right next to your border and claim the resource for themself and make you; one go to war to get the colony or two trade with them to get the resourse that they now control.

This game is going to be; shell we said the same as Civ 2, but difference.

If some you guys can, I would suggest playing Civ 1, CivNet, Civ 2/TOT and both CTP 1 & 2 and then you will be ready for Civ 3. I know some of you don't like CTP, however you would be playing a difference style in each game, so when you start playing Civ 3 you will understand when something will not happen like it did in Civ 2, is because it is not suppose to be the same as Civ 2 was.

[dainbramaged13]

Wowee! you guys really cleared that up pretty well! Now, on to the next question, maybe for firaxis, because I dont know if it's known to the public yet, but what exactly can a colony do besides help the player collect special resources? Can it build things? just units? just more workers? or nothing at all? Does the colony grow in size like a city (meaning does it add on pop points and collect normal resources)?

[SerapisIV]

Another question is, does the city who originally gets the special resource (the owner of the worker that created the colony) get an additional bonus, or does it simply matter that your city is connected to a colony/city that supplies the resource.

[Dan Magaha FIRAXIS]

A couple of quick comments:

1) You can build colonies anywhere you want (although if you try to build one inside someone else's borders, it's considered an act of war, and your colony will get utterly stomped). There is no reason you can't build a colony far away from your city borders. In fact, due to point #2 below, you're really forced to think long and hard about where you want to establish a colony. If you establish a colony close to a growing city, you know you're going to waste a pop point at some point when the borders expand. On the other hand, you could go far away, but you better have a military escort and a couple of other workers building a road to your distant colony...

2) Building a colony consumes the worker unit. You never get these pop points back, just as you never get your settler back when founding a city. Even if your borders later swallow up a colony, you still don't get the worker back.

3) Colonies act like pop.1 cities in the sense that if an enemy walks onto an unprotected colony, it destroys the colony. So you need to fortify a couple of strong defensive units and/or build a fort on a colony, otherwise your opponents will just walk in and, blammo, no more Roman Legions can be produced.

4) Colonies exist simply to provide access to resources and luxuries that lie outside of your borders. They don't provide any other benefit.

5) The reason the goods need to be somehow connected to your capitol city is because it's a trade network. You can actually have many different subnetworks, for example, and each of them might be connected to the capitol in one way or another, but a crafty adversary could, for example, occupy your sole harbor city that links one subnet to another, effectively cutting off an entire continent's trade from the capitol city's continent. It gets somewhat confusing to explain, but it's great fun to actually destroy your opponents simply by manipulating their luxuries and resources.

6) There are no special bonuses applies to any city based on its contribution to a colony. Cities are either "on the trade network" or not.

7) Resources *do* deplete, depending on use. When this happens, you need to find a new source of iron/oil/uranium/whatever if you want to continue cranking out units that depend on that resource. You *can* find new resources inside your city radius as well.


Dan

[senowen]

Originally posted by Dan Magaha FIRAXIS

7) Resources *do* deplete, depending on use. When this happens, you need to find a new source of iron/oil/uranium/whatever if you want to continue cranking out units that depend on that resource. You *can* find new resources inside your city radius as well.

All I have to say is . My dreams have come true. Thanks for clearing this mess up.