To the AI, RoP = Resource Grab

justjake73 · January 7, 2003, 19:46

I signed an MPP and RoP with Japan because I needed to offset the Aztec agression (they, along with Egypt, had just destroyed China), but I had to build 2 settlers quickly because the Japanese tried to steal my oil and gems! They sent settlers near my colonies!!!!!

Hey Firaxis, is it possible you could make settling within 2 squares of an allies colonies a valid reason to break that contract, and possibly declare war?!?!? This is THEFT after all!!!!! Or at the VERY least, be able to kick them out?!!?

Willem · January 7, 2003, 19:54

Just build a city to begin with and avoid the problem in the first place. If you know the AI is going to do that, then beat it to the punch. It's part of the strategy of the game.

bobbo008 · January 7, 2003, 20:05

then what's the point of colonies in the first place? easier/cheaper? maybe you should be able to get your worker back, too... hmm...might work...

Willem · January 7, 2003, 20:12

Quote:

Originally posted by bobbo008
then what's the point of colonies in the first place? easier/cheaper? maybe you should be able to get your worker back, too... hmm...might work...

It's faster since they require less shields and population points, and you can use them in areas that are secure. Or soon will be. If a resource is just outside your border, no need to build a city, just expand your culture. And you might have to send one into a Mountain range, where you can't build a city.

bobbo008 · January 7, 2003, 20:37

mountains may be the only method depending on terrain... some protection would be nice, however... getting the worker back would be really nice, because i hate "using up" workers. Same thing with radar towers and watch towers (i think they're called that), too. I dont think they should just be "absorbed"

FNBrown · January 7, 2003, 21:14

The colony "feature" has been well-documented on here as seriously wanting.

If I were Firaxis, here's how I'd fix it:

1. Colonies create a one-tile cultural border that cannot expand. Similarly, a rival city cannot overtake it.

2. Rival cultural borders can surround a colony that already exists. If a rival wants the resource in the colony, they must attack it. You're free to defend your colonies with as much firepower as you like. Perhaps fortresses should be allowed to share a square with a colony.

3. If your colony is completely surrounded by a rival civ's cultural borders, you cannot have access to the resource without roads (obviously) and a ROP agreement. Without a ROP, you can still trade the resource to the rival civ surrounding it if they have a road connected to it.

Similar rules should apply for airfields, radar towers, and sentry towers. Perhaps a similar naval base improvement should also be considered. This would allow you to build a base of operations in faraway lands without needing a city or running the risk of culture-flipping.

bobbo008 · January 7, 2003, 21:17

I'd like to add/change that...

there should be some method to taking it over peacefully, like if their culture surrounds it totally they should get it, IMO... or maybe you both "share" it somehow? maybe one could "demand" it if they're closer to it? anyways, most people want it changed.

FNBrown · January 7, 2003, 21:20

Quote:

Originally posted by bobbo008
I'd like to add/change that...

there should be some method to taking it over peacefully, like if their culture surrounds it totally they should get it, IMO... or maybe you both "share" it somehow? maybe one could "demand" it if they're closer to it? anyways, most people want it changed.

I suppose it could be offered (or demanded) in a trade if each colony were required to have a name. Actually, I kind of like that idea...

bobbo008 · January 7, 2003, 21:25

nya ha! relevant posting!

just having a permenant square that can never be taken peacefully by the enemy seems odd... with an airfield possibility, could be deadly in the middle of enemy territory in war time or peace time positioning...

FNBrown · January 7, 2003, 21:36

Quote:

Originally posted by bobbo008
nya ha! relevant posting!

just having a permenant square that can never be taken peacefully by the enemy seems odd... with an airfield possibility, could be deadly in the middle of enemy territory in war time or peace time positioning...

Yeah, but think about it... they exist all the time in reality. The US has Guantanamo Bay in Cuba... and airfields in Saudi Arabia (just to name a few). And, heck, West Berlin in the Cold War was surrounded on all sides by commies.

As for resources, I know that US-owned companies own oilfields all over the globe, so having a colony in the midst of foreign territory really isn't at all unreasonable.

bobbo008 · January 7, 2003, 21:38

but...we're talking about a little square that you have absolute square over, without the conscent (spelling?) of whoever owns the surrounding territory. west berlin was agreed upon, though, too. but you are right that it not totally out of the question...

what if you owned the square and kept nuking it, however? damaging surrounding enemy improvements, units, and polluting it? anyone know if its considered war if you nuke next to enemy territory or units in your/uncontrolled territory?

VladTepes · January 8, 2003, 00:21

Quote:

Perhaps fortresses should be allowed to share a square with a colony.

You can do that already.

I build colonies in areas that cities would be impractical or impossible - ie tundra and mountains. I just hate it that the AI casually waltzes in and grabs it (oh was this yours? So soorrryy!!) You should be able to say "Get out of here" just like they have entered your borders.

wilbill · January 8, 2003, 01:43

"To the AI, RoP = Resource Grab"

The ROP/MPP almost certainly have nothing to do with it. The AI expands, like a human player, to places with resources it needs.

Colonies are probably misnamed. "Mining Camp" or "Trading Post" would probably be closer to what they represent. By definition, they're outside your border and fair game for the AI to absorb by building a city. You can do the same to them. Other than situations mentioned already (mountains, safely surrounded by my cities) I build them only rarely and then rush to build a city near them ASAP.

I think sometimes when we take an action in the game such as signing an ROP, and the AI does something immediately after that. such as building a city near our colony, we see a cause and effect relationship that doesn't exist.

Pyrodrew · January 8, 2003, 02:21

I'm with WillBill & some others on this. It doesn't bother me. I also do it to back to the AI, among other border/theft tactics.

If you want to *own* the land then build a settler, period. Otherwise you do NOT own it simply because it is "nearby" & someone is working the land.

ALPHA WOLF 64 · January 8, 2003, 20:56

i dont mind borders overtaking colonies, but i do wish they had to give you a worker in compensation.

wilbill · January 9, 2003, 00:53

Quote:

Originally posted by ALPHA WOLF 64
i dont mind borders overtaking colonies, but i do wish they had to give you a worker in compensation.

But why should the AI compensate you for settling territory that is, by definition, not settled? To me, the beauty of Civ3 is that nothing comes without some cost. For the cost of a worker, you get a resource or luxury for x turns. If x turns out to be 50 turns, you made a good bet. If it's 5 turns, not so good.
IMO the biggest improvement in the Civ series is that in Civ3 there are fewer "guaranteed" succesful ploys. There are a lot of strategies and tactics that will work most of the time, but if you try them often enough, the RNG will eventually bite you back

bongo · January 9, 2003, 10:05

The AI 'should' not compensate you for anything but as colonies disappear when borders expand over them I feel it would be 'right' to give you back your worker. This would of course give you a resources for free situation which could be fixed by adding a cost to each colony(like 1 gpt for each type of resource you got from a colony).

I build few colonies so it's a very small problem to me, there are more important things which should be fixed first.

BTW, have anyone seen a resource in a colony run dry?

bobbo008 · January 9, 2003, 20:47

"BTW, have anyone seen a resource in a colony run dry?"

you mean strategic resources, right?

Mazarin · January 10, 2003, 01:17

Quote:

BTW, have anyone seen a resource in a colony run dry?

No..maybe just because I don't use them...

bongo · January 10, 2003, 05:36

Yes I were talking about strategic resources. I have never seen or heard of other types of resources run dry.