13-07-2001 05:32									#1
	Colonies Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I have been looking at the new screen shots provided at PC Zone and have been wondering, where are all the colonies?

If you notice in the screen shots, there are no colonies. Which leads me to wonder if colonies are not going to be as important as Firaxis first said they would in this thread.

There Dan said the following:

quote: As for colonies, the resources go to whoever builds a colony and connects it with a road first. Consequently, colonies become key while your borders are expanding, and if you leave them unguarded or weakly guarded, you will pay the price. Also, since colonies need to be connected to a city with roads, an enemy can destroy your roads and sever the connection to that resource. This can be disastrous, especially when you're relying on goods to pacify unhappy citizens. I had a game going this week and the CPU destroyed my roads at a key juncture and sent four cities into revolt.

It would appear now that at least in my way of thinking that those that tested the game found it easier to defend their resources by expanding culture and borders to accumulate new resources. I may be wrong but the screenshots seem to point to the death of colonies whether that be strategically or actually the coded element of the game.

	13-07-2001 05:59									#2
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Some people use them and some don't. Since everyone at Firaxis is playing their own game of civ3 ( AARGH!!) they only take screenshots from the good games and maybe the good players dont use colonies

	13-07-2001 06:02									#3
	Increase Your PM Length

when u build a colony, and your borders extend over it, the colony is "swallowed", and you are given nothign for it.

most of these screenshots are either, too early for colonies (in this one, there arent even roads to a second city), or the borders are enroaching other civs, and all colonies were swallowed.

new question now...

say i build a colony on a silk near the zulus, and their borders grow onto it... is that an act of war?

	13-07-2001 06:09									#4
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by Darkknight Some people use them and some don't. Since everyone at Firaxis is playing their own game of civ3 ( AARGH!!) they only take screenshots from the good games and maybe the good players dont use colonies

But that is exactly my point, if the good players don't use colonies - then colonies are in essence useless and will not play a part in the actual game. So then reason would follow that colonies must be dead.

quote: Originally posted by UberKruX say i build a colony on a silk near the zulus, and their borders grow onto it... is that an act of war?

Good question...

I would have to guess that it would be included in diplomatic negotiations and that you could set up a situation where the colony would remain in one players possession while the borders would extend around it.

	13-07-2001 06:45									#5
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

It could be like caravans/freight. You can win ANY difficulty of civ without them. But are they useless? No. If you take the time, trade is very lucrative. Maybe colonies are like that: very helpful, but many people (especially at first) just don't use them.

	13-07-2001 10:50									#6
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

Maybe a way to have colonies be more worth while could be to have every colony generate one extra trade arrow to every city that it's connected to. As well, as providing the resource(s).

Another way could be to have colonies create a small border area. An 9 square colony radius. All resources that are in the radius could be distributed to all the cities, if linked to the colony from the resource then to all the cities.

These two ideas could add some importance to colonies. While, in my opinion, adding a little bit more of realism. What are your thoughts on these ideas?

	13-07-2001 12:04									#7
	Increase the size of your Attachments

I expect colonies to be something like real life. First a civ does well without them until a race begins to claim uninhabited or poorly defended land for yourself, which could result in things like the British and French Empire. It would be kind of like a phase of the game.

In real life the empires collapsed because the colonies wanted independence and made their own civs...err...nations. But that's too realistic

	13-07-2001 13:00									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

There IS a colony cut off at the bottom of one of the screenshots:

http://www.gamesdomain.com/news/images/civ03.jpg

	13-07-2001 13:04									#9
	Full PM-box? Change here!

quote: Originally posted by JellyDonut I expect colonies to be something like real life. First a civ does well without them until a race begins to claim uninhabited or poorly defended land for yourself, which could result in things like the British and French Empire. It would be kind of like a phase of the game. In real life the empires collapsed because the colonies wanted independence and made their own civs...err...nations. But that's too realistic

Yes history is rather interesting in that it showas that land wasnot only grabbed for the need of the colony , but a lot of time simply to deny another nation getting access to it or nearby land.. also much colonisation was doen just to show how much better the mother country ws, again not because they needed new resources or such like

	13-07-2001 14:01									#10
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by tniem But that is exactly my point, if the good players don't use colonies - then colonies are in essence useless and will not play a part in the actual game. So then reason would follow that colonies must be dead.

If the colonies are useless, they are made useful. Yet another reason for Firaxis to take its time to tweak the game.

	13-07-2001 18:12									#11
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

As thisng stand at the moment I don't see the reason to why bother to colonise whenm you can just expand.

We will see when the game ships.

	13-07-2001 18:51									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I had this crazy idea a long time ago that the the map should be considered as inhabited at the outset. Goody huts would be more densely distributed, say one in every 4 X 4 block, each one containing a native population, some containing additional goodies (money, scrolls, etc.). When advancing into the tile the population would either submit peacefully, fight, or leave. If it submitted the player would either leave it and start a city or move it as a settler. There would be a chance of rebellion the first few turns, the chance would be higher if the natives were moved. If the natives fought they would either be destroyed or submit. Over periods of time, one or more centuries, the population would become completely integrated into the civilization. Alternately, this process could be speeded up by sending settlers into the area and adding them to the native population.

To me true colonies should be settlements physically seperated from the parent civilization. The oportunity fior rebellion might be tied into certain government advances, such as the discovery of republic, or democracy by the parent civ or an adjacent civ. The probability of rebellion and forming a new civ might be linked to the degree of integration of the colony with the parent, the happiness index or even the disparity in the development and wealth between the parent civ and the colony. A successful rebellion might even trigger a civil war in the colony between the native and non-native populations.

	14-07-2001 00:17									#13
	Got spare money?

great catch doughnut!

ANYWAY...

colonies were made, IMHO, to harvest resources you couldn't get otherwise.

it's to stop that "ONE SPOT OVER" city palnning. when you take over a city you won't have to disband it to get the resource.

also, it would let people harvest desert / ice resources (oil) while still maintaining fairly large cities. you dont have to build IN the desert to get the oil.

with all the anti-ICS and happiness problems this game is EXPECTED to have, colonies will probably be very useful.

Last edited by Inverse Icarus on 14-07-2001 at 00:35

	14-07-2001 00:33									#14
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: There IS a colony cut off at the bottom of one of the screenshots:

Where? You mean the little thing all the way at the bottom? How do you know it is cut off?

	14-07-2001 00:38									#15
	Increase Your PM Length

eyes open IRMAN

der colony:

Attachment: colony.gif
This has been downloaded 306 time(s).

	14-07-2001 04:15									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Hey, I really think my two ideas " Maybe a way to have colonies be more worth while could be to have every colony generate one extra trade arrow to every city that it's connected to. As well, as providing the resource(s)." and "Another way could be to have colonies create a small border area. An 9 square colony radius. All resources that are in the radius could be distributed to all the cities, if linked to the colony from the resource then to all the cities." would really add some more value to colonies. What do you all think?

	14-07-2001 04:23									#17
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

A colony that produces 9 squares of resources is as productive as a size 8 city. Adding trade arrows is interfering with the role that luxury resources are going to play. Having them farm the square they are built on would not be too bad.

	14-07-2001 04:32									#18
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: A colony that produces 9 squares of resources is as productive as a size 8 city. Adding trade arrows is interfering with the role that luxury resources are going to play. Having them farm the square they are built on would not be too bad.

You won't get 9 squares of resources with a 9 tile colony radius, unless there are 9 resources in that radius, which I seriously doubt would ever happen. If you got lucky, at best you might get 4 resources.

The colony would only add one trade arrow to every city that it's linked to. Colonies provided much trade to their motherland, this would represent the colonies giving back trade. Hnow does the trade arrow affect the luxury resources?

How would this work? "Having them farm the square they are built on would not be too bad."

I do thank you for at least replying to my statements.

	14-07-2001 04:48									#19
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by TechWins You won't get 9 squares of resources with a 9 tile colony radius, unless there are 9 resources in that radius, which I seriously doubt would ever happen. If you got lucky, at best you might get 4 resources.

I suppose it depens how dense they make the resource clumps. One colony pop is still achieving more than the same pop point in a city.

quote: The colony would only add one trade arrow to every city that it's linked to. Colonies provided much trade to their motherland, this would represent the colonies giving back trade. Hnow does the trade arrow affect the luxury resources?

There are going to be resources that boost your empire wealth and culture rather than allow you to build units. This impinges on them if all colonies generate trade. It is also pro-ICS because it makes each colony more effective the more cities you build. 1 population is suddenly mining iron or uranium and generating more trade than a bank.

quote: How would this work? "Having them farm the square they are built on would not be too bad."

Like SMAC supply crawlers, the home city gets the food, shield and trade output from the colony square (as well as supplying the resource to all connected cities). Unlike SMAC the colony can't move.

	14-07-2001 05:57									#20
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

quote: Originally posted by LightEning If the colonies are useless, they are made useful. Yet another reason for Firaxis to take its time to tweak the game.

On one of the sites, it said "These screens represents the whole game. Meaning 4000BC to 2020AD. So the colonies would be swallow up by the year 1AD I would suspect".

	14-07-2001 09:15									#21
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Well I would take that with a pinch of salt because I haven't seen a screenshot of the game map that reminded me of any time much after the invention of musketeers and factories. The rocket cutscene seems to be their justification for quoting "the entire span of human history". I believe that testing has not yet reached a satisfactory level with the modern era otherwise we would be seeing screenshots of the map with modern city graphics, farmland, railroad and modern units like tanks and fighters. None of the shots give me the feel of a leading world nation.

Last edited by Grumbold on 14-07-2001 at 09:22

	14-07-2001 09:33									#22
	Put an end to popups!

Considering how little information we have, I think it's a bit early to start worrying about stuff like this. I'm sure colonies will be very useful. If they weren't, Firaxis would certainly remove them.

	14-07-2001 10:00									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

I think of it the other way round. We know the game is well into development and that they would like, if possible, to publish it this year. That leaves an increasingly narrow window for anyone to influence their thinking before all the game processes are defined and playtesting is just nibbling at the edges, adding an extra gold to support cost here or removing a trade arrow there.

We only have until they shout "gone gold" or "public beta" because after that the only meaningful discussion will be about the release date. In all likelihood they have already reached the point of no return but we haven't actually seen the screenshots to prove it.

	14-07-2001 10:11									#24
	Remove this text

quote: they would like, if possible, to publish it this year.

We don't know this. Personally, I think Firaxis will take however long they need to get the game right. Infogrames and the millions of civ fans are the ones that are really pushing to get the game out.

quote: We only have until they shout "gone gold" or "public beta" because after that the only meaningful discussion will be about the release date.

At the moment, there is very little meaningful discussion anyway.

quote: but we haven't actually seen the screenshots to prove it.

And I don't think we will. If I were Firaxis, I wouldn't release any more information (except for maybe a few bits and pieces) until the game is set in stone.

	14-07-2001 10:29									#25
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think the reason we dont see more colonies on the screenshots is that Firaxis wants to center the screenshots on the interesting stuff like cities. Colonies would tend to be far away from the cities because of two reasons. First, a city will eventually swallow a colony as its border expands, so you would essentially waste a worker if you built a colony near a city. Secondly, the resources will tend to clump, so you might want a resource clumped elsewhere and you don't want to use 2 pop points to build a city so you choose a colony instead.

Colonies should take time to build, and cities even more time. As they say, Rome wasnt built in a day (and neither was French West Africa!)

Giving a trade arrow to every city with every new colony would definitely make ICS more alluring. A colony connected to a road network should divide the resource equally among the cities on the network. However, giving a trade arrow or two to the nearest city wouldnt be so bad.

	14-07-2001 10:31									#26
	Increase the size of your Attachments

quote: I think the reason we dont see more colonies on the screenshots is that Firaxis wants to center the screenshots on the interesting stuff like cities.

All these people here, worrying about nothing. (I hope)

	14-07-2001 10:34									#27
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Question:

Stated above in more than one post is the condition of colonies having their borders grow and take in more than one resource.

Where has Firaxis said this going to be the case? I always thought that a colony would simply bring in the resources from the tile it was on. I am probably wrong, I would just like confirmation. Thanks.

	14-07-2001 10:36									#28
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Originally posted by tniem Question: Stated above in more than one post is the condition of colonies having their borders grow and take in more than one resource. Where has Firaxis said this going to be the case? I always thought that a colony would simply bring in the resources from the tile it was on. I am probably wrong, I would just like confirmation. Thanks.

At the moment, colonies do not have borders and, as far as I know, only cover one square/resource.

	14-07-2001 15:06									#29
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Sabre2th At the moment, colonies do not have borders and, as far as I know, only cover one square/resource.

Correct. In all of the screenshots I have seen, colonies have not had any borders. If you look at the new screenshot with the colony in it (see earlier this post) it has no borders. And I'm sure they would have mentioned something like that in the resource mini-tutorial.

	15-07-2001 01:55									#30
	Support Apolyton

Why is every one saying "are these colonies useful" I thought it was painfully obvious what the colonies do from looking at the walkthrough on the firaxis site. if something is outside your borders you build a colony and connect a road, thus gaining access to it. I dont think of them a colony colonies more of mining colonies eg the type that sprung up in the west of north America for the gold rush. Once your borders swallow the colony there is no use for it and it is removed from the map, that resource is now part of your country. So I think colonies will be very important in the early game. If they are, the firaxis site showed your first city being built and then a colony being built on silk outside the borders. Though I have been skeptical about the pictures being Mock-ups on other threads