 |
|  |
 |
|
Miatezhnyi
|
 |
Madison, Wisconsin
Jul 2001 time: 23:14
|
|
quote: Originally posted by Grumbold
Up till now I have normally found myself defending the role of colonies against those who argue that blanket coverage of the landmass with cities is a better approach. My chief arguements have been that to connect to an inconveniently placed resource can help you expand all your city borders faster or give you quick access to the iron or bronze you need to survive. In deserts, mountains and tundra they have no need of food.
|
I still think colonies would be useful in the ways that you mention, I doubt enough resources will just pop up in the cities to supply the whole empire. Cololies could also be useful for denying a resource to a competitor.
quote: [SIZE=1]
I'm amazed that a bunch of farmers would know how to locate oil, coal or uranium in the first place. "See, Hank, I was out digging holes for my new fence when I struck a gusher". |
Or like the Beverly Hillbillies
"Come 'n listen to my story 'bout a man named Jed
A poor mountaineer, barely kept his family fed
And then one day, he was shootin' at some food
And up through the ground come a bubblin' crude
Oil, that is, black gold, Texas tea" 
|
|
|  |
 |
|
One More Turn!
|
 |
New Hampshire, USA
Jun 2001 time: 05:14
|
|
Where I think colonies might be useful, and I am still not sure I understand exactly how you can connect to them across water, is gathering resources that you don't have access to within the primary boundaries of your civ. For example, you have a civ that has no tropical land types, and you need a tropical resource or luxury. You could set up a colony to get it, and maybe eventually replace it with a city, or maybe not.
As I am way too lazy to look through the forums for this information, maybe someone here can answer this question:
When you have a colony that is on a different land mass from your civ, is it automatically connected to your civ if it is adjacent to an ocean square and you have a port in one of your cities? Or do you have to physically connect the colony to a city via road, and then between ports?
|
|
|  |
 |
|
korn469
|
 |
Poetic Justic
Apr 1999 time: 00:14
|
|
grumbold
basically you need special resources and most likely luxeries ASAP, but the only good thing is that you won't need to build many colonies to satisfy your empire's demand for iron, bronze, silk, and the other vital early game resources/luxeries...i could see a player rushing in a colony or too to secure bronze, iron, horses, and silk...so that is four early colonies, and although that is a hit to your workforce i think that workers in civ3 will be cheaper than settlers were in civ2, and regaining four lost population won't be too much of a problem, especially if you have swordmen, horsemen, archers, chariots, etc before your enemy does...
in civ3 i could see a round or two of early expansion, then a rush to build colonies to secure special resources, then either further expansion or you take to the offensive
i do think that 2 pop settlers will slow down early game ICS some, and that the need for special resources will basically force an ICS player to build colonies, and even perfectionists could probably use colonies to secure special resources faster than they could use culture to engulf those sites within their borders
|
|
|  |
 |
|
kolpo
|
|
I can think of a raison to build colonies in the mid/late game: unhappyness by distance from capitol. I don't know or civ3 will have this but if it has that then will that encourage to build colonies on far away islands.
|
|
|  |
 |
|  |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14. Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|