11-06-2002 00:39									#1
	How to make something from nothing. Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Yes YOU GUESS IT RIGHT! I'm talking about colonies.

What is wrong with them ON MY OPINION:

1) One worker is too expensive to build a colony case just waste one more citizen and you get a Settler.

2) Colonies are lost very easily cause AI civs always build their cities so close that borders take care of them.

3) Ususally luxuries are packed in one place. There is like 3-4 same kind of luxury in 3x3 area. It is actually much cheaper to build a city and take all of luxuries.

What should be done ON MY OPINION:

1) Colonies should be build by workers like mines and roads. Other option would be a colonizer - The guy would cost just like normal unit or it could cost like 10 food unit.

2) Colonies would not be affected by enemy borders. The colony would stay there even if it would be in the middle of the enemy empire and you would be able to keep military forces in the area of colony. Problem with this one is though that enemy can easlily cut roads to colony and so making it useless...

Now what do you think about this??? Tell me your suggestions how to make that darn thing useful!!

	11-06-2002 01:04									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I keep suggesting that desert and tundra should not allow cities to be built. This would require colonies for oil, spices, etc. well into the later portions of the game.

Also, I've finally come around to Uber's way of thinking; military units should exert control over the square in which they are located, but a colony should still be required to make use of any resources present if outside my "normal" cultural border. Thus, if I have a colony with a military garrison, it cannot be absorbed by another civ. This would also allow me to occupy enemy resources with a military force, build a colony, and start using that resource right away.

	11-06-2002 02:20									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

I think the whole colony concept is stupid. It was just an excuse to add something new. I can just imagine the creative conference at Firaxis now, "Hey let's add a colony that collects resources and doesn't cost as much as a city," there is silence as everyone tries to imagine this.... then someone says, "It sounds stupid and useless, but its new and its easy to add, Let's DO IT!"

	11-06-2002 03:35									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Colonies would be better if they didn't eat the worker that built it.

	11-06-2002 03:46									#5
	Support Apolyton

Colonies are almost useless, and I think it's fine. I agree with Stuie that more terrains should have cities on them, which would make colonies more useful (because some parts of land will never see the borders of any Civ).
I think of colonies as a simple way to get a resource in the occurence it's isolated (such as incense deep down in the desert at the beginning of the game). It's just a way to prevent players to say "there is no way I get this Iron ! damn you Firaxis !". I have no problem with cities being the real deal

	11-06-2002 03:54									#6
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

When there is an extremely thick mountain range, and the only source of iron within the immediate vicinity is right in the middle, beyond the reach of a city, or cultural boundaries (at least that early on), then I'll use colonies. But since I usually play on a 5 billion age map, I hardly ever have that problem. In total, I've probably only used colonies 3 or 4 times out of the hundreds of games I've played (most never finished).

If colonies could allow you to exploit resources in another civ's territory, then I'd see a bit of use in it. During warfare, rather than cutting a resource off, build a colony on it, and take it for yourself before being able to march into their nearest city. Of course, building a colony in enemy territory would precipitate war, and if peace is made, with foreign colonies still in place, the civ could complain and ask that the colonies be disbanded in a negotiation.

	11-06-2002 04:17									#7
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Colonies are only meant to be temporary, until your border expands to encompase said resource anyway.

	11-06-2002 07:29									#8
	Full PM-box? Change here!

I almost never use colonies (once if memory serves...). It just much easier to pump out settlers and expand with culture. They can be handy for a strategic resource over a waterway though. One that has road access to your capital, but because of a choke point you can not expand around the firth. If you get my drift. Otherwise colonies are useless.

	11-06-2002 09:13									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

quote: Originally posted by Stuie I keep suggesting that desert and tundra should not allow cities to be built. This would require colonies for oil, spices, etc. well into the later portions of the game....

I'm tired of civs being stuck on a tundra-infested penninsula, never having a chance at greatness. I think it's time to reduce tundra food to nought.

I'll try it on my next game and see if there's a problem with it. Can't do that to desert because of where I live.

Might still have a problem with civs spawning in forested tundra, but I don't want to eliminate forest's food.

	11-06-2002 16:46									#10
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Jaybe I'm tired of civs being stuck on a tundra-infested penninsula, never having a chance at greatness. I think it's time to reduce tundra food to nought.

That's what I did. Food = 0 and workers cannot plant forests in tundra. Unfortunately, if you plop down a city, it still gets the automatic two foods for the square it's built on, so the AI keeps sticking cities in the tundra. I'm really looking forward to eliminating this when the new editor arrives.

	11-06-2002 18:39									#11
	Remove this text

I use colonies only on occasion. The most recent usage was in a war ravaged land where I need a resource quickly before I was willing to buid a settler to go and found a city. But I agree with most of you that they hold little value.

	11-06-2002 22:27									#12
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

I trully agree with tundra should not support cities.

I have an idea though about colonies. Make a new unit. Call it, say colonizer, make it cost very little amount of shield and put Build Colony tick on. Here we go! Cheap easy and maybe even useful colony!

	11-06-2002 22:27									#13
	Increase Your PM Length

Though my problem is that I have no idea how to create new units. =)

	11-06-2002 22:30									#14
	Increase Your PM Length

Or actually how about making a Scout possible to create colonies...That would make Expansionist civ truly expansionist

	11-06-2002 23:40									#15
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I made a colony in my first game of Civ3 but I can't say I've ever used them again. Not once since last Nov.

	12-06-2002 00:33									#16
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

when i originally heard about colonies, i thought they'd end up being permenent.

check my old threads, i was excited about "wars where there are large unowned but colonized lands", and the fact that "no one would have to colonize the sahara desert, it could be one huge colony network connected to the nile".

as the game stands now, all the AI does is grab any land it can, and colonies are way too underpowered.