Colonies

A "Colony" is just a civilization you split off as a vassal. It starts out as your vassal, but depending on how you treat it, they may become completely independent. You can also give them their independence, as overseas colonies cost gold to maintain. Most civs have another civ they create by making a colony. America gets created by many European civs.

im rly glad this feature finally came out. I've played games where there were 3 continents on a 1v1 and it would have been a whole lot easier with colonies

question: If i want GG points could I grant them independece then rape them. Interesting idea i thought.

Agreed.

This new change is more how I *thought* vassals would be implemented in the first place.

What I mean is, I thought vassals would work like this: You go start taking over another civ's cities. After the other civ cries "uncle," you agree to give ALL OR MOST OF THE CITIES back to him and in return he becomes your vassal. Because the vassal would get his cities back, vassals could commonly be powerful states.

However, when warlords came out we all found out that you cannot gift cities back to your vassal. So you end up keeping half of your victim's cities that you probably never wanted. You could have razed them I guess, but then you would have a pissed off vassal. Not an ideal situation.

With colonies it seems like what I expected before is now being implemented. I go take over a bunch of cities from another civ. Then, I make those cities a new colony! The new colony likes me and is somewhat powerful ;) Thus, I don't have to keep/raze all those far off cities I never really wanted...

I wonder if the colonies will be treated as capitulated vassals or "consensual" vassals?

And i wonder who will play for them. Will they be Barbarian or another civ.

And i wonder who will play for them. Will they be Barbarian or another civ.

As I recall from the BtS Firaxis IRC chat, they will be one of the 'standard' civs from the roster that isn't currently in play.

So if England created an overseas colony, America might be the civ that gets created as a colony, with one of its standard leaders.

Also, certain civs are more likely to spawn other civs. European civs are more likely to spawn America as a colony. (As long as America is not currently in play.) At least, that's how I interpreted the IRC chat transcripts.

Note that this will not allow you to go beyond 18 civs total. So if you're playing on a map with 18 civs from the start, no colonies will be created.

(I don't know if you start with 18 and a few civs get destroyed if you can still create colonies up to the 18 civ ceiling.)

They ought to make them turn into barbarians if the 18 limit has been reached.

EDIT: Ah, nevermind, this would only work AFTER they broke away... you can't vassalize barbarians. ;)

What if Mali creates a colony?

What if Mali creates a colony?

It will probably be a random civ then.

It will probably be a random civ then.

Wouldn't it be stupid if the colony is china of from mali? An African Culture having a colony with asian people?

Not horribly stupid. Maybe the colony is made up of natives? But since it is voluntary, if it bothers you, you can ignore it.

Not horribly stupid. Maybe the colony is made up of natives? But since it is voluntary, if it bothers you, you can ignore it.

Well yes maybe i will ignore it. Someone might be bothered as well and make a mod to fix it, so i'll try to look for a mod like that.

That someone might be me. :)

I would think if Zulus or Egypt aren't already in the game...

What if Mali creates a colony?

Jon Shafer confirmed it in the after party:

<Aoro> If America is the spawn of European civs, what happens when non-Europeans create colonies?
<FXS_JonShafer> Aoro: if there's not a civ assigned to split off it'll just pick one randomly

So if I start a Huge map with 18 civs, is it not possible for anyone to create a colony until someone is destroyed or the game has been modded?

I think this feature might be a bit usless in this situation especially if your playing on an archapelligo where there are lots of islands and hence lots of potential colonies to be made.

Yes.

567890

I was wondering about this reply in the Pre-release chat:

So the colonies will never attempt to become independent themselves? They won't revolt and become a free civ? They'll only be independent if we choose to let it?
<alexman> Colonies start out as your vassals, but if you don't treat the right, they may become completely independent

In Warlords, it is almost impossible to get rid of a vassal, while alexman says that vassals originated from a colony might become independent if you don't treat them right.

Might this be a change to the whole vassal system or would they have created a different vassal system for colonies? I think two vassal systems would be weird so I think the vassal system has changed a bit and there might be a way to get rid of them. That sounds interesting.

If this is true, then I wonder how they avoided it to be exploited. If vassalage can be canceled easily, we will see many temporary vassals which will be conquered after a suitable rearming period. A human player is just that untrustworthy.

It's not that hard to have a vassal turn on you. In a recent game, I vassalized Mansa Musa and one turn later demanded horses from him. He promptly declared war on me! That's got to be the shortest capitulation in the game! :lol:

It's not that hard to have a vassal turn on you. In a recent game, I vassalized Mansa Musa and one turn later demanded horses from him. He promptly declared war on me! That's got to be the shortest capitulation in the game! :lol:

I tend to be nice to my vassals mainly because I forget they are there or they have nothing to give.

Thanks guys for the replys
i'd like to focus on my question
question: If i want GG points could I grant them independece then rape them. Interesting idea i thought.

will the new civ (independent civ) be treated as a barbarian civ where you do not gain any Great General points
or could i just go in with a massive army and gain exp.

If you gave them independence with little or no units u could easily wipe them out

Could this be a design flaw in the game (that hasnt come out yet)

Thoughts
Concerns
Questions

It's not that hard to have a vassal turn on you. In a recent game, I vassalized Mansa Musa and one turn later demanded horses from him. He promptly declared war on me! That's got to be the shortest capitulation in the game! :lol:

But you can't get rid of a vassal in any other way. The only way is for them to refuse your first resource demand. If they just give into you demands, there is no way to get rid of them. So you can't actively get rid of a vassal in Warlords. If they want to stay your vassal, then there is very little that you can do about it.

It seems to be different in Beyond the Sword if I understand alexman correctly.

I don't believe alexman is referring to anything other than the existing mechanic. Didn't someone ask him if there were any tweaks, and he said no?

I highly doubt anyone at Firaxis has played the game with vassals. They're annoying on a deep level and all but useless.

"Colonies" is the worst implementation ever. There are absolutely no advantages to creating a colony, with the added bonus of an inept AI that will get mad sending items to the mother country.

Without civil wars or revolts of distant cities, colonies are pointless.

I was thinking.... if Europe creates America when making a colony, what does America make?

ugh :rolleyes: they pretty much have too

I highly doubt anyone at Firaxis has played the game with vassals.

ugh :rolleyes: they pretty much have too

Not really. Game designers don't usually sit and play through an epic game. They sit and test specific features and often don't see how things "work" by just playing. I'm a beta tester for Paradox, and I can tell you that plenty of times the lead programmer has said things like "Yeah, definitely need to fix that" after playing multiplayer with myself and others. Features that SEEMED like really good ideas often don't play out that way.

For example, the "fix" in Warlords' last patch that made "vassal states no longer compete for culture tiles with their overlord"... didn't actually stop vassals from culture flipping cities or causing revolts. It just made them completely unsolvable, since you can't cancel a forced vassalage. Your border cities just perpetually revolt.

Vassals would be completely useless if they didn't get in the way. All they do is provide a net loss of income and a relations penalty for the other civs to hate you for.

"There are absolutely no advantages to creating a colony"

I disagree with that! We need to find out what tech enables colonies, if it is early enough, then they will be highly useful. can't count how many of my early wars were cut short (or turned into pillaging wars) by a busted economy. If I could continue the war effort by assimilating strong enemies into weak allies that would be a huge advantage.

Have you played with vassals? In my opinion, having vassals is usually more of a pain than it's worth. You have to pay partial upkeep for them, which usually results in them being a net loss in income, you get a relations penalty with EVERYONE ELSE, and you have to worry about their culture flipping/revolting the cities you conquered on your border that are still being assimilated and built.

"Have you played with vassals?"

Yes. Have you ever had such a successful early war that you had to interupt your military strategy due to a weak/failing economy?

Instead of saying how crappy colonies are in a vaccum, you should follow my lead and analyze their value at the extreme. That way, you can realize their situational value rather than trying to overgeneralize.

If you want to say that colonies may not be as good as you hoped, I could understand that. But you said that there were "absolutly no advantages" to creating a colony. That is at least totally premature, if not totally wrong. That statement suggests that you are being overdramatic or have a limited understanding of the strategic elements of the game.

"Have you played with vassals?"

Yes. Have you ever had such a successful early war that you had to interupt your military strategy due to a weak/failing economy?

No, because if you're conquering fast enough you don't run into that issue. Your loot from capturing cities offsets the money you're losing on a per-turn basis, and cities not worth keeping you should be razing, while quality cities should be building courthouses, markets, and grocers A-1 priority.

Wars that peter out and wreck your economy mean that you didn't plan accordingly for how to assimilate your fallen enemies. If you find yourself at peace with a giant country and a wrecked economy, you did something wrong.

"If you find yourself at peace with a giant country and a wrecked economy, you did something wrong."

Well MR. overgeneralizer, even if what you are saying is true, then wouldn't colonies be an advantage for such a careless player??? Hence, they are not totally useless.



"and cities not worth keeping you should be razing"

Again, with the information we currently have there is a reasonable possibility that colonies might provide a better option to razing those cities. E.g., keeping those cities and spinning them off as colonies (thus improving your domination score over a person going with the razing strategy). We will see as more details are revealed.

And the new feature will help people who did those wrong things. At the same time expert players shouldn't have to worry because civilization split offs are optional.



Wars that peter out and wreck your economy mean that you didn't plan accordingly for how to assimilate your fallen enemies. If you find yourself at peace with a giant country and a wrecked economy, you did something wrong.

Well MR. overgeneralizer, even if what you are saying is true, then wouldn't colonies be an advantage for such a careless player??? Hence, they are not totally useless.

Absolutely false. If you release these places as colonies, they seem (from the notes) to be NOT conquered vassals. Meaning that the AI will quickly do the math and decide that the person that released them is a tool with a wrecked economy and break free. In which case you're back to square one, only with a wrecked economy to show for it while the AI (your former colony) has your tech levels, no wrecked economy, and a "close borders" relations dislike of you.

"If you release these places as colonies, they seem (from the notes) to be NOT conquered vassals. "

I think that the above statement can be fairly inferred from the chat, whereas your subseqent statement overreaches,

"Meaning that the AI will quickly do the math and decide that the person that released them is a tool with a wrecked economy and break free."

You better put the quote you refer to, because I don't think that is a fair inference from the chat at all. I think you might be misrepresenting the chat to try and win an argument. The dev said that whether a colony leaves you is based on *how well you treat them* and not based on the power comparison.

Your need to overreach on the details of the chat just proves my point - its too early to say that colonies are useless in all situations. Let's see how thinks pan out in a couple days, m'kay??

The dev also said that the HRE was an eastern european power. So perhaps we shouldn't take him quite literally and should instead look at what we know about how voluntary vassals (since we know "colonies", which are really just created vassals CAN break free - hence voluntary) work in Civ4.

They constantly check to see if they can beat the Motherland in a war.

Your position is that colonies are CERTAINLY useless in ALL situations.

My position is that colonies MIGHT be useful in SOME situations.

I think my position has the greater chance of being right... want to put money on it??? We can have a poll on the boards after the expansion is released to decide who the winner is. I'll give you 2 to 1 odds.

With Corporations, there may be a new reluctance to invoking State Property. That means that huge civs will be more costly. Colonies may well be attractive.

However, I suspect humans will use them less often than the AIs will. I'm guessing that AIs will make the decision to form colonies even when a human might consider that a stupid move. Yes, I know you are surprised that the AI might make a stupid move. :lol:

So there probably will be a new, perhaps interesting dynamic in BtS. As an AI gets large, it becomes two AIs.

I presume that the colony will start with the same techs as its parent, but may choose to deviate on research from that point. If they start/stay friendly, trading techs could give them a big research boost.

anyhting that diversifies the game and is optional is OK with me. It will add a new dimension to the game.

Vassals can be very useful if you dont want to prolong a war but dont want a resentful and dangerous neighbour.

I was thinking.... if Europe creates America when making a colony, what does America make?

Babylon, Arabia, and Japan come to mind... :D

RE: The vassal issue...

People tend to forget that capitulated vassals have one big advantage: you can win conquest victory without actually conquering every single city on the map.

This feature sound interesting in theory, but I also wonder whether it has a point in the field. Oh well even if you never use it, the possibility of creating colonies is very cool and maybe a nice option for a scenario or a succession game.

I think some of us r getting off topic
*cough* duuk *cough*
*cough* civzombie *cough*

I think we all can agree that vassals were mostly a failure in warlords and we can only hope that they either
a. fixed it
b. got rid of it

I can only hope that colonies dont end up like vassals ( the skid mark of civ )
For anyone that still thinks that "vassals werent that bad"
I say that no one uses them enough to hav a good impact on a game.
if u want to talk more about vassals go to another thread plz.

With Corporations, there may be a new reluctance to invoking State Property. That means that huge civs will be more costly. Colonies may well be attractive.

However, I suspect humans will use them less often than the AIs will. I'm guessing that AIs will make the decision to form colonies even when a human might consider that a stupid move. Yes, I know you are surprised that the AI might make a stupid move. :lol:

So there probably will be a new, perhaps interesting dynamic in BtS. As an AI gets large, it becomes two AIs.

I presume that the colony will start with the same techs as its parent, but may choose to deviate on research from that point. If they start/stay friendly, trading techs could give them a big research boost.

all very good points.

I'm most interested in seeing how the mechanics work - how do you create a vassal? What screen to do you open up? Can you assign several cities to a new vassal, or just one?

Anyway, I think it's a pretty neat idea. I loved vassalage because I don't like depopulating the map and prefer having other Civs around.

Being able to conqueror a major enemy and vassalise them and split up their former possessions into several obedient allies would be really cool.

Actually, that could be a good idea... Start as Augustus, and take 20 cities knowing you can never support them all, then give them independence as friendly vassals. You get all the resources but don't have the crippling maintenance costs. (Plus you can keep the holy cities, wonder cities, and the "good" ones. :D) Does a vassal (non-capitulated vassal anyway) count towards conquest victory?

EDIT: Never mind. ALL vassals count toward conquest victory, not just capitulated ones.

Well a few observations
1. Corporations nerf State Property
2. High Maintenance costs strengthen State Property
3. High Maintenance costs strengthen Colonies/Vassals

Therefore I could see it working like this
Coprporations AND higher maintenance costs are put in to keep the Econ civs Balanced, Colonies are the solution to the problem of pre-Communist Empires.

Also some of the boosts to Foreign Trade mean that a smaller civ will stay viable economically longer

A "Colony" is just a civilization you split off as a vassal. It starts out as your vassal, but depending on how you treat it, they may become completely independent. You can also give them their independence, as overseas colonies cost gold to maintain. Most civs have another civ they create by making a colony. America gets created by many European civs.

Colonies will be only civs that already exist in the game or there are completely new ones too?

Considering the relations that nations have now in the game:
Arabs can give independence to Babylon or Egypt
HRE can give independence to Germany
Rome can give independence to Byzantium
(Read this (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=227568) topic)
So Portugal and Spain (Home nations to many world colonies) won't have any civ to give independence... (not considering Aztecs/Inca/Maya as a spanish/portuguese colony).

Its great anyway, I loved this new system!

I was thinking.... if Europe creates America when making a colony, what does America make?

Why not just create colonies for every civ like there is a city list? America can make the Colony Puerto Rico, or Phillipenes, England can make America, Canada, Australia, China would make Taiwan? Mali would get one of the surrounding Tribes/kingdoms?

But no, they had to make it as easy as possible. It's practically a copy of a city list.

I wonder if colonies can create colonies...

Yes, up to the 18 civ limit. But probably only once they've become independent.

Will the AI use colonies? It's hard to imagine so.

Will the AI use colonies? It's hard to imagine so.

I don't find it hard to imagine. My guess is that whenever you get a game with a runaway AI, that AI will create one or more colonies. It probably will happen fairly often even under less extreme circumstances. As I implied above, I highly doubt that the AI will always make the best choice when it comes to colonies.

Another thought about colonies: Double your National Wonders. Build Universities in every city, split, and build Oxford in both civs. Same goes for Iron Works, Wall Street, etc.

Hmmm... but what if you give away a city that has a National Wonder in it?

At what point will the AI decide to form a colony? What will be the trigger so to speak? Moreover, will the various bonuses that the AI gets over the human at different difficulty levels impact on the AI's decision to form a colony or not? After all, we all know colonies can backfire and go independent.

Here's the scenario - large AI civ forms a colony creating new vassal. Human seizes opportunity to bash on the large AI civ just enough to reduce its size so that the colony goes independent...

I speculate that Korea and Khmer are far more likely to be the colonies of China.

Don't forget that random events are going to factor into the decision to create a colony. One of them may be, for instance, "Indians demand creation of colony" or something like that, with some sort of bonus if you agree and/or some sort of penalty if you don't.

Also -- don't forget that the decision to go independent or not is the vassal's. It is not automatic. I've seen (and had vassals) that qualified for full independence, but did NOT choose to go that way for whatever reason (military superiority of the central government probably being one of them.)

And I'm not very keen on the 'infinite colony list' that someone proposed. Since each colony is officially its own civ, that seems to more or less require doubling the number of civs in the game. (I wouldn't necessarily mind that as a third expansion pack, but on the other hand, it sounds like it would require a lot of development time without really impacting anything at all in terms of gameplay.)

I think they could be quite useful. they might make the game more difficult. Some factors which might make the game more realistic can be a good thing, even if they make it a bit less playable (which I dont think colonies will)

What if Mali creates a colony?

Zulu, Ethiopia, or even Arabia, Egypt or Carthage seem all like likely candidates.

Somehow or other I got the impression colonies were going to be only those that are overseas. ie. you can't just make any cities you like a colony. Not sure how this would be implemented but it would make more sense and I think that's the whole point.

I think it would be silly if you could pick which cities you could release to a colony, and I don't think this would be how it will work in BtS.

EDIT What I mean to say is it would be silly if you pick lots of useless cities for a colony. This is so obviously cheap as a strategy that I reckon it won't be allowed - don't ask me how though.

If that were true, then no colonies on Pangea. I suspect this will not be the case. But I also suspect that you can't make a Swiss Cheese out of your civ by giving up only low-value, non-adjacent cities to your new colony.

One could speculate forever on this. One also could wait until the release. I'll compromise by speculating once ;). Perhaps you choose the capital city of the colony and then all other cities make a flip decision based on distance, common religions, connectivity and cultural influences.

I'd imagine a city or group of cities has to be on a different continent than your capital, or else have been captured from another Civ.

Thanks guys for the replys
i'd like to focus on my question

will the new civ (independent civ) be treated as a barbarian civ where you do not gain any Great General points
or could i just go in with a massive army and gain exp.

If you gave them independence with little or no units u could easily wipe them out

Could this be a design flaw in the game (that hasnt come out yet)

Thoughts
Concerns
Questions

When you release a colony, they start as your vassals. You cannot declare a war on your vassal.

I highly doubt anyone at Firaxis has played the game with vassals. They're annoying on a deep level and all but useless.

"Colonies" is the worst implementation ever. There are absolutely no advantages to creating a colony, with the added bonus of an inept AI that will get mad sending items to the mother country.

Without civil wars or revolts of distant cities, colonies are pointless.

You seem to have an extensive understanding of a new feature in a game that hasn't been released yet. :rolleyes:

I wonder if colonies can create colonies...

Since vassals can't have vassals, probably colonies who stay as vassals of their mother civ can't create colonies. On the other hand, once a colony becomes independent from the mother country (i.e. stops being its vassal), I'm pretty sure it will be able to create a colony.

You seem to have an extensive understanding of a new feature in a game that hasn't been released yet. :rolleyes:


I'm just going by the released info, which is that colonies are created-by-the-player vassals.

Given: Vassals are useless and more annoying than they are worth.
Given: Colonies are vassals.

Ergo: Colonies are useless and more annoying than they are worth.

Vassals are not useless! They guarantee a country wont got to war with you! They count towards domination. They stop you having to fight pointless attacks on cities you dont even want. they provide you with resources without you having to conquer every last city and then build granaries in them in the year 1900...

I like Vassals for the same reason RedRW said.

Although they can go the otherway, I've had a game where I had the continent all but three vassalised cities. Guess where the only oil field around popped up?

Grr.

But then, I like it when you vassal someone next to your target civ, plonk your troops in there and attack from that point. Similar to Attacking from a 3rd party civ with no open border agreement with your victim(until you and your vassal declair obviously).

I just played a game as Ragnar and vassalized everybody on the planet without having to wipe them out. I won a Conquest victory. I'd say they're pretty useful...

While we're on the subject of useless features, how many of you use the "make peace with..." option in diplomacy regularly? Not many, I wager. While it may not be the most useful feature, I am still glad it's included, because once you encounter a special situation where you really need it, your opinion will suddenly change 180 degrees.

I know what would make colonies useful... if they didn't give the negative diplomatic bonus that other vassals do. Then they would automatically settle an area, right? Imagine, the computer automatically settling a new cont for you. As long as you treat it right, your domination territory expands.

When you release a colony, they start as your vassals. You cannot declare a war on your vassal.

thank you Martinus

Although they can go the otherway, I've had a game where I had the continent all but three vassalised cities. Guess where the only oil field around popped up?

Grr.


Why didn't you just demand their oil supply?

I just played a game as Ragnar and vassalized everybody on the planet without having to wipe them out. I won a Conquest victory. I'd say they're pretty useful...

This happened to me very recently. Vassals can really speed up conquest victories. Plus, adding their (limited) power to your own makes wars go fast and other civs even more afraid of you.

While we're on the subject of useless features, how many of you use the "make peace with..." option in diplomacy regularly? Not many, I wager. While it may not be the most useful feature, I am still glad it's included, because once you encounter a special situation where you really need it, your opinion will suddenly change 180 degrees.

In my last game I used it to save Ghandi from anniliation/capitulation. He supported me in the UN and was a great trading partner. He was enimies with the Mehemed/Brennus alliance and they completly out gunned him. I used that option to save him and make me (and Rosevelt) the undisputed leaders of the UN and kept my best trading partner alive.

Why didn't you just demand their oil supply?

Well there is the problem of whether or not the Vassal would build the well.

Actually, that is one thing they Should allow you to do to Vassals, build a Resource-gaining improvement on a resource, (so that if they have the only Oil on your continent you can speed up accessing it)

I tend to like vassals post 2.08 they mean you can win a Conquest victory (which has the coolest victory sequence) without hitting Domination first or without mass Razing cities.

They give a Nice Happiness Bonus [in exchange for a Diplomacy Bonus]

They Do increase in Happiness as the relationship goes on (it counts as a defense pact)

Theone thing I don't like is the fact that my Permanent Ally shovels tech at them [the AI should not give a Vassal techs that fast, monopoly techs, SS techs, and Wonder techs should be held more closely... after all the Vassal does]

That said, I could only see Colonies being useful if there is a significant Increase in Distance Maintenance as it is only on Deity are you paying 100% perhaps on Noble both Human and Computer will pay 100% and the breaks for the computer will be on higher levels and the Human on lower.

Given that they Are Vassals they probably won't be available Earlier than Feudalism. Which means they won't help Axemen rushes gone Bad.

Also with Corporations, Resource may become more important, particularly if you can demand resources from Vassals that you already Have [ie yes I have 4 Iron, I want another 3 from you to boost my Hammer bonus from 'Creative Constructions']

I'd also like to see Uprisings. it would be interesting to see someone have an uprising after i conquer him.

I'd also like to see Uprisings. it would be interesting to see someone have an uprising after i conquer him.

Personally, I'd LOVE to see colonial revolts and civil wars. But we're not getting those. :(

It seems the greatly increased maintenance costs for overseas cities will make colonies more necessary, and the fact that the owner of colony keeps access to all its resources as if they were his makes it more useful than a vassal.

Also, Duuk, colonial revolts are in - they happen when the colony becomes mad at you and declares independence - it is much better than some random event happening without cause. :rolleyes:

Why didn't you just demand their oil supply?

They couldn't see it. When they did, they wouldn't give it lol I had bummed up other aspects of that game anyway.

Game I am having last night with Cuza and Hatshepsut vassalised, around 1000-1100AD after a long war against Vietnam in the South, in which I saved the day and they both loved me for it.

However, I'd have been better just smashing them too. As 1650AD, they had a couple of tech lead (highly specialised economy Cuza had by the looks of it) they both ditched me. So I had to divert my overseas escapades back home. Cost me roughly 80-100 years I recon. :rolleyes:

I can picture building up a few cities on a continent a potentially dangerous AI started on, in some out of the way corner, giving it some support resources, and then letting the AI waste it's time competing for land, while I sit at home with my empire expanding away. Especially if I played as the dutch. lol

Personally, I'd LOVE to see colonial revolts and civil wars. But we're not getting those. :(

Wait for it. No doubt a mod will be released a few weeks after BtS hits the shelves.

I'm just going by the released info, which is that colonies are created-by-the-player vassals.

Given: Vassals are useless and more annoying than they are worth.
Given: Colonies are vassals.

Ergo: Colonies are useless and more annoying than they are worth.

Your first Given was wrong, so the whole argument falls apart. :goodjob:

I think this system has mostly been added to improve and speed up end-game play.

If the maintaince costs have really been put so high, that it makes sense to allow colonies to separate. There will be much less micromanagement. Your'll only need to control your homeland cities while the AI controls your Colonies+Vassels.

This seems good to me.

I hope there will be an option to disable colonies during game setup. The idea of splitting up and ceding control of a portion of my empire doesn't really appeal to me but it sounds like with the new increased maintenance costs for cities on another continent forming a colony might end up not being an option.

The option to play without colony splits and without jacked up maintenance costs for overseas cities would be quite welcome.

Personally, I'd LOVE to see colonial revolts and civil wars. But we're not getting those. :(

I thought we were getting civil wars? Unless it's been replaced with the colonial system.

Questions:
Will the game let you choose what of your new world cities should become a colony?
Can you create more than one colony?

Imagine a huge archipelago map with only 3 or 4 civs to start out. Each civ breeds a new civ and even those colony civs could potentially breed new civs in some situations. Would be an interesting multiplayer game depending on exactly how the colonies actually work in Civ4 BTS.