When is it 'RIGHT' to conolize? Is it just when you can't support the cities over seas... and colonization is really the best thing? Is that the only time?

One of the other civs settled on the second terra continient and placed like 5 new cities.. I managed to capture them all pretty quickly. They were all costal towns and only had one Long Bowman on each. Frigate + Privateer now keep away the other civilizations from this continent. I would like to keep it all to myself.

Should I colonize every city?

My victories are:
Domination or space race.

I just colonized 5 cities... Unsure if it was the right thing to do...

Is quite simple - if you can afford the maintenance, keep it.

A [good] city increases your popoulation and production [might have wonders and other cool stuff] etc. However if the cost stiffle your research to a degree when you can not tolerate it, you must grant them indipendance.

I wanted to do selective independance.. but I had to grant Independance to the entire continent? Or did I have too many cities selected...

This also sucks... I just asked my colony for Horseback Riding... he said no.
How lame... He also won't adopt my religion.
In terms of loyalty he has none.

Its like 1600AD+ and he won't give meHorseback Riding.. not that I need it, but still.

No, you can only garant independance to the entire continent.

You need to plan ahead if you want to avoid this - take 2 cities first, grant them independance... Then , when taking further cities you can choose to keep these, or to liberate them (in which case they will be added to your colony)

I myself prefer Vassalizing the previous owner of the cities on the other continent (After i took all i want from him, and maybe a few more). Then klater i can Liberate cities i do not need back to him - boosting our relations.

Imho a Capitulated Vassal is better than a Colony - the Vassal can't just break free, he does not get all your techs...

You never colonize... when you get to the point you can't afford overseas colonies, you switch to "State Property" civic... then you keep everything and make a ton of money.

You never colonize... when you get to the point you can't afford overseas colonies, you switch to "State Property" civic... then you keep everything and make a ton of money.



I dont agree. I colonize whenever I dont want to have more cities but I want to prevent a rival from settling the space.
Then, I put two settlers in a boat, unship them at the best possible places on the bad island and build the cities the same turn as I liberate them: this way I dont have to pay any maintenance and the new civ gets 2 + 2 garrison units the same turn.

All I pay is 2 settlers but I win much more on long sight: power, tribute, ressources; especially on maps with many islands I sometimes get up to 6/7 vassals like that... :-)

As I micromanage very much I am happy to give away that responsibility of having too many cities to manage each turn now and then.

Btw. in terms of colonization regarding "Rise of Mankind" I use a different strategy: as the mid- and late-game settlers cost very much but also grant the new cities a recent infrastructure as well I cant spam out the settlers anymore and usually keep new cities on other continents.

If you are having happiness problems, it can also become a good idea to colonise too -, the +1happiness can be immensly useful for the larger maps

I dont agree. I colonize whenever I dont want to have more cities but I want to prevent a rival from settling the space.
Then, I put two settlers in a boat, unship them at the best possible places on the bad island and build the cities the same turn as I liberate them: this way I dont have to pay any maintenance and the new civ gets 2 + 2 garrison units the same turn.

All I pay is 2 settlers but I win much more on long sight: power, tribute, ressources; especially on maps with many islands I sometimes get up to 6/7 vassals like that... :-)
You pay more then that... you never get the science lost back. The colony formed will never be efficient at researching as you, and won't give you the techs (even when directed) that you could have gotten if you just kept the science for yourself.

Economically, militarily, production-wise, and most certainly Scientifically... cutting away all that land, production and science can't be regained.

^ This is not necessarily true. The land can be a liability - forcing you to run State Property while better options are available.

You are of course correct in terms of Production - the more cities the more.
However economy and science is a very different matter. A medium size compact empire in Free Market can often significantly outperform a State Property giant in terms of Research / Space Race. A overseas vassal (tho i clearly prefer capitulated ones over Colonies) can further increase this effect giving good drade income.

So "never" isn't a good approach (to nothing). It comes down to what yo need more in the end.

I speak of mega-empire status... if global conquest is your goal, it's best to run state property and keep everything, swallowing up the smaller civs in the process... if you're some sort of peacenick, then I guess you can cut away and stay tiny... (and insignificant... hehe :p ).

Yes, sure if going for a military win (Domination i.e.) there is no reason what-ever to give up land you already have.

If the maintenance is killing you, colonizing may be the only solution, but don't expect too much of it. The whole concept seems to be quite broken - colonies are expanding and developing extremely slow. If you can hold the maintenance, it's allmost allways better to keep decent overseas land yourself.

Colonizing small and useless landmasses may be ok though. There may be strategic resources like oil or uranium that you can then deny from your opponents and demand from your colony without paying any maintenance.

If the maintenance is killing you, colonizing may be the only solution
Colonizing is never the only solution... as I repeatedly mention, State Property usually trumps Colonization in many, many cases.

Colonizing is never the only solution... as I repeatedly mention, State Property usually trumps Colonization in many, many cases.

Not everyone beelines for Communism.

Im sure the people here will kill me verbally and never respond to a post of mine again, or call me a cheater, or burn me at the stake, ... but...


i modded the game so colonial tax is GONE.

i hated it from the start and it annoyed the crap out of me.

whats the point of invading another continent if colonial taxes will kill your economy afterwards....or having to grant conquered lands independance when the war is done.
I conquered my own landsmass and launched my spaceship 5 times and then i edited it OUT.

im sure its realistic and historically accurate with colonial tax on but i hate it, hate it, HATE IT! :gripe:

i want to conquer the world and destroy nations, not start new ones.

(if anybody shares my hatred, i can post the xml file. or give me a PM and ill send it to you. )

Not everyone beelines for Communism.
If you're maintaining a small civ, then no... you shouldn't bee-line it... if you're trying to expand to a mega-empire, then maybe you've got your priorities wrong on what techs to research... if you want to be HUGE (especially with overseas colonies), then you must have State Property to maintain it.

Bottom line, if you want to be huge, and you want to hold-onto what you've got, then perhaps you should be targeting Communism and State Property as something that you get sooner rather then later.

It's the same thing as saying "not everyone targets military techs".... well yeah... but if your main goal is going to war, it might be smart to research some military techs... same thing with being huge... if you want a huge civ, then research State Property... it makes as much sense as getting military techs to win a war.

If you have a handful of small cities, colony maintenance isn't that bad. It might total 2 gold for 5 cities at size 5. Woo hoo. Yeah, lemme edit that out cuz it's killing me. If you have a LOT of cities in your empire, the extra number-of-cities maintenance can hit pretty hard, even while the cities are still in revolt. If I'm grabbing a lot of cities at once, or I've already got my economy running smoothly and don't want anything less than a good city, I'll get rid of it. New colony, gift to someone else, whatever.

I am too in love with Sushi to go SP very often. Don't get me wrong, I use SP when the situation clearly calls for it, but if I can get Sushi power, I usually go for it instead. Usually this means FM, but if I'm big, then I prefer Merc. (I WILL go Env with Corps if the gains I can make in pop and prod seem worth it.)

Colony maintenance isn't so bad if you can keep the number of cities on each foreign continent low. When conquering a rival island, don't defeat the entire island, rather vassalize them early. Keep the capital, which may likely be a holy city and can pay for itself.

It's large empires on foreign continents which becomes fiscally irresponsible. The reason for this is that colony maintenance increases exponentially for each each additional foreign city (on a single landmass).

It's large empires on foreign continents which becomes fiscally irresponsible. The reason for this is that colony maintenance increases exponentially for each each additional foreign city (on a single landmass).
I didn't know this part... so let me ask this if I understand correctly...

All other factors being equal (say, distance to capitol, etc), you're saying it's better to have 10 foreign cities under your control on 10 different islands (1-city per island) then it is to have 10 foreign cities under your control on one foreign continent (10-cities on a single different continent) for maintenance cost purposes?!?!?

You never colonize... when you get to the point you can't afford overseas colonies, you switch to "State Property" civic... then you keep everything and make a ton of money.

I usually do this if I'm using a SE since the trade routes/bonuses for overseas trade don't really effect you too much. However, if I'm a FIN leader, or have decided that I have good relations and wish to exploit them, I'd rather colonize those cities, keep my foreign trade open, found a few corporations in my Wall Street city, and spam executives to friendly/pleased civs and my colony. Usually, the extra income from corporations will allow you to settle a fair amount of cities afar without doing excessive damage to your research/income levels while maintaining foreign trade routes.

Does anyone else think you should get a +1 relations bonus to having open foreign trade routes? I think if you are running Environmentalism/Free Market you should get that +1 bonus for keeping foreign trade routes (at least with those civs that you actually have trade routes with).

You never colonize... when you get to the point you can't afford overseas colonies, you switch to "State Property" civic... then you keep everything and make a ton of money.

Never say never. There's always the abusive tactic of "DOW AI, take 2 cities, colonize them, and now you have extra garrisons since your colony gets 2 garrison units per liberated city", for example. This really hurts the AI trying to take them back. A lot. Especially if you have a tech lead and are going up against masses of inferior units. You save on WW defending, and it's not like you have to give the city back if you recapture it, nor do you have to liberate future cities ;). Better yet, if you're just pushing for diplo win pop it doesn't really matter as long as it votes for you.

It's ok too if you find a TOTALLY USELESS island (like those ice/tundra nonsense areas) and just want some better trade routes...pretty rare but it happens.

Do mind the diplo hit from it though.

Generally speaking, you want the land in your hands, not the hands of some crappy AI. Colonies are more to keep the AI from screwing itself with huge maintenance.

I thought they fixed it in the patch so you won't get diplo hits for colonies. I could be very wrong, I just thought I saw it posted here somewhere.

Btw. in terms of colonization regarding "Rise of Mankind" I use a different strategy: as the mid- and late-game settlers cost very much but also grant the new cities a recent infrastructure as well I cant spam out the settlers anymore and usually keep new cities on other continents.

Ha! I love the Rise of Mankind colonists and, later, pioneers. They get my vote for the best new units in a mod.

I didn't know this part... so let me ask this if I understand correctly...

All other factors being equal (say, distance to capitol, etc), you're saying it's better to have 10 foreign cities under your control on 10 different islands (1-city per island) then it is to have 10 foreign cities under your control on one foreign continent (10-cities on a single different continent) for maintenance cost purposes?!?!?
Absolutely.

It's just good sense to have 1-city islands to be used as minimum trading partners. That +100% overseas bonus means you get at least 2 Commerce instead of just 1. You want to have as many islands as you have Trade Routes.

Colony maintenance only occurs when you have 2 or more cities on the same landmass, and as was stated, it rises exponentially or something like that. It goes up fast.

Does anyone else think you should get a +1 relations bonus to having open foreign trade routes? I think if you are running Environmentalism/Free Market you should get that +1 bonus for keeping foreign trade routes (at least with those civs that you actually have trade routes with).
You do, it just takes forever to show up.

Correct. The more cities you possess on a single foreign landmass, the more quickly the colony maintenance increases for those cities. A "quadratic" increase. Hence, a terran map will experience greater colony maintenance than an island or archi map.

And indeed, you do actually receive a diplo bonus for signing open borders.

I'd agree with this, excepting situations when you are addicted to Free Market/Environmentalism or have corporations.

I guess it might be an ingenious strategy to spam some colonies just to create a minor ally and thereby deny your competitors from growing larger.


You never colonize... when you get to the point you can't afford overseas colonies, you switch to "State Property" civic... then you keep everything and make a ton of money.


Good point about colonizing the junky 1-tile islands for trade partners, too TDS

You do, it just takes forever to show up.

And indeed, you do actually receive a diplo bonus for signing open borders.

That's not what i mean. You can still sign Open Borders treaties with CIVs when you are in State Property. The trade routes from foreign civs go away within the cities themselves, though. Since you still sign open boarders treaties, you still get that diplo bonus even when in State Property. I think there should be a diplomatic bonus (only +1 or +2) with maintaining foreign trade routes even though you have researched Communism. Or maybe eliminate the Open Borders bonus when in State Property.

I'm really not getting what you're saying then, BK. Open BORDERS (no A, for the love of pizza!) means you get to establish a trade route with a given foreign city. You will eventually get a +1 (I think it can get to +2) for OB.

If the city is in YOUR possession, you can have any number of Trade Routes to it, if it's a good enough city that your other cities want to trade with it.

Whether you're in SP or not has no relevance on the topic.

It occurs to me you might be mis-thinking about Mercantilism, with which you lose foreign TRs, but if that foreigner is your vassal, you can still trade with that city, so Merc is irrelevant too.

I can't see any justification for getting 2 diplo-bonuses for doing one thing, so if you think I'm still way out there, you can try explaining again, or you could PM me so we don't clutter up the post any more than we already have.

Good point about colonizing the junky 1-tile islands for trade partners too, DS2

I'm not advocating "junky" cities; at least get a resource out of the deal :goodjob:, and try to found it close to home to keep distance maint low. (Location irrelevant under SP.)

I think this is rather on topic, since it is a subject that revolves around whether or not to colonize.

I did have a concept error. I thought SP had "no foreign trade routes", but that's Mercantilism. My bad! Either way, the whole "corporations have no effect" is the point of SP that I was going for. If I'm gonna found corporations, I would rather create a colony from those cities that are far away so I can spam executives and send them to the colony (and of course, other rival civs). There should be some kind of reward for keeping free market since the AI seems to remain on mercantilism for most of the game (with the exception of some fin leaders). I once had a large map game with 9 rival civs. Only 2 of them maintained free market making my 3 founded corps moot!

EDIT: Regarding the "boarders" misspell, it happened once out of three. typo bro. OCD much? ;)

I did have a concept error. I thought SP had "no foreign trade routes", but that's Mercantilism. My bad! Either way, the whole "corporations have no effect" is the point of SP that I was going for.
The only "downside" to State Property I can think of is the fact you can't have corporations... and I don't really think that's much of a downside... considering how much time, effort, production and everything else that goes into having to found a corporation, produce executives and seed them all over like a new religion... it's a lot of effort to try and make more money when (if you're a large and/or growing empire), you're going to get huge financial rewards just by switching to state property.

I'm sure with a lot of effort in free market running a bunch of corporations you could surpass a SP Empire in income, but for the time and effort, and the margin you may gain for all that effort, it's just so much simpler to switch to State Property and be done with the hassle. Once again, I speak mostly for the large empire bent on world domination... mileage will of course vary for a smaller empire who loves doves.

Oh, absolutely true, Wolfshanze. If going for domination, there is no reason to stay on Free Market. Definitely go SP, then.

But if you're going for Diplomatic, Cultural, Space Race, or wait it out with time (say b/c of a game gone wrong), then you may want to keep Free Market (as you probably don't have many distant cities from minimal war).

With corporations:
Market + Grocer + Bank + Wall Street = +200%
2 corporations spamming executives (from 1 decent production city) to, say, 20 cities each(large or huge maps with many open borders)
(20 x 2 corps x 3 gold per exec) = 120 + (120 * 200%) = 120 + 240 = 360 gpt just from corporations. Add in 4 merchant specialist and that's another 36 gpt totaling just under 400 gold per turn from 1 city. And that's still not including the gold coming in from commerce (which in your main commerce city with + the Free Market trade route should be a substantial amount).

That's a lot of gold, especially if you don't have a very large empire => lower maintenance. You can leave the GP farm to scientists (hopefully having the 3 main science buildings) and there's a nice boost to research for your small civ.