Advertisement
Civilization Fanatics' Center  

Go Back   Civilization Fanatics' Forums > CIVILIZATION V > Civ5 - General Discussions

Reply
 
Thread Tools
Old Feb 26, 2012, 05:26 AM   #1
JtW
Warlord
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 286
Why is real world colonization a bad idea in CiV?

One (well - not the only one) problem I have with CiV is that its mechanisms don't support colonization as we know it from history.

Even if we set aside the inapt AI that can't coordinate any naval operation, the happiness system discourages settling into the new world. By the time you discover the "new world", you usually have most possible luxuries this way or another, and founding new cities in the new world doesn't present much of an incentive. (I am especially thinking Terra maps with all civs starting in the old world, where there IS a lot of free land to colonize).

How I think this could be fixed:

1) Unique (per continent) luxuries

I think there should be luxury resources that are limited to a single continent, or are VERY scarce in the others. Maybe instead of "Spices" we could have "Pepper", "Cacao", "Coffee" and "Tea", each limited to one continent only (or something along the lines).

2) Population overflow and transfer

One of the real life reasons for colonizing, e.g., America, was the immigration. Currently, every citizen is useful in even the biggest cities (3-hex radius plus specialists). If cities could grow to sizes bigger than that, transferring citizens to new world colonies would be useful.

I think option 2 would be difficult to implement, but I would welcome option 1 in an expansion or at least in a mod.
JtW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2012, 07:14 AM   #2
Zaimejs
King
 
Zaimejs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 935
Rare earth metals later in the game other than aluminum would help with this too. Think about more raw materials that have become super important. Rubber is another one missing from this game.
__________________
To live the unfettered life, first do not fetter others.
Zaimejs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2012, 07:16 AM   #3
Zaimejs
King
 
Zaimejs's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Nebraska
Posts: 935
Another thing that would make colonization more interesting is to have a military unit the could subjugate the natives... like a conquistador. Instead of killing the barbarians, you'd be able to beat them down until they surrender, and then you can have them form a puppet village for your use.
__________________
To live the unfettered life, first do not fetter others.
Zaimejs is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2012, 07:32 AM   #4
joncnunn
Deity
 
joncnunn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 4,051
There's a couple of factors:

1. The Civ V terra script (unlike the Civ IV one) doesn't place more strategic resources in the new world. By your report, it doesn't have enough unique luxuries only found in the new world either.

2. In Civ IV, barbarians had actual cities, which you could then conquer and keep if you wanted. Civ V only has camps.
__________________
Civ III/ IV AI: I sure wish Jon would hurry up and complete his turn, he's been at it for over 1,200,000 milliseconds now.
joncnunn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2012, 07:51 AM   #5
Brichals
King
 
Brichals's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Berlin, D
Posts: 763
More luxuries is not a bad idea actually, they'd have to balance trading accordingly, but I don't see why not. The colonies in Civ4 were good.
__________________
I've had a dream of our peoples future, it was glorious..
Brichals is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2012, 08:18 AM   #6
JtW
Warlord
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 286
Quote:
Originally Posted by joncnunn View Post
There's a couple of factors:

2. In Civ IV, barbarians had actual cities, which you could then conquer and keep if you wanted. Civ V only has camps.
I think City States have taken over this role. The problem is, currently there is almost no incentive to conquer them, and no way to persuade them to join your empire either. That would actually be a nice mechanic - I wouldn't complain if that is what the 'Coup' in G&K is supposed to do.
JtW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 26, 2012, 10:13 AM   #7
Hormagaunt
Warlord
 
Hormagaunt's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 184
Quote:
Originally Posted by JtW View Post
I think City States have taken over this role. The problem is, currently there is almost no incentive to conquer them, and no way to persuade them to join your empire either. That would actually be a nice mechanic - I wouldn't complain if that is what the 'Coup' in G&K is supposed to do.
I agree that City States have taken over the role of Barbarian Cities. It's too bad that they don't do as good a job. In Civ5, the game starts, you've got X City States, and that's all you'll have. In Civ4, as long as they can find room, the barbarians are always starting new cities. And some of them get pretty darned large. I've had to conquer Pop 10 barbarian cities on occasion, and sizes 6-8 fairly often.

A year or so ago (I think) I posted an idea which I still wish they'd implement: If you leave barbarian villages alone long enough, they become new City States. The game would start with none but gradually develop them. And none of this "slider to determine how many". You'd toggle run them or not.

It'd be really funny if they implement that and one day, when the UN vote comes up, the United City States have more votes than the player and the "official" empires, and we all lose.
Hormagaunt is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2012, 07:41 AM   #8
JtW
Warlord
 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Poland
Posts: 286
An interesting idea, Hormagaunt. Although I think this would result in no CSs in most games, as they tend to get eliminated pretty quickly. Or you would only find CSs in undesirable locations and there'd be no incentive to befriend them.
JtW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2012, 12:52 PM   #9
Lochlann
Warlord
 
Lochlann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Andúnië
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by joncnunn View Post
There's a couple of factors:
2. In Civ IV, barbarians had actual cities, which you could then conquer and keep if you wanted. Civ V only has camps.
Related to this, what is the point of the Barbarian Settler unit? Does it simply create another camp? That would seem pointless, given that the camps are able to spring up on their own anyway. Yet I've never seen a Barbarian City in Civ V.
Lochlann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2012, 04:48 PM   #10
CivilizedPlayer
Warlord
 
CivilizedPlayer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Posts: 221
Barbarian settler units are just captured settlers from other civs. They just go to the nearest camp and sit there.
CivilizedPlayer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2012, 06:07 PM   #11
Lochlann
Warlord
 
Lochlann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Andúnië
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by CivilizedPlayer View Post
Barbarian settler units are just captured settlers from other civs. They just go to the nearest camp and sit there.
Really? That's odd. When settlers are captured by other players, who would actually be able to use them as settlers, they are transformed into workers...but when settlers are captured by barbarians, who cannot use the unit, they stay as settlers? Huh. I know that barbarians can't use workers either, so it's all the same to them, but it just seems odd when looked at from this point of view.

I definitely prefer Civ IV's concept of Barbarian cities, complete with workers and whatnot.
Lochlann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2012, 07:53 PM   #12
steave435
Chieftain
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 96
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochlann View Post
Really? That's odd. When settlers are captured by other players, who would actually be able to use them as settlers, they are transformed into workers...but when settlers are captured by barbarians, who cannot use the unit, they stay as settlers? Huh. I know that barbarians can't use workers either, so it's all the same to them, but it just seems odd when looked at from this point of view.

I definitely prefer Civ IV's concept of Barbarian cities, complete with workers and whatnot.
Yeah, it also means that you can re-capture a settler from the barbarians. A settler that originally belonged to an another civ will turn into a worker (or maybe stay a settler if you choose to return it to the original owner?), but if it was taken from you, you get it back without having it turn into a worker.
steave435 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 27, 2012, 07:55 PM   #13
krc
King
 
krc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 812
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lochlann View Post
Really? That's odd. When settlers are captured by other players, who would actually be able to use them as settlers, they are transformed into workers...but when settlers are captured by barbarians, who cannot use the unit, they stay as settlers? Huh. I know that barbarians can't use workers either, so it's all the same to them, but it just seems odd when looked at from this point of view.
If they are recaptured by the original owner, then they remain settlers. If taken from the barbarians by a different civ, then they convert to workers. Not sure if that makes sense, but it is the mechanism they implemented.
__________________
Friends are just enemies I don't have a strategy for eliminating yet. --R. Stevens
krc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2012, 12:29 AM   #14
Lochlann
Warlord
 
Lochlann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Andúnië
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by steave435 View Post
Yeah, it also means that you can re-capture a settler from the barbarians. A settler that originally belonged to an another civ will turn into a worker (or maybe stay a settler if you choose to return it to the original owner?), but if it was taken from you, you get it back without having it turn into a worker.
Quote:
Originally Posted by krc
If they are recaptured by the original owner, then they remain settlers. If taken from the barbarians by a different civ, then they convert to workers. Not sure if that makes sense, but it is the mechanism they implemented.
That possibility occurred to me immediately upon posting my last reply. Thanks for confirming! (And sorry for mini-hijacking the thread...)
Lochlann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 28, 2012, 01:25 AM   #15
kaltorak
Emperor
 
kaltorak's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Madrid
Posts: 1,222
I agree, colonization is, or should be, a very fun aspect of the game. But it is not worth it.
kaltorak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 05:38 AM   #16
Horizons
King of the Ring
 
Horizons's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: UK
Posts: 1,120
I agree definitely that the solution should be to have new luxuries resources that are ONLY available in the 'New World'.
Horizons is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 01:50 PM   #17
krc
King
 
krc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Posts: 812
Maybe it's just that none of the maps really support colonization well. If you have civilizations starting on every land mass at the same time and have to wait until astronomy to get to another continent, then all the territory is going to be occupied by civs at your technological level by the time you get there.

Suppose there were a "continents-like" map that had two larger continents (with half the AI civs starting on each one, along with most of the CS) and two slightly smaller continents (with only barbarians and maybe a few CS). If you combined this with luxuries that were unique to each continent, then there would be a better chance of having some place that you'd actually want to plant colonies.
__________________
Friends are just enemies I don't have a strategy for eliminating yet. --R. Stevens
krc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 29, 2012, 01:57 PM   #18
bonafide11
Worker
 
bonafide11's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: STL
Posts: 2,889
Quote:
Originally Posted by krc View Post
Maybe it's just that none of the maps really support colonization well. If you have civilizations starting on every land mass at the same time and have to wait until astronomy to get to another continent, then all the territory is going to be occupied by civs at your technological level by the time you get there.

Suppose there were a "continents-like" map that had two larger continents (with half the AI civs starting on each one, along with most of the CS) and two slightly smaller continents (with only barbarians and maybe a few CS). If you combined this with luxuries that were unique to each continent, then there would be a better chance of having some place that you'd actually want to plant colonies.
The terra map actually would work quite well for colonization of the other continent, but unfortunately there's really no motive to go settle over there except to meet the other city-states and kill off some barbarians. I only played it once (because it was so boring), but the AI showed little interest in colonizing the "new world" continent either. I agree what needs to happen is to have some additional and rare resources that provide significant bonuses found only on the other continent.
__________________
The only constant is change.
bonafide11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 01, 2012, 01:26 AM   #19
Lochlann
Warlord
 
Lochlann's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Location: Andúnië
Posts: 259
Quote:
Originally Posted by krc View Post
Suppose there were a "continents-like" map that had two larger continents (with half the AI civs starting on each one, along with most of the CS) and two slightly smaller continents (with only barbarians and maybe a few CS). If you combined this with luxuries that were unique to each continent, then there would be a better chance of having some place that you'd actually want to plant colonies.
I had a situation similar to this during my current game: two huge continents, with the civs fairly evenly split between them, and one smaller "sub-continent" very close to one of them. (The one I began on.) This sub-continent was located way too close to be deemed a "new world," but for whatever reason, the way it worked out is that the land remained virtually pristine until well into the Renaissance era, save for a few city-states. Kind of odd, really. Although, my Renaissance Era began well before the others'; the "new world" feeling I had would likely have been very different had we all been progressing equally.
Lochlann is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Mar 01, 2012, 02:02 AM   #20
Tantor
Warlord
 
Tantor's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Norway
Posts: 215
This one of the best ideas I`ve seen in a long time. Maybe it could be an expansion on its own? To implement this they should really work through the game mechanics to make new features like
- migration and immigration
- intercontinental trade system
- region specific reources
- colonization of existing population in the new world
- range system for ships - makes it important to have ports all over the world like the British Empire had
- civil wars, colonila wars and wars of independence
- different forms of goverment at home and in the colonies

This could be really nice.
Tantor is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Go Back Civilization Fanatics' Forums > CIVILIZATION V > Civ5 - General Discussions > Why is real world colonization a bad idea in CiV?

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Advertisement

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 08:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
This site is copyright © Civilization Fanatics' Center.
Support CFC: Amazon.com | Amazon UK | Amazon DE | Amazon CA | Amazon FR