Civ4: NO "build-city" order anymore. ONLY "build colony" order

(1)
It is to restricitve for modders that we have the max of 2-units-at-start. Why not make a list to which we can add the starting units.



(2)
We need to get rid of the "build city" order. It is just a bit ridiculous.
I mean: let assume you play with a large real world map. How much cities would england (1200 ad) have. Just 2 where there is hardly any place for the scots who have just 1 city (at a bad location).

Instead of that we need only the "build colony" order. Colonies can turn into cities by:
- if a trade flow goes trough it
- lies at a river
- Some good resources are in its location
this are just ideas. not the holy grail

Colonies also need a harbor function by default. Useful for starting oversea trading posts.

How would a new game look:
You start with
- 1 worker *
- 2 colonization settlers *
- 3 warriors
You build 2 colonies at a good location. After that you gonna look for a friendly tribe and you build a road to that. Now your "civ" is connected to the tribe AND trade is abstract => you can trade with them.
As mentioned before due to the trade, good location and probably a river your colony (or maybe the other too) will turn into a city (just a city as in civ1+2+3) and you can just play.

Of course you want to trade expand conquer etc.
But the restriction is that you can't just rush cities and become big. You have to do it by settling colonies and hope that they will flip into a city.



This is alll very realisitc.
Look at Carthage (a phoenician colony) which builded colonies too (in Spain).
The greeks did it.
The romans did it
The english did it.
etc
etc.

Lots of those colonies turned into prosperous cities.


Remark:
There colonies generate a little bit of science => you can start research from the start.
They almost act the same as in Civ3 except that harbor function + they need a cultural radius of radius=0.



* Workers can't build colonies anymore. Settlers act the same as in Civ3 but now they build a colony and their population cost is 1 instead of 2.




<important edit:>
new idea: Rivers should act as a connection for the trade-network too.
eg: If a city or colony lies at a riverbank then it is connected with another city or colony which also lies at a riverbank (of the same river of course).
</important edit:>

The editor allows you to start with more than two units if you so choose.

Great idea man!
With a little work on it, this could be a real great realism enhancer!
But I think that city formation should be quick, say the first turn after this new basic type of trade runs through a colony, it turns into a city... Remember that turns span for years at a time...
Also if the colony is built on a river, within two turns it turns into a city, or if there's a road to it then only one turn...
And then there could be advances later on to make colonies turn into cities quicker... Also perhaps distance from your borders could be an issue when determining how long it would take to form a city...
The potential is huge, the idea just needs some work...

the restriction is that you can't just rush cities abd become big. You have to do it by settling colonies and hope

Click to expand...

Ay, there 's the rub...
I wasn't there at the time, but I think the Carthagians and others you mentioned had the realistic intention that their colonies would grow in size and culture and be very lively cities in their own right very soon, also/especially those on distant islands.

Originally posted by ShadowFlame
Great idea man!
With a little work on it, this could be a real great realism enhancer!

Click to expand...

thanks

But I think that city formation should be quick, say the first turn after this new basic type of trade runs through a colony, it turns into a city...

Click to expand...

yes but not too quick

Remember that turns span for years at a time...

Click to expand...

I create my own mods and at 2050 AD im still in the ancient era. Lots of fun

Also if the colony is built on a river, within two turns it turns into a city, or if there's a road to it then only one turn...

Click to expand...

new idea: Rivers should act as a connection for the trade-network too.
eg: If a city or colony lies at a riverbank then it is connected with another city or colony which also lies at a riverbank (of the same river of course).

And then there could be advances later on to make colonies turn into cities quicker... Also perhaps distance from your borders could be an issue when determining how long it would take to form a city...
The potential is huge, the idea just needs some work...

Click to expand...

yes it is quite good.

Originally posted by ivory


Ay, there 's the rub...
I wasn't there at the time, but I think the Carthagians and others you mentioned had the realistic intention that their colonies would grow in size and culture and be very lively cities in their own right very soon, also/especially those on distant islands.

Click to expand...

not always but sometimes that might be the intention. What is the problem?

You have a tax bar for colonies. The higher the taxrate the more likely they will separate. Colonies which lie at gold generate very high taxes.

I think there should be a taxbar for cities too. In the current game the taxes is fxed and you can set the percentage of which goes to science, treasury and entertainment.
Taxrate would be better.

==============================================

If a colony lies at a mountian then it can't switch to a city.

brief summary of the colony functions:

(1) Access to resources which are out of your cultural borders.

(2) As an oversea trade-post so you don't have to build and manage a city.

(3) The only way (except maybe from the beginning) to get a city (if the colony is succesful).

==============================================

The fact that you can't even build a city in the beginning is negotiable. If you want we can start with 1 city-settler. But for all the other cities you should do it by having succesful colonies.

==============================================

In Civ3 colonies dissapear if they come in the cultural border of a rival nation. This is very annoying, not realistic and not funny.
Please prevent this. Give them a cultural border of radius 0.

Of course they can flip to the rival civ by culture just like cities can flip.

==============================================

The game could start at 6000 BC

Originally posted by Ultraworld
What is the problem?

Click to expand...

The idea I was trying to convey in my earlier post is that in real world situations there is no distinct difference between settlements and colonies. The concept of a colony as a separate entity is a nice Firaxian idea. Wherever there are people and there is sufficient food and such, they will multiply - except in a Medieval fortress where there only males.

that in real world situations there is no distinct difference between settlements and colonies.

Click to expand...

So the unificational theory about cities and colonies is this:
cities of size 1 should act as colonies and when they grow (due to factors I gave) beyond one they should have all the city abilities.
There settlers cost 2 population you will think twice about spreading the world full of 1 size cities (= colonies).



I still really like those colonies.

Originally posted by Ultraworld


So the unificational theory about cities and colonies is this:
cities of size 1 should act as colonies and when they grow (due to factors I gave) beyond one they should have all the city abilities.
There settlers cost 2 population you will think twice about spreading the world full of 1 size cities (= colonies).

Click to expand...

We gonna make this theory more general:
In the editor we should be able to set the behaviour of a "settlement" by size:

size settlement: [A, B] -> act as . . . . . (fill in yourself)




eg:
settlement size: {1} -> act as colony
settlement size: [2, infinity] -> act as city

I think that you should be the ability to build cities, but there should be some MAJOR bonuses to being on a trade route (Look at Mecca or Byzantium-they were both on major trade routes).
I do not think that colonies are necessarily cities, they are merely land held by a nation that provides some strategic advantage like a special resource that would be shipped to the mainland. In order to get wealthy, settlers would move to the area where a lot of jobs were open. I also think that the cultural significance of an area would make more emigrants. But if leader commanded a group of people to found a city, a city would be founded. Your idea is good but t would be a problem in OCCs and I think that the build city icon should be availiable.

I think this is TOO complex.

I want to keep it the way it is.

Nice thought though!

Reminds me of Europa Universalis, great idea. Perhaps we'll see that in Civ IV.

That rivers as traderoutes idea could easily be added to Civ III as well. So if anyone from Firaxis is reading this, maybe that could be in Conquests...

Surely a smaller town (ie size 1 newly built) is just the same? You improve it by building temples and libraries, it's cultural boundries grow and the town itself expands in population... it just sounds like you are renaming new towns to colonies and saying that they must have more geographical "plusses" to be alowed to expand, which is taking things too far away from the player. When taking things out of the players hands, it becomes less of an interactive game and more like "playing" the lottery.

Sorry if I have misunderstood.

That rivers as traderoutes idea could easily be added to Civ III as well. So if anyone from Firaxis is reading this, maybe that could be in Conquests...

Click to expand...

+ the harbor function so they can act as oversea trade posts
+ re-trade (check my sign)

Surely a smaller town (ie size 1 newly built) is just the same?

Click to expand...

No cause you can't build buildings/units. You can only do that when the settlement grows beyond 1.
+
You know that a city of size one will grow, not very fast but eventually it will grow and expand (very boring and predictable).
With colonies not. Thy might grow but sometimes not

it becomes less of an interactive game and more like "playing" the lottery.

Click to expand...

No cause you can send trade routs through it and/or put it at a good locations

it becomes less of an interactive game and more like "playing" the lottery.

I think that would be a good thing since it would make the game less predictable.

Great Civ IV suggestions.

You could mod Civ III to make Settlers prohibitively more expensive but workers stay the same. This would at least increase the actual occurance of colonies.
I wish colonies could eventually become cities, and that building a city over someone's colony would result in at least an increase in diplomatic tension.

Originally posted by SewerStarFish
Great Civ IV suggestions.

You could mod Civ III to make Settlers prohibitively more expensive but workers stay the same. This would at least increase the actual occurance of colonies.
I wish colonies could eventually become cities, and that building a city over someone's colony would result in at least an increase in diplomatic tension.

Click to expand...

This would seriously cripple the AI, because it would just keep on building these very expensive settlers, and so it would fall behind very quickly.

I of course imply that the AI will magically know how to use the new features.

I'm sure the programmers could just whip up a new AI to satisfy my needs