New unit: Colonist

I think a key weakness of G&K is its inability to simulate colonization. Building new cities in the renaissance period is too costly in terms of culture. Besides, at that period you're usually trying to improve happiness or to catch up scientifically.

I think a new military unit to be unlocked at the same time as the caravel would solve the problem. I would call this the colonist. It would have some defense (a bit higher than the scout) and really high mobility. Also, it would have the ability to establish colonies -- cities that don't increase the culture cost of policy or lower happiness. They would produce no science but yield twice the gold and some culture. Perhaps colonists should also be able to convert conquered cities with no land connection to the capital and below a certain population level into colonies, like what the Spaniards did to the Aztecs, Mayas, and Incas.

I would make the colonist a military rather than a civilian unit so it could be bought with faith. Again, I'm thinking of Spain -- excess religious energy from the reconquista.

To simulate the lack of control over early modern colonies, I would make certain buildings or units unavailable in the colonies. For instance, artillery and cavalry; cathedrals; world wonders and national wonders; culture buildings; and defensive buildings (maybe there should be a specific, half-ass defense building like the stockade). Perhaps new policies or techs could eventually unlock them.

Policies and religious beliefs could be redesigned to help the growth or development of colonies. (How about a "dissent" belief that makes colonists cheaper and increases food production in the colonies? Commerce policies to increase gold coming from colonies? )

Once colonies hit a certain size, they would become, depending on whether you have a policy like constitution or democracy, fully independent city-states or 'dominion's -- city-states with which you have 100+ influence. (Earlier colonies would therefore be more likely to be fully independent.) So it should be an interesting choice whether you let the colony grow or try to avoid growth there.

Much simpler: colonists are used to found puppet cities, at which point the unit converts to a worker. You cannot control what the cities build, but get the benefits of resources that the city can access. Like other puppet cities, you can choose later to annex or raze (with corresponding policy costs).

krc said:

Much simpler: colonists are used to found puppet cities, at which point the unit converts to a worker. You cannot control what the cities build, but get the benefits of resources that the city can access. Like other puppet cities, you can choose later to annex or raze (with corresponding policy costs).

Click to expand...

But then there would be no scope for eventual independence. That would make it too easy and not as fun. Also, IIRC puppet states create some unhappiness (they don't always build courthouses) whereas colonies were a way to let off steam for colonizing states.

I like the idea of colonist converting to workers. Makes for faster exploitation of the colonial landscape and less tedium.

It depends on how soon you'd like to try out the idea of a colonist.

With my suggestions above, it should be possible to create a mod to implement just using XML and LUA code. (In theory at least. Just create a a new "colonist" unit or unit class that has the ability to "build city", and use Lua to capture the build event and make the city a puppet and convert the colonist to a worker. I obviously haven't tried this....) This captures the idea of less control from the capital and, with the worker, the idea that you create colonies to gain control of resources.

The independence thing is lot harder to implement, and should perhaps be split off into a separate mechanism that focuses on rebellions. Every puppet city could have a chance to rebel and become a city-state, not just colonies. Distance from the capital, military occupation, length of puppetry, overall happiness/unhappiness could all influence the chance of a rebellion.

Regarding the inability to build national/world wonders, maybe instead of ti being a puppet, you found instead a controllable City-State, which is under you controll, and you controll what you build in it. I also think the Colonist should also found cities with the religion of your nation.

krc said:

It depends on how soon you'd like to try out the idea of a colonist.

With my suggestions above, it should be possible to create a mod to implement just using XML and LUA code. (In theory at least. Just create a a new "colonist" unit or unit class that has the ability to "build city", and use Lua to capture the build event and make the city a puppet and convert the colonist to a worker. I obviously haven't tried this....) This captures the idea of less control from the capital and, with the worker, the idea that you create colonies to gain control of resources.

The independence thing is lot harder to implement, and should perhaps be split off into a separate mechanism that focuses on rebellions. Every puppet city could have a chance to rebel and become a city-state, not just colonies. Distance from the capital, military occupation, length of puppetry, overall happiness/unhappiness could all influence the chance of a rebellion.

Click to expand...

I see your point. I was making a proposal for a new expansion pack or a patch, with the hope that Firaxis sometimes checks this forum for ideas

I like the idea of colonists, but that they cannot build a puppet w/i the range of the farthest city. I miss the old days of founded 3 or 4 cities then giving them independence as a new country. I like the idea of them becoming a CS.

I'd like colonies in the classical era. I think many people forget that Greece, Rome, Carthage, and many classical powers had colonies of their own.

To keep balance, the abilities and what not of the colonist could be expanded over the eras.

more new untis could be thought of UAV i think, what i miss badly to is airial spy's like u2 option or recce sweep over other civilisations

Argive said:

I think a key weakness of G&K is its inability to simulate colonization. Building new cities in the renaissance period is too costly in terms of culture. Besides, at that period you're usually trying to improve happiness or to catch up scientifically.

I think a new military unit to be unlocked at the same time as the caravel would solve the problem. I would call this the colonist. It would have some defense (a bit higher than the scout) and really high mobility. Also, it would have the ability to establish colonies -- cities that don't increase the culture cost of policy or lower happiness. They would produce no science but yield twice the gold and some culture. Perhaps colonists should also be able to convert conquered cities with no land connection to the capital and below a certain population level into colonies, like what the Spaniards did to the Aztecs, Mayas, and Incas.

I would make the colonist a military rather than a civilian unit so it could be bought with faith. Again, I'm thinking of Spain -- excess religious energy from the reconquista.

To simulate the lack of control over early modern colonies, I would make certain buildings or units unavailable in the colonies. For instance, artillery and cavalry; cathedrals; world wonders and national wonders; culture buildings; and defensive buildings (maybe there should be a specific, half-ass defense building like the stockade). Perhaps new policies or techs could eventually unlock them.

Policies and religious beliefs could be redesigned to help the growth or development of colonies. (How about a "dissent" belief that makes colonists cheaper and increases food production in the colonies? Commerce policies to increase gold coming from colonies? )

Once colonies hit a certain size, they would become, depending on whether you have a policy like constitution or democracy, fully independent city-states or 'dominion's -- city-states with which you have 100+ influence. (Earlier colonies would therefore be more likely to be fully independent.) So it should be an interesting choice whether you let the colony grow or try to avoid growth there.

Click to expand...

I think how it works now is just fine. Australia, the USA, Canada etc are all incredibly similar to Britain, the chief coloniser and haven't ventured too far culturally distant.

Also the large majority of colonisation that occurred did not involve settling new cities, but capturing existing cities through military power or keen diplomacy.

I think the system currently reflects it just fine, and if there is a change it should involve tribute systems, vassal states and independence movements rather than any particular colonisation mechanics. Colonisation wasn't as special as everyone seems to think, it was simply a mixture of annexing and settling.

How about the colonist settles a puppeted city-state. If another civ conquers it, they have the option of liberating it.

It's funny, I was thinking of something like this the oher day. Playing mainly on Terra maps since AIs learned to colonize adresses the issue of expansion vs policy costs. If I don't expand, I lag behind because I can't claim new resources and open new trade routes for more gold. I effect, this almost excludes cultural victory if you play on Terra.

I think the idea as a whole is okay but if this idea was implemented in the way you said culture victories would become way to easy and even for people not going cultural getting the social policies you want for the victory you are aiming for would be to easy. I am not saying that the whole idea is bad just that you should probably make it generate 0 culture and 250% gold.

Or Colonists can setup in borders of city states which over time can enforce tribute/protectorate status and influence growth of said city states. But this would require revamped city states which actually grow, expanded border growth.

Or do something with barbarian/tribal states alongside city states.

Just make sure it has Diplomatic events/scenarios which can/could lead to war.

I'd like to see this as the upgrade for both the scout and Settler. Give it some good movements, and extra vision. Have it when it founds a city on another continent that you don't have a city, that city starts as a puppet (maybe even giving that city a "free" granary, walls, library). Also give it the ability to add a population point to a city on another continent from your home - If you build enough of them, you can found a new city that's a bit more usable off the bat.

It'd be nice to see this, as it would make late-game founding cities more useful. It at least gives a different unit for the scout and Settler mid-game, and can make a new city useful off the bat (if you had a few colonists, you can bulk up a new city fairly well).

I think that having a settler/conquistador having the option of forming a colony is a great idea. The puppet state dynamic would work quite well but I think a little bit more control (and thus upkeep) would be good in order to make them worthwhile.

Basically, what I'm envisioning is something in-between an annexed (no courthouse) city and a puppeted city with some more limitations. Every building present in the city would require an additional one gold in upkeep (or a flat xyz amount more) BUT a limited number of buildings would be available to be selected by the player and even a very limited number of units (workers and basic infantry? maybe missionaries?). The player couldn't purchase tiles or they could at a +100% price. The city would increase unhappiness from population/# of cities just like a puppeted city and it wouldn't increase culture required for social policies -- again just like a puppeted CS.

The player would have the option, whenever they wanted, of incorporating (annexing) the colony into their empire, with all the benefits and negatives that brings. It would eliminate the extra upkeep per buildings, but would introduce the possibility of a courthouse upkeep or lotsa unhappiness from unruly citizens. So basically, it would be financially worth it to annex after four-five buildings unless you didn't want the extra unhappiness or increase in social policies.

If you really wanted to get clever, there could be a % chance of colony revolt whenever the civ went into negative happiness and/or financial turmoil.

The game could even give small bonuses to colonies within the social policy system. For example, completing piety would give a free shrine in a colony upon being built; Protectionism within commerce would put a free harbor (seaport as Carthage); Scholasticism would give +1 food in every colony. Those are just brain-droppings, but the idea could be neat. The final three SP trees could have even bigger bonuses so that forming colonies was still worthwhile even in the late game.

Oh and if the SP+colony thing was done, there'd have to be a minimum amount of turns before the player could incorporate the colony into their empire or else players would settle a colony with a bonus, and then incorporate it next turn.

Sorry to res an old post. I was going through the backlog of Polycast episodes and just wanted to say something about this topic of colonization.

I think there's an even more fundamental issue at work here. It isn't just that colonizing new cities after the Renaissance isn't worth the effort because those cities won't become productive in a timely manner. It's also the simple fact that a player typically doesn't need to expand. There's no "expand or die" mechanism. You already have all the luxuries you want (either by owning them yourself, trading for them, or allying with city states). You already have all the strategic resources you want (you have an established military that is based on having X Iron or Y Horses, and you can build resourceless units to beef up your numbers). And there's nothing really new in the "New World". Add to that the fact that any other continent you go to is going to already be populated by civs that are roughly as well-developed as you, and it also becomes impractical to plan a military conquest of that continent.

In order to make post-Medieval colonization practical, the game really needs to change the way it handles resources. You kind of have to look at what were the real-world reasons for overseas colonization. Probably the biggest reason was that the homelands had consumed a great deal of the resources that were available to them in the immediate vicinity, and they felt that they needed to acquire more resources in order to maintain and improve their standard of living. But Civ is a game about additive growth. Your cities always become more productive over time. They never become less productive. You can't consume all your resources. You can't hunt the nearby deer to extinction. You can't mine the nearby iron to depletion. You can't farm the nearby flood plain until the soil is no longer fertile. etc. Without losing the resources that you already have, there is very little (if any) pressure or need to expand.

Brave New World introduced a concept that might work for an expanded colonization system: the ability to trade food and production within your own cities. You use the trade routes to send food and production to new cities in order to make them grow and become productive. This solves the first problem of getting a city up to speed; but it still doesn't solve the more fundamental problem that I raised, which is that you may not have needed to found the new city to begin with.

Eagle Pursuit said:

How about the colonist settles a puppeted city-state. If another civ conquers it, they have the option of liberating it.

Click to expand...

Colonies could create unrest at several levels - to be countered by different options regarding independence/devolution.

Stage 1 for example could be 1 unhappy citizen for every 4 citizens in the colony - on top of normal unhappiness this could be quite painful after a while.

To be negated by granting "devolution" - or "Continental Congress" etc - allowing them effectively to have their own parliament/senate etc. In game - this means that the colony picks its own social policies independently of you?

Next step could be - colonies over the size of 10 create unrest - potential rebels appear - unhappiness increases again.

Next option for the player would be "military crackdown" - create units 25% faster in the cities - or "colonial militias" - allowing city states to create their own units - you cant choose or control them - but unhappiness decreases.

Finally - No Taxation without Representation occurs - massive unrest when colonies reach a certain number on a continent (i.e. 4 colony cities?) - to be challenged by either "Independence" - turns them into puppets - with their own militia which you cannot control - or "War" - turns them into independent cities - with their own militia which then declare war on you. If you win the war - and conquer the cities they become your own cities like any other city in your empire.

Colonies could start as allied City-States.