Are colonies any good?

[eldar]

Likewise, if you DON'T have a resource, you can't build something. One favourite trick of some players (I would find it too fiddly, and besides I'd forget...) is to start a turn without any Iron/Saltpeter connected, build a load of Horsemen, connect up the Iron/Saltpeter, upgrade the Horses to Knights/Cavs, then disconnect the Iron/Saltpeter. If your game is at a stage where you've switched off research and have tons of cash, this is more cost efficient than rushing units (3g per shield for upgrades, 1.5g with Leo's, as opposed to 4g per shield for rushing, not taking into account short-rushing).

 

[Decebalus]

I use colonies all the time actually. I find them usefull for use within your controlled territory. I don't mean withing cultural borders, but in cases like this:

Say there's a resource on a range of mountains/hills, or on the edge of a jungle/desert/tundra. Chance are if you're going to build a city to cover it, probably 3-5 of the workable tiles might be on bad terrain. I'd rather build the city a bit off on better terrain layout and place a colony to get to the reasource.

It's why on most maps of mine you'll notice gaps in the cultural borders leaving bad terrain out. There's no reason why bad terrain type should be in a city's working tile set. Mountain gold and those crazy desert river tiles are probably the only exception.