Building Cities on Enemy Colonies = War?

[Trinity]

Colonies are useless unless they are in an area where building a city would be useless. Why build a colony when you've already got to build a road and send a worker and garrison to it and can easily send a settler? Makes no sense to me.

 

[warpstorm]

Corruption can make it not worth building a city, so a colony may be a good choice. The AI usually won't do the devious ploy of putting a city next to your colony just to grab it. In MP, I'd always use a city.

 

[MrBiggBoy]

yes, if all you want to do is get a resource, just use a colony and it eliminates corruption, and it only costs 1 pop. I use them all the time if I need uranium, coal, or gems in mountains, or if i nearly exceed corruptrion limit.

 

[Andre]

It is in my opinion potentially war, for it's essentially foreign infiltration and in a sense invasion,though not directly military, into foreign ground and territory.

 

[TheNiceOne]

I've got another idea, which will also solve this problem:

Colonies should have a one-square culture area radius, just like a new-built city. They should flip automatically if inside another civ's culture influence if not having any military presence, but would never flip if having military presence.

They should also flip if an enemy civ enters the colony with any military unit.

This way, colonies would actually be useful, and there could be war over them, just like in the real world.

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by TheNiceOne
I've got another idea, which will also solve this problem:

Colonies should have a one-square culture area radius, just like a new-built city. They should flip automatically if inside another civ's culture influence if not having any military presence, but would never flip if having military presence.

They should also flip if an enemy civ enters the colony with any military unit.

This way, colonies would actually be useful, and there could be war over them, just like in the real world.

I think that would be better than the way it works now, at least playing against the AI. So if a city gets built right next to your colony with a military unit, it gets surrounded like West Berlin in the 1960s? Since the other guy now owns territory around you, especially if the city expands, the other civ can legally destroy the roads you built and your cities won't have access to the resource any more. But at least you have the chance to bring a settler and connect your resource to a city before the other guy can do that. It might start a contest to see who can swallow the other like the Japanese game Go.

 

[JoeM]

Why are you guys comparing Berlin to a colony?! How irrelevant!

I voted yes, but then again the issue is more complicated, for example in the recent GOTM a I placed a new city by the borders of an opponent and the cultural border it produced meant that I 'stole' a luxury. Nobody thinks this an act of war, so why should colonies be different?

 

[Chingis Khan]

I voted no. I think colonies are intended to be a "quick fix" to get hold of that desperately needed resource ASAP while you build a settler to properly claim the land. Anybody who thinks they can hold onto a colony for the length of the game deserves to lose it.

 

[Paalikles]

I suppose colonies on uninhabitable landmasses (spelling?)
like a tiny island will be more likely when PTW is released - then you may build an airfield to connect your colony to your empire...probably

I agree - colonies can be implemented as a strategy to temporarily secure a resource, while your settler is in production.

I just lost control of a colony of incense to the zulu, who built a city one square away from it...then I built a city next to his, and will culture-flip him soon I hope...don't think I'll need incence - my ppl are HAPPY !

 

[kring]

I only rarely build colonies, but if I do, I will only do it if I plan to send a settler to fast; and I don't trade world/territory maps in the meantime. I also try and use the multi unit blockers teams. Interposing 3-5 units as blockers to steer other civs' settlers teams from those areas when I can. I am currently using this technique to prevent settling lands I believe deserve to be part of my domain.

I will have to give it more thought, since reading the posts so far has given me more to think about.

If a city is plopped down that immediately takes territory would be considered an act of war, as opposed to a city that gradually takes over some of your border, then I would say yes plopping a city down to gain a colony would be an act of war. This would also hold true, though if any of your border was so taken by a city being plopped down, but not if the land was culturally acquired later.