Colonies

Whiskey Priest

Warlord
Joined
Oct 6, 2001
Messages
297
What's the deal with colonies? In order to get the resources you have to build a road to connect them with the rest of your empire. But can you build city improvements in colonies, like say a harbor so you can have overseas colonies? I'm kind of wary of colonies in civ3, it seems as though they were an after thought to the new Trade/Resource system. While I do not object to the idea of having them in civ3 I think that the Idea needs to be further developed (colonies don't become unhappy? I beg to differ).
 
I didn't hear it. Was asking if you COULD. In the infocenter it says that resources must be connected to the capital by road, harbour or airport. So if a colony CANNOT build city improvements it will be forced to use roads, thus eliminating overseas colonies.
 
Sorry if I missed lead you, but I am not an expert on the colony system. So you say taht a colony is really a kind of attached to an individual city, like a unit. I thought when the worker created a colony it became and independant semi-city, not mearly a unit carrying out a function like fortifying.
 
like those pods in SMAC?
 
Originally posted by spycatcher34
If the cultural border hasnt extended far enough you build the colony to gather the resource.

Pardon me for not knowing the details. Do cities expand their resource squares according to the culture border? If so, then is there a limit on it?
 
I'm hardly the expert either. Pods in SMAC? I play smac but dont quite get what you mean. WaP yes like the more culture points you get the cities border expandes by x amount of squares. Oh wait i get what you mean in smac YES YES thats exactly what it is supply crawlers! Wow i should of said that right off:)
 
I don't think they work like supply crawlers:

"A worker creates a colony in the same way a settler creates a city."

I got that from the Infocenter. So essentially a colony is a city. But with limitations. now my question is:

If a colony's purpose is gain access to resources from inside or outside (?) your borders, do colonies across a sea or ocean from your capital have to (or can they even?) build a harbor so that resources can be shared with you Civ?
 
"To access any good, you need to build a road to that good. That good must also be connected to your capitol in some way, be it by road, harbor, or airport. If the good in question lies outside of your borders, you will also need to build a colony on that square"

so how do you "access" goods that are overseas? do you have to build a city? or can you build a harbor in a colony?
 
IM gettin what you mean, even though some people seem to be dense(just jokin :lol: ) i really dont know. i think you SHOULD be able to have harbors in them; maybe a dialogue that says if you want a harbor in it, or maybe it automatically happens when next to a shore? it would be a great addition, and a realistic one, with great gameplay changes...

...imagine, you have a small colony on another continent. you have to keep it from being destroyed because its giving you all the horses you have to build your army. only one thing... its across the big ocean, and hard to get to. you have to keep a lot of forces near it to keep it from being destroyed.:D

wouldnt that be cool!
 
You cant build anything in the colony. To attach an oversea colony to the mother land, you must build a town near your colony and then build an airport or an harbour in the city. The colony is a city of 1 of population. When you cultural border is beyond the colony, the colony disapear and the ressorce is your for ever ( until the ennemy gain control of your city)
 
Thanks Redsox! I'm not opposed to a colony system being in Civ3 but I would like to see a little more thought put into it. By the way if you think its tough being a redsox fan in New Jersey, try being one in Canada :D, DUQUETTE MUST DIE!!!!! ]:)
 
But why have colonies if you have to put a city by it? Why not just put the city by the resource?
 
Originally posted by Whisket Priest
But why have colonies if you have to put a city by it? Why not just put the city by the resource?

Well, for starters, cities (settlers) cost two population and 40 shields, while colonies (workers) cost one population and 20 shields. So it's cheaper to build a colony. Also, the worker that builds the colony can build the road that links it to your empire. Settlers can't build roads, so building a city by a distant resource will require both a settler and a worker.

Before there are aircraft, you'll have to link an overseas resource to your nation via harbors. If you want to claim a resource that is distant from the coast, you'll need a city on the coast with a harbor and a road linking to a colony or city near the resource. Again, it will be much cheaper to use one worker to build a road to the resource and then found a colony than to build a city by the resource.
 
I understand. When they say colony they are not referring merely to an overseas land claim (like say Hong Kong, before Chinese took over) They colony is jsut where resources are harnessed and then they are shipped to the city with a harbor then to the capital. OK So in a sense a colony would be like the furtrading forts down the St. Laurence during the 16th and 17th century, they have to be shipped to Quebec and then they would be went back to France. Gotcha :goodjob:
 
Good topic guys...

I always wanted to access the resources in the Artic or Antarctic but building a CITY out there is just ridiculous (although I sometimes did it for strategic purposes)... So when I heard about the colony system, I got really excited! Unfortunately I think you do need to link it to a city with a harbour in order to gain the benefit. (how disappointing)

Question: Do colonies count as “friendly cities” when calculating unhappiness caused by absent units??
 
Should be useful but can you link unlimited colonies to the same port? or is it dependant on how large the city is?
 
Back
Top Bottom