Colonization Effect

[Nuk_um]

I am not sure that anyone suggest this idea yet.

In the case that England expand the torritory and become the United State. this effect seems to be neglected in all CIV. the Colonization game was releasesd saperately but never integrate with CIV.

this effect is very important to the world. In real world, the nation can be fluid and being tranformed from time to time. however, this idea is very hard to implement but this is the point that CIV4 should consider.

Nuk_um

 

[rhialto]

Um, could you explain in more detail? I can't tell through your bad grammar and vague wording exactly what change you want to see in the game.

Welcome to the forum btw.

 

[Yuri2356]

Would seem to connect to an Idea I posted a while back about allowing nations to form effective 'colonies' in which a number of cities are bonded togeather into a sort of sub-nation with its own capital to reduce corruption. These colony nations would effectively be a part of your civ, but most of their lesser functions would be locked in an automated state to show that they self-govern. Similar to the various colonies of the British Empire, (Pre-Rev America, Canada, India, Austrailia, ect.) Control of the colonies would be limited to a number of generic commands, which could be issued via a 'colonial advisor' of some sort, like: "Attack CivX", "Develop industry", "Explore area", and "Build city here". On their own, the colony would produce a small 'colonial malitia' of 1-3 defence units per city, unless otherwise ordered to mobilize.

If a colony was poorly cared for my the mother country, it would eventually become discontent and may even rebell and form a new nation. (Ie America) This nation would be locked in a state of war with you for X number of turns and would hate your civ for an extended period of time.

On the other hand, if your colony was doing quite well on its own and you no longer needed it, you could give it independance. (Like the rest of the Commonwealth) The new nation would be in a locked alliance for some time, and more willing to give beter deals to you.

The main up of this system is: Lowering corruption. By breaking your vast global emprire into numerous colony-states you could keep a nice effecient system going at the cost of a bit of player control.

 

[Nuk_um]

Sorry about my English,

I still not have any solid idea about how it is gonna work. I think the effect of colonization is very important and may change how the way CIV works!

I agree with the concept of sub-nation but in the different way. i think it could be done in the way that when the nation research some of the knowledge (ex: colinization). the player can establish the colonization which can equal to have sub-capital oversea or contuinue establish the new city (with bad performance). The colony will benefit in terms of trade or wealth of the nation more that establish jus new city. At that piont, the player can play both main civilization and colony. However, when the colony become more strong ( larger area or army power), the effieciency of colony will be less than the main civlization and force player to pick to play the old one or new one by using "independence" command. if using this command, it can be pros and cons. the old civilization which we use to play will be come "hostile" to us in a few turns and convert to be allies later. However, all enemy will become forget what the bad thing that we used to do. The enemy to the old civization will become allies (eg. French).

Overall, the new civilization will grow in the faster rate. the access to the some knowledge or wonder that can not be done by the nation that never use indepedence.


Previously, we have fun and passionate about playing CIV because our nation grow effectively and dominate other civilizations. this concept force player to leave what they just built and start all over again at the mid point of the game which is the new concept. however, the system will reward the person who be able to risk and past the second rebuilt.

all the concept is based on US case but may be have to adjust in the case of Australia and Latin America.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Well I think that Revolutions from distant colonies (even where the natives weren't conquered, but annihilated and people from the homeland colonized like in US) should be Included, but I think that the American Revolution should be considered a failure from the British "player's" standpoint.

If a British player really wanted to 'Play' the US they would give the colonists a better situation (by changing the government of either Britain or the Colonies {because I think individual cities should have their own government} to something that would have kept the rebels happy)

If we are going to allow changing the Civ you are playing in midgame, then I think that there needs to be some rules that makes it more general. (something to affect the Scoring mechanism, so that switching from the UK to the US in 1776 gives you a Big bonus (because you switched to a weaker position)..but switching from the UK to the US in 1950 gives you a penalty (because you switched to a stronger position))

This could also require a differentiation between Civ Score and Player Score (doable, but complicated)

One final point, the US is in a fairly unique condition for the modern world..the immigrants from a homeland that still has the original population outnumber the natives in massive numbers. This is because
There was a MASSIVE power and population disparity between the Natives and the colonizers to begin with (or at least shortly after contact with diseases and such)

This wasn't true anywhere else in the world,
Large portions of Australia and Canada aren't suitable for agriculture, and so weren't used as mass population dumping grounds compared to the American Colonies.
Most other parts of the world were conquered rather than Colonized by Europeans, Latin America comes close to a halfway mark, because of the large but Excessively technologically disadvantaged populations.

The US is one of the few cases where
1. A minority of the population consists of people conquered by the colonizer (really only US/Canada/Australia/NZ meet this qualification)
and
2. The colony is more/comparably powerful than the Homeland/Previous owner (only the US, India, China, parts of Latin America might barely count in this)

Making it the only case where a nation 'mothered' a country that exceeded it..more often the country was 'forcibly adopted' and then 'ran away from home'

 

[Nuk_um]

the idea of swithing from strong to weak and get the score is a good idea. however, i believe that it should be simple role which can be applied to the game.

the different effect of US and Latin America may can be solved be the leader characteristic. For example, English has "Expansionist" which may profit to colonization effect.

The occupied city should have the status that become "colonized" . it means that that city still not fully controlled by the occupied nation. if city will convert to the ocupied nation with a certain turn or some criteria.

the colonized city will have middle status which can convert back to original nation, occupied nation, or new nation but it may make the game extremely complicate.

what do you think