Roland Johansen
Deity
Beyond the Sword introduced a new concept called colonies which are a special kind of vassals. You can voluntarily release some of your cities on a continent/island that doesn't contain your capital and these cities then form a loyal vassal.
To encourage the creation of colonies by the player and AI nations alike, colonial expenses were introduced into the game. You will face these additional city maintenance costs when you found more than one city on a continent which doesn't have your capital. You will never face colonial expenses if you only build cities on one continent.
In my personal opinion, the colonial expenses are too high. They are purely related to the presence of the capital on the land mass of the city and therefore can disrupt game play on maps with multiple islands and continents. If you start on a large land mass, then you can get a huge empire without ever having to face colonial expenses. But if you start the game on one of the smaller islands, then expansion to other islands can become extremely expensive even if the other islands are just one tile distant from your starting continent. If you build some cities on a continent that is not your starting continent (with the capital), then colonial expenses can get as high as 100 gold per turn per city. This number is before the cost reducing effect of courthouses, but also before the cost increasing effect of inflation which can easily more than undo the effect of courthouses in the late game (inflation rates of 200-300%).
Of course, I know that one can create a colony out of the newly created cities on the new continent. But it was advertised as being a choice. When costs are as high as 100 gold per turn per city, then there isn't much of a choice. Some of us civ players want to create a huge multi continent empire and that isn't going to be feasible with such high costs.
Before Beyond the Sword, it was already true that starting on a small continent was a disadvantage because you couldn't get foreign trade routes with anyone until you got contact with oversees nations (which could be as late a astronomy). Other disadvantages include the lack of different resources to keep your citizens happy and healthy and the lack of technology trading. It also makes early conquest impossible. Now you can add to that, that any significant oversees conquest or colonisation will bankrupt you.
I think that this was unintended as the designers at Firaxis have chosen to cap 'number of cities maintenance' at a manageable level (5 at noble level, 8 at deity). Clearly, it wasn't the intention to completely prevent expansion into huge empires, just to slow it down. However, they have set the colonial expenses cap at an unmanageable level of 100 which contradicts their earlier choice for maps with multiple continents/islands.
Because one picture can tell more than a thousand words, I've added a screenshot of an empire that I've created with the world builder. The screenshot is of one of the 9 cities on an island that doesn't contain the palace. I didn't add any buildings and terrain improvements to the cities, so they are starving and unhappy and all, but that isn't the point. It's just about the maintenance costs.
You can see that the distance maintenance is significant too in this case because this continent is pretty distant from the starting continent. However, this distance doesn't effect the colonial expenses. They would be exactly as high if the continents were just next to one another.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/31106/Colonial_expenses.JPG
I'll also upload the world builder game that I created (BTS version 1.02, no mods):
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/31106/Colony_upkeep.CivBeyondSwordSave
I've also added the Forbidden Palace and Versailles to the continent that doesn't contain the Capital to show that it doesn't effect colonial expenses (it does effect distance maintenance like the Palace).
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/31106/Colony_upkeep_2.CivBeyondSwordSave
Solution 1:
In my opinion, colonial expenses should be related to the distance of the colony. So instead of capping the colonial expenses at a maximum of 100, I would cap it at the distance from palace cost level of the city. That way, colonial expenses could double the distance cost of oversees cities and that would be expensive for distant cities, but if you colonise a few islands just next to your starting continent or expand into an adjacent continent, then it wouldn't hurt very much.
Solution 2:
Lower the colonial expenses cap from 100 to 20. Simple, but not as elegant as solution 1. It would still make colonies expensive, but manageable.
For mod creators or players who want to mess with this colonial expenses cap: The colonial expenses cap is stored in the CIV4HandicapInfo.xml file and is called iMaxColonyMaintenance. It is set at 100 at every difficulty level which means that colonial expenses can't grow above 100 per city.
To encourage the creation of colonies by the player and AI nations alike, colonial expenses were introduced into the game. You will face these additional city maintenance costs when you found more than one city on a continent which doesn't have your capital. You will never face colonial expenses if you only build cities on one continent.
In my personal opinion, the colonial expenses are too high. They are purely related to the presence of the capital on the land mass of the city and therefore can disrupt game play on maps with multiple islands and continents. If you start on a large land mass, then you can get a huge empire without ever having to face colonial expenses. But if you start the game on one of the smaller islands, then expansion to other islands can become extremely expensive even if the other islands are just one tile distant from your starting continent. If you build some cities on a continent that is not your starting continent (with the capital), then colonial expenses can get as high as 100 gold per turn per city. This number is before the cost reducing effect of courthouses, but also before the cost increasing effect of inflation which can easily more than undo the effect of courthouses in the late game (inflation rates of 200-300%).
Of course, I know that one can create a colony out of the newly created cities on the new continent. But it was advertised as being a choice. When costs are as high as 100 gold per turn per city, then there isn't much of a choice. Some of us civ players want to create a huge multi continent empire and that isn't going to be feasible with such high costs.
Before Beyond the Sword, it was already true that starting on a small continent was a disadvantage because you couldn't get foreign trade routes with anyone until you got contact with oversees nations (which could be as late a astronomy). Other disadvantages include the lack of different resources to keep your citizens happy and healthy and the lack of technology trading. It also makes early conquest impossible. Now you can add to that, that any significant oversees conquest or colonisation will bankrupt you.
I think that this was unintended as the designers at Firaxis have chosen to cap 'number of cities maintenance' at a manageable level (5 at noble level, 8 at deity). Clearly, it wasn't the intention to completely prevent expansion into huge empires, just to slow it down. However, they have set the colonial expenses cap at an unmanageable level of 100 which contradicts their earlier choice for maps with multiple continents/islands.
Because one picture can tell more than a thousand words, I've added a screenshot of an empire that I've created with the world builder. The screenshot is of one of the 9 cities on an island that doesn't contain the palace. I didn't add any buildings and terrain improvements to the cities, so they are starving and unhappy and all, but that isn't the point. It's just about the maintenance costs.
You can see that the distance maintenance is significant too in this case because this continent is pretty distant from the starting continent. However, this distance doesn't effect the colonial expenses. They would be exactly as high if the continents were just next to one another.
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/31106/Colonial_expenses.JPG
I'll also upload the world builder game that I created (BTS version 1.02, no mods):
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/31106/Colony_upkeep.CivBeyondSwordSave
I've also added the Forbidden Palace and Versailles to the continent that doesn't contain the Capital to show that it doesn't effect colonial expenses (it does effect distance maintenance like the Palace).
http://forums.civfanatics.com/uploads/31106/Colony_upkeep_2.CivBeyondSwordSave
Solution 1:
In my opinion, colonial expenses should be related to the distance of the colony. So instead of capping the colonial expenses at a maximum of 100, I would cap it at the distance from palace cost level of the city. That way, colonial expenses could double the distance cost of oversees cities and that would be expensive for distant cities, but if you colonise a few islands just next to your starting continent or expand into an adjacent continent, then it wouldn't hurt very much.
Solution 2:
Lower the colonial expenses cap from 100 to 20. Simple, but not as elegant as solution 1. It would still make colonies expensive, but manageable.
For mod creators or players who want to mess with this colonial expenses cap: The colonial expenses cap is stored in the CIV4HandicapInfo.xml file and is called iMaxColonyMaintenance. It is set at 100 at every difficulty level which means that colonial expenses can't grow above 100 per city.