Aug 7, 2005
While I play civilization it always cracks me up to build a city like Dallas, while playing with map settings, and the city having a land mass larger then the state of Texas. That gave me the idea, maybe in civilization we should build provinces, states, territory, or even colonies instead of cities. I think this minor name change could have major effects on game play. Possibly if you hold an area of the world far from your capital, then it would be a colony. If your colony isn’t taken care of properly, then it rebels with much more frequency then a province near your capital. And maybe you can research federalism. Then maybe your province/state/territory/colony can set their own tax rates and pass their own laws. And maybe soldiers based of a particular province/state/territory/colony has a particular defensive or even offensive advantage (if the area is captured and you want to reconquer it) in that province/state/territory/colony. Just some thoughts. . .


Apr 20, 2003
When playing on earth maps, I usually name (and rename captured) cities according to the state/region. So it's always "cuba" and not "havana".

However, I do think you've got a point about colonies. I almost never built them in Civ3, since the AI would capture it by simply building a nearby city. If colonies could have some sort of quasi-city attributes, such as limited unit production and cultural borders, they would be more appealing. This could be balanced out with potential colony revolts, perhaps into barbarian cities if civil wars aren't implemented.


You should be reading
Jul 10, 2005
Annapolis, Maryland
I've often had similar thoughts myself, but I think that instead of replacing cities with provinces, territories, etc., dividing up your cities into territories and such would be better. For instance, if I'm America and I have Washington, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Chicago, then I might craete to territories consiting of Massechusets and Illinois. Massechusets would have Washington, New York, and Boston while Illinois would have Philadelphia, Atlanta, and Chicago. I'm not sure what these territories would do exactly but as your government devolops you could make them into states, duchys, provinces, satraps, etc.

As for colonies, I was thinking more along the lines of developing the existing colony system. What should happen is that as time goes by the colony has the chance to develop into a colonial city, or a regular city if it is close enough to the bulk of your empire. The difference between a colonial city and a regular city is that colonys have a greater chance of rebelling, and while rebelling citys will spark a civil war, rebelling colonies cancause other colonies, and not just your own, to rebel. The advantage of a colonial city though is that because of its own level of self-government corruption is lower and because of colonies design they have higher commerce. Also, they would attract more immigration, especially of minor religious groups. A new unit, a colonist, would be needed because colonists would be able to found colonial cities while worker would still be able to found colonies that may or may not evolve into colonial cities.
Top Bottom