1. We have added the ability to collapse/expand forum categories and widgets on forum home.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. All Civ avatars are brought back and available for selection in the Avatar Gallery! There are 945 avatars total.
    Dismiss Notice
  3. To make the site more secure, we have installed SSL certificates and enabled HTTPS for both the main site and forums.
    Dismiss Notice
  4. Civ6 is released! Order now! (Amazon US | Amazon UK | Amazon CA | Amazon DE | Amazon FR)
    Dismiss Notice
  5. Dismiss Notice
  6. Forum account upgrades are available for ad-free browsing.
    Dismiss Notice

Why is real world colonization a bad idea in CiV?

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by JtW, Feb 26, 2012.

  1. JtW

    JtW Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Messages:
    573
    Location:
    Poland
    One (well - not the only one) problem I have with CiV is that its mechanisms don't support colonization as we know it from history.

    Even if we set aside the inapt AI that can't coordinate any naval operation, the happiness system discourages settling into the new world. By the time you discover the "new world", you usually have most possible luxuries this way or another, and founding new cities in the new world doesn't present much of an incentive. (I am especially thinking Terra maps with all civs starting in the old world, where there IS a lot of free land to colonize).

    How I think this could be fixed:

    1) Unique (per continent) luxuries

    I think there should be luxury resources that are limited to a single continent, or are VERY scarce in the others. Maybe instead of "Spices" we could have "Pepper", "Cacao", "Coffee" and "Tea", each limited to one continent only (or something along the lines).

    2) Population overflow and transfer

    One of the real life reasons for colonizing, e.g., America, was the immigration. Currently, every citizen is useful in even the biggest cities (3-hex radius plus specialists). If cities could grow to sizes bigger than that, transferring citizens to new world colonies would be useful.

    I think option 2 would be difficult to implement, but I would welcome option 1 in an expansion or at least in a mod.
     
  2. Zaimejs

    Zaimejs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,002
    Location:
    Nebraska
    Rare earth metals later in the game other than aluminum would help with this too. Think about more raw materials that have become super important. Rubber is another one missing from this game.
     
  3. Zaimejs

    Zaimejs Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2006
    Messages:
    1,002
    Location:
    Nebraska
    Another thing that would make colonization more interesting is to have a military unit the could subjugate the natives... like a conquistador. Instead of killing the barbarians, you'd be able to beat them down until they surrender, and then you can have them form a puppet village for your use.
     
  4. joncnunn

    joncnunn Senior Java Wizard Moderator

    Joined:
    Mar 17, 2008
    Messages:
    8,580
    Location:
    Missouri
    There's a couple of factors:

    1. The Civ V terra script (unlike the Civ IV one) doesn't place more strategic resources in the new world. By your report, it doesn't have enough unique luxuries only found in the new world either.

    2. In Civ IV, barbarians had actual cities, which you could then conquer and keep if you wanted. Civ V only has camps.
     
  5. Brichals

    Brichals Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 20, 2010
    Messages:
    775
    Location:
    Berlin, D
    More luxuries is not a bad idea actually, they'd have to balance trading accordingly, but I don't see why not. The colonies in Civ4 were good.
     
  6. JtW

    JtW Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Messages:
    573
    Location:
    Poland
    I think City States have taken over this role. The problem is, currently there is almost no incentive to conquer them, and no way to persuade them to join your empire either. That would actually be a nice mechanic - I wouldn't complain if that is what the 'Coup' in G&K is supposed to do.
     
  7. Hormagaunt

    Hormagaunt Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 3, 2010
    Messages:
    185
    I agree that City States have taken over the role of Barbarian Cities. It's too bad that they don't do as good a job. In Civ5, the game starts, you've got X City States, and that's all you'll have. In Civ4, as long as they can find room, the barbarians are always starting new cities. And some of them get pretty darned large. I've had to conquer Pop 10 barbarian cities on occasion, and sizes 6-8 fairly often.

    A year or so ago (I think) I posted an idea which I still wish they'd implement: If you leave barbarian villages alone long enough, they become new City States. The game would start with none but gradually develop them. And none of this "slider to determine how many". You'd toggle run them or not.

    It'd be really funny if they implement that and one day, when the UN vote comes up, the United City States have more votes than the player and the "official" empires, and we all lose.
     
  8. JtW

    JtW Chieftain

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2010
    Messages:
    573
    Location:
    Poland
    An interesting idea, Hormagaunt. Although I think this would result in no CSs in most games, as they tend to get eliminated pretty quickly. Or you would only find CSs in undesirable locations and there'd be no incentive to befriend them.
     
  9. Lochlann

    Lochlann Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2002
    Messages:
    260
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Andúnië
    Related to this, what is the point of the Barbarian Settler unit? Does it simply create another camp? That would seem pointless, given that the camps are able to spring up on their own anyway. Yet I've never seen a Barbarian City in Civ V.
     
  10. CivilizedPlayer

    CivilizedPlayer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2012
    Messages:
    222
    Barbarian settler units are just captured settlers from other civs. They just go to the nearest camp and sit there.
     
  11. Lochlann

    Lochlann Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2002
    Messages:
    260
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Andúnië
    Really? That's odd. When settlers are captured by other players, who would actually be able to use them as settlers, they are transformed into workers...but when settlers are captured by barbarians, who cannot use the unit, they stay as settlers? Huh. I know that barbarians can't use workers either, so it's all the same to them, but it just seems odd when looked at from this point of view.

    I definitely prefer Civ IV's concept of Barbarian cities, complete with workers and whatnot.
     
  12. steave435

    steave435 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 8, 2012
    Messages:
    96
    Yeah, it also means that you can re-capture a settler from the barbarians. A settler that originally belonged to an another civ will turn into a worker (or maybe stay a settler if you choose to return it to the original owner?), but if it was taken from you, you get it back without having it turn into a worker.
     
  13. krc

    krc Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    889
    If they are recaptured by the original owner, then they remain settlers. If taken from the barbarians by a different civ, then they convert to workers. Not sure if that makes sense, but it is the mechanism they implemented.
     
  14. Lochlann

    Lochlann Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2002
    Messages:
    260
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Andúnië
    :) That possibility occurred to me immediately upon posting my last reply. Thanks for confirming! (And sorry for mini-hijacking the thread...)
     
  15. kaltorak

    kaltorak Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jul 7, 2009
    Messages:
    1,363
    Location:
    Madrid
    I agree, colonization is, or should be, a very fun aspect of the game. But it is not worth it.
     
  16. Horizons

    Horizons King of the Ring

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2007
    Messages:
    1,228
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    UK
    I agree definitely that the solution should be to have new luxuries resources that are ONLY available in the 'New World'.
     
  17. krc

    krc Chieftain

    Joined:
    Sep 28, 2010
    Messages:
    889
    Maybe it's just that none of the maps really support colonization well. If you have civilizations starting on every land mass at the same time and have to wait until astronomy to get to another continent, then all the territory is going to be occupied by civs at your technological level by the time you get there.

    Suppose there were a "continents-like" map that had two larger continents (with half the AI civs starting on each one, along with most of the CS) and two slightly smaller continents (with only barbarians and maybe a few CS). If you combined this with luxuries that were unique to each continent, then there would be a better chance of having some place that you'd actually want to plant colonies.
     
  18. bonafide11

    bonafide11 Worker

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2006
    Messages:
    2,915
    Location:
    STL
    The terra map actually would work quite well for colonization of the other continent, but unfortunately there's really no motive to go settle over there except to meet the other city-states and kill off some barbarians. I only played it once (because it was so boring), but the AI showed little interest in colonizing the "new world" continent either. I agree what needs to happen is to have some additional and rare resources that provide significant bonuses found only on the other continent.
     
  19. Lochlann

    Lochlann Chieftain

    Joined:
    Mar 29, 2002
    Messages:
    260
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Andúnië
    I had a situation similar to this during my current game: two huge continents, with the civs fairly evenly split between them, and one smaller "sub-continent" very close to one of them. (The one I began on.) This sub-continent was located way too close to be deemed a "new world," but for whatever reason, the way it worked out is that the land remained virtually pristine until well into the Renaissance era, save for a few city-states. Kind of odd, really. Although, my Renaissance Era began well before the others'; the "new world" feeling I had would likely have been very different had we all been progressing equally.
     
  20. Tantor

    Tantor Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 29, 2003
    Messages:
    238
    Location:
    Norway
    This one of the best ideas I`ve seen in a long time. Maybe it could be an expansion on its own? To implement this they should really work through the game mechanics to make new features like
    - migration and immigration
    - intercontinental trade system
    - region specific reources
    - colonization of existing population in the new world
    - range system for ships - makes it important to have ports all over the world like the British Empire had
    - civil wars, colonila wars and wars of independence
    - different forms of goverment at home and in the colonies

    This could be really nice.
     

Share This Page