Wild Speculation - Colonization Beeline

[King Jason]

In Civ II (and III iirc)...

Pretty archaic standard of measurement.

If both were available at game start, though, I can say that I'd pick Urban Whatever at the very start (to make a few units to scout out the territory and wait for the capital to grow to size 3 or so), then switch to Colonization and spam Settlers from every city until I either ran into neighboring civs, settled every possible spot or ran into some other limitation (city maintenance or the like). Then I'd switch to something else, consolidate my new holdings (typically a whole continent) and spam out science buildings and wonders. It's been the winning strategy in every Civ game so far apart from V (which suffered greatly from it, imo), and I'll be sad if it isn't in Civ VI. It just doesn't need a policy to help it, or at least there should be a significant opportunity cost to it.

The main issue with what you're saying is the strategy, not the policy. If you can do anything like what you described I'd argue that the game is broken. I'm going to operate on the assumption that the game isn't broken.

Then again, so long as the A.I. understands it should do that too... In which case, it's just how you play the game, and then there's nothing to worry about... because to say it again; The system is designed to give the players choice, but you have to start somewhere; the first civic cards you unlock will always be the ones you play first.

"Empire building" is one of the first civics, it would seem - and it unlocks two economic cards; Whatever those two cards are will always be played first before all others. Assuming at least one of those is colonization - then there's a fair chance most empires will run it at some point in the start of the game. Probably when they're ready to expand in any capacity. Makes sense - the policies are meant to shift to fit your needs.

 

[Ryika]

The efficiency of that bonus probably depends on how quickly one can expand. If I can produce 6 Settlers in a row and get away with it, it'll be really strong. If that's not a viable strategy, then the the opportunity costs may be too high.

 

[glaivemaster]

Is everyone assuming that Colonization is available from turn 1, and not from, say, the Colonial Age?

I agree that +50% production towards settlers is incredibly strong if you can start the game with it, but it becomes a lot less appealing if you get it half way through the game when there's barely any land left to settle.

Don't just think about what it does, think about when it becomes available.

 

[Plus Ultra]

Care to explain why OP was so offensive? Two others so far found it reasonable enough to respond to.

-Numbers, bonuses, percentages, are not final.
-Lot's of cards are still to be revealed.
-You are not comparing this card to others of the same type.
-We don't yet know if Settlers stop growth or take long to produce.
-We don't know when that card becomes available.

I think Arioch is analyzing and categorizing everything as we speak, and trying to wrap his head around lots of new information. Many count on him to do exactly that.
His patience with claims like "game-changing" and "optimum strategy" might be at an all-time low at the moment.

Don't just think about what it does, think about when it becomes available.

You must unlearn what you have learned

 

[Verified_Confection_Being]

Is everyone assuming that Colonization is available from turn 1, and not from, say, the Colonial Age?

I agree that +50% production towards settlers is incredibly strong if you can start the game with it, but it becomes a lot less appealing if you get it half way through the game when there's barely any land left to settle.

Don't just think about what it does, think about when it becomes available.

None of the build times have looked overly long so far though, so it shouldn't be game breaking, just slightly convenient. Has anyone seen an actual turns requires figure for settler production yet? I think there was one in quill 18s video, but I can't remember.

This policy basically means that in poor production starts you can compete for city spots and in high production starts you get first pick. That seems fair to me, not overpowered. I highly suspect military is a more viable strategy now too, so settler spam probably is a completely unviable and dangerous strategy in that situation. With what we know about barbs too, there's plenty of reasons to think this policy is not overpowered, but high risk high reward might be more appropriate.

 

[Ryika]

In the Preview-Footage Settlers require twice as long as Workers, but still a lot less time than Districts.

 

[Gali]

It will probably be optimal to use the Colonization policy card at a time when you want to expand. However, even with the new relaxed expansion rules you probably won't want to use it continuously and after a certain amount of expansion it is just worse than the bonus to production per city. You will want cities to ahve room to specialize and build districts in the most optimal positions. If you want to settler spam you need the land and the military to fight off barbs and other civs. You will also be behind in tech and probably not get a religion as those need expensive districts. You won't have the time or resources to

You shouldn't compare colonization to Tradition or Liberty but the Slavery civic. That civic was insanely strong and used in the vast majority of high level Civ 4 play. There was still choice in the civics because you didn't use it forever. I expect the policy card will be part of many strategies if it stays the same but only a part.

 

[SupremacyKing2]

Based on what we've seen so far, am I the only one thinking Colonization (Economic Policy; +50% to settler production) is game-changing, and will be the optimum strategy in pretty much every game? Every government has an economic slot, and expansion should be the first focus (after some exploration to find the best sites) in pretty much every game. Thoughts welcome.

I think you are making a big assumption that settler spam will be the default go-to strategy. Beelining for colonization will be a good strategy for the player who wants to go wide but it won't be the right strategy for the player who wants to do a military rush or the player who wants to go tall and focus on say science.

Also, I imagine the policy will be good even in the mid game when players want to colonize another continent. So getting the colonization policy will still work even if you don't beeline for it right away.

Plus, we should remember that policies can be swapped in and out during a game. Players will want to use colonization when they are expanding but will want to switch it out for something else when they are done expanding.

 

[Felis Renidens]

I think it also depends on how much it costs to change or you'll have to wait for your next civic card. You may want to time your expansion between getting two civics, and then it will depend on what you get with each discovery. On the other hand, if the cost is not very high you can switch it on and off whenever you want to rush settlers.

 

[Kouvb593kdnuewnd]

What worked in one game may not work well in another game. A 50% bonus is huge but that bonus is very limited as it only are used then producing settlers. Maybe you are not going to build more then 5 cities then the gain from this bonus may not be that much greater then rushing any other of the early civics.

 

[Martin Alvito]

I think you are making a big assumption that settler spam will be the default go-to strategy. Beelining for colonization will be a good strategy for the player who wants to go wide but it won't be the right strategy for the player who wants to do a military rush or the player who wants to go tall and focus on say science.

I think it's not an unwarranted assumption, given that the devs have openly stated their desire to bring wide empires back and the fact that ICS was fully viable at CiV 5's release. I'd expect them to err on the side of making wide OP and then dial it back, rather than the reverse.

As you and others point out, when you can get the policy does matter. The later it comes online, the less attractive it looks.

Another thing to think about is that if hammer overflow works the way it has in the past, you can abuse the policy to get a 50% bonus to hammers for one turn on your next build (by microing the Settler to one hammer less than completion, then finishing it on the next turn).

 

[Felis Renidens]

Another thing to think about is that if hammer overflow works the way it has in the past, you can abuse the policy to get a 50% bonus to hammers for one turn on your next build (by microing the Settler to one hammer less than completion, then finishing it on the next turn).

might be cheaper to buy the settler or building than switching policy just in time, unless you also time it with cultural development. We don't know the cost of switching policies.

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

And another thing, Policies are not set in stone. You COULD beeline for it but, but once you get it switching to it means you give up the other option for your Economic Card.

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

You could switch to the Settler Bonus using Gold (this is confirmed), build the Settler, then switch back again. It would be sort of like using Gold to partially rush the Settler. If you timed it right, you could use the opportunity to switch policies for free from learning a Civic to reduce the gold cost further.

 

[stiiknafuulia]

Another thing to think about is that if hammer overflow works the way it has in the past, you can abuse the policy to get a 50% bonus to hammers for one turn on your next build (by microing the Settler to one hammer less than completion, then finishing it on the next turn).

I really, really, really hate gamey tricks like this... It's a boring chore, yet it's needed for 'optimal' play if you're in a competition of some kind. Imo, someone should tweet about this at the devs (I don't have a Twitter account) to ensure it won't exist in this version of Civ, regardless of whether it will be worth it to switch to Colonization just to abuse this trick (it's bad enough that you'd 'have to' use it when using that civic for legitimate reasons).