quote: Originally posted by dainbramaged13 on 05-16-2001 06:36 PM Did I miss something? in one of the recent news items (im not sure which), i found a few mysteries. What are these colonies? are they really cities? why doesn't your border follow them? did i hear something about workers building them instead of settlers? can someone clear me up, and tell me whether my confusions are bsed on something, or just me being stupid?

Dainbramaged, according to various press releases a "colony" can be built by a worker (not a settler). This colony is placed on top of a resource (silk, wool, gold, etc.). If the resource is within your city's radius, then no colony is necessary to harvest the resource. However, if the resource is located a few squares OUTSIDE your city's radius, you build a worker and move him to the resource. Then with the worker, you build a colony (a colony is not a city, but rather an extension or suburb of a city). Once the colony is built, you connect the colony with your city or cities. The resource HAS to be connected to one or more of your cities by some form of communication system (be it a road, railroad, maglev, airport, or even sea port) in order for you to use the resource in question.

Once the city grows enough to naturally encompass the resource in question, the colony disappears since the resource is now within the city's radius.

I hope this cleared up you confusion concerning Colonies Dainbramaged.

- Wittlich

------------------
After all is said and done, usually more is said than done.

Note also that a colony and the special resources you access with them have nothing to do with the usual food/shields/trade you harvest from your city radius; when you e.g. have a colony on top an iron special resource, all the cities connected to it by e.g. road have access to iron, which is only needed so that you can build certain units etc. Once your culture rating grows enough so that your nation's borders expand and the resource will fall within your borders, a colony is no longer needed, just the connecting roads will suffice. In general, the more improvements a particular city has, the larger the area around it that belongs within your borders.

quote: Originally posted by Jarouik on 05-17-2001 10:53 AM I just wanted to make a correction to the explanation above... actually, a colony has nothing to do with whether the resource is inside or outside your city radius. A colony is required if you want access to a special resource that is outside your civilization's borders, which are determined by your culture rating and are completely separate from your city radius, which does not expand. Note also that a colony and the special resources you access with them have nothing to do with the usual food/shields/trade you harvest from your city radius; when you e.g. have a colony on top an iron special resource, all the cities connected to it by e.g. road have access to iron, which is only needed so that you can build certain units etc. Once your culture rating grows enough so that your nation's borders expand and the resource will fall within your borders, a colony is no longer needed, just the connecting roads will suffice. In general, the more improvements a particular city has, the larger the area around it that belongs within your borders. Yes, I know it takes a little bit of explanation to elucidate the difference between the usual food/shields/arrows resources you had in Civ 2 and the new special resources, which are used in the new trading system as well... it seems there are lots of misunderstandings regarding the issue of city radius vs. expanding borders.

So when your border extends to the colony, do you get your worker back after the colony disapears? I should think so, or at least the city size should be enlarged to show the inclusion of the colony. Maybe someone from Firaxis knows?

quote: Originally posted by joseph1944 on 05-18-2001 05:07 PM Bigfree: Settler makes cities. Worker makes settlements, and is gone forever. New Worker, build roads, rails, etc.

Joseph:

Settler built> City size decreases
Settler joins city> City size increases

Yes?

Then why wouldn't you get back a "Worker", when in effect, he has re-joined the city?

quote: Originally posted by bigfree1 on 05-18-2001 07:49 PM Joseph: Settler built> City size decreases Settler joins city> City size increases Yes? Then why wouldn't you get back a "Worker", when in effect, he has re-joined the city? That shouldn't be too much to comprehend.

Settlers do decrease the city size. However, I do not know whether workers decrease city size. Note that settlers and workers are different in Civ3. Settlers in Civ3 only are for building new cities nothing more, while workers do all the road building, irrigation, colony building, etc.

quote: Originally posted by polymths on 05-18-2001 07:55 PM In any case, it was confirmed by Firaxis some time ago that once you build a colony with a worker, the worker is consumed, and if that colony is later absorbed because it falls within your borders, you do not get the worker back.

Where was this information found? I've never seen this stated clearly.
Also, I do believe that your city size does decrease when you build a worker (by one) and by two when you build a settler.

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia on 05-19-2001 12:01 PM Do you even know what ICS is? How is adding a settler to your city pop ICS? A settler is a special unit which decreses your pop points in the city which you built it. NO other unit does that. The worker is jsut like any other unit. Therefore, its like getting your tank killed and then having it bck in your city.

You, sir, are a moron! Do you even know that?

The settler unit costs two population points to build and the worker has a cost of one (It is not like a "tank" no matter how much you brain may sound like one when its trying to post a decent reply).

Yes, I do know what ICS is. My point was that adding a worker back to the city after its borders extended to the colony would not be a source of ICS anymore than adding a settler would be. (Actually Firaxis handled this well by making a settler cost two poulation points) I was a post by you that suggested that in the first place, or can you remeber that far back?

It seems as though you are able to read, but I question your ability to comprehend. Do me a favor? Know the facts before you go jumping all over someone.

I wrote:

quote: Originally posted by bigfree1 on 05-18-2001 07:49 PM Joseph: Settler built> City size decreases Settler joins city> City size increases Yes? Then why wouldn't you get back a "Worker", when in effect, he has re-joined the city? That shouldn't be too much to comprehend.

Then you wrote:

quote: Originally posted by Lawrence of Arabia on 05-18-2001 07:52 PM To prevent ICS

How can you think this way? If you take two population points from one city and give it to another how is that enabling ICS?

My original point (and still is the main one) is that if a worker costs a population point to build and is absorbed when it builds a colony, then when the colony is absorbed by the city why isn't the worker added to the city since the colony no longer exists?

quote: Originally posted by bigfree1 on 05-19-2001 02:44 AM Joseph, you seem to be dancing around my point. Which is; If a settler can be added into a city to increases its population, then why can't a worker be added?

OK then, lets get this thing straightened out once and for all:

quote: Originally posted by bigfree1 on 05-20-2001 03:40 AM Yes, I do know what ICS is. My point was that adding a worker back to the city after its borders extended to the colony would not be a source of ICS anymore than adding a settler would be. (Actually Firaxis handled this well by making a settler cost two poulation points) I was a post by you that suggested that in the first place, or can you remeber that far back?

-------------------- edited:
Read the edited inserted text in my prior reply - perhaps the whole worker = 1 subtracted pop, is a non-issue.
---------------------------

If you just wait till your borders extend to a resource, then a colony is not neccessary. In fact nothing is required except that it be coonected by some means of tranportaion (road, port,....). So if nothing is else is neccessary, what happened to the colony? In "real life" if something simular were to happen I'm sure that a colony would merge with the city, instead of just being "lost." It would seem fair to add a population point to the city whose border extended to the colony, to show inclusion of the colony.

That is all I wanted, I want the rules to be fair and evenly applied.

Anothe thing Firaxis did in the past to prevent ICS was to increase unhappiness in a Civ that went over a predetermined number of cities for the type of government it was ruled by.

Why not just make a general rule that would apply to all civs (in addition to the governmental type rule). The rule could be dependent upon the total map area (area available for founding cities) so that larger maps would allow more cities to be built without the unhappiness rule kicking in. Also make the rule a little more bitting, the one in Civ 2 is hardly worth noting when expanding your empire.

quote: Originally posted by bigfree1 on 05-21-2001 01:08 AM I know what the "rules" are according to the information that has benn provided for us to this moment is. It would alleviate some of my concern if it were true that a population point were added to your city once its borders extended to the colony. [...] That is all I wanted, I want the rules to be fair and evenly applied.

Have you read the inserted edited text in my previous lengthy reply? The so called "lost" pop-point that according to you, must be reclaimed, is an illusion - a misunderstanding from your part. Infact, in most cases such a reclaimed pop-point would be an unfair & non-justified rule. Read the inserted edited text.

quote: If you just wait till your borders extend to a resource, then a colony is not neccessary. In fact nothing is required except that it be coonected by some means of tranportaion (road, port,....). So if nothing is else is neccessary, what happened to the colony?

Yes, but you just cannot afford to wait that long - for several reasons. First of all: You perhaps cannot see ANY resources, and only SOME luxuries at all on the map, in the early beginning of the game. These only comes available gradually after your discover certain techs. Therefore you cannot plan in advance where you most optimally should found your cities. Also, these resources & luxuries are not evenly distributed at all, as they where in Civ-2. So you are more or less forced to make use of these colonies, for that reason alone.
Secondly; You can only expand your culture-border by building costly city-improvements & wonders as far as I have understood it. Long before you have reach that far into the game, you must however defend your cities with good enough units - units that require special resources in order to be built. Yet another reason why you cannot just sit and wait. You can trade these resources of course, but establish contact with all the AI-civs takes time, and you want to be self-supplying and independent as much as possible anyway. You have to build colonies as well.