-=*MOVING THREAD UP*=-
This BORDERS-Thread continues in a new version, since Lancer, the host of the old version was to busy to keep leading it.
I will temp. lead this thread, and make the summary for Firaxis.
You can read ver 1.0 <a href = "http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum28/HTML/000055.html">HERE</a>
If you can't find your suggestions in here, or you think I've misunderstood you, just contact me.
This thread is all about borders !
-=*MOVING THREAD UP*=-
Cybershy,thank you so much for taking the borders thread.I am currently working 7 days a week.I know you will handle it better than I ever could.
Thanks to Yin too for trusting me with this position,regret that I let him down.
All of the ideas for Civ 3 gleaned from the people who carefully considered them are more important than all the servants,titled 'threadmasters' put together.I hope that the people who offer their ideas are allways considered foremost and that the service that threadmasters provide is always humbly given for the greater good.I believe that Yin is particularly qualified to lead this group.
I hope that nobody else lets circumstances corrupt his will to serve as I did.Perhaps it would be best to look upon Yin as a servant of servants,whose selfless work is for the betterment of the game.
I know it would be best to look upon Cybershy as the borders threadmaster,not filling in,because he stepped up to the plate when he was needed.
Here are my ideas for borders on CivIII:
1. For air units when they enter another civ's territory they are not in fact "invading" as an act of war but may be asked to leave. If he does not leave and/or attack a units and/or city it will be an act of war. You may also designate parts of that radis a "no fly zone" (from Iraq, Duh!). Also, if you enter their borders, you do not gain control of that square.
2. After you won a war you may have the option of "policing" the area so no one attacks the devasted country. This may only be if the country is small and defenseless. This will help the country from being ransacked (again). Maybe we should have it that you cannot come in contact with the city square.
3. We should have "international waters" where any ships can go anywhere they want, but as long as they don't enter other civ's waters. A blockade would be inside the civ water's borders. You could put ships outside of their borders which wouldn't be a blockade but would hinder their water transportation.
How about permanent borders that don't move when you build a new city. Canada and the US have permanent borders, if the US built a new town of the edge of the border, it would not change where the borders were.
Ah, but when would borders become permanent? In the early game, this would be quite a handicap.
Link it to Diplomacy. Give nations the option of permanently fixing their borders. That way, a new city will not infringe on your enemy's territory.
borders are for wussies who can't wage war.
I agree with you EnochF, permanent borders should be determined diplomatically maybe with a peace treaty (?).
GP : civ3 is not all about war. At least it should not be. Civ3 is about building a civilization that stands the test of time, and that means sometimes war but sometimes peace also.
If you want the AI not to move units in your borders just put out patrols or just kill the incoming units.
Borders have an imbalencing effect since the human will use them beter than the AI. (complex strategic concept.)
Who are you callin' a wussy? Good thing we ain't in the wild wild west anymore!
Anyway, I am not afraid of the AI sending units into my territory, I just think there should be borders in civ3 because there are borders in the real world. Besides, it gives the player a true sense of how big his/her empire is.
borders are very important in diplomacy (any of u playing civ2 diplo games know what i mean) that is why i think u should be able to 'drag' (just like u drag the edge of a window in window95/98) borders around in the diploamce screen and offer then new boundies to your opponent(s) and if nessacary citiy position and stuff would change.
What do u all think.
BlueWaldo, CivLeague & AlphaLeague
civleague.apolyton.net & alphaleague.apolyton.net
One important things borders do is stop FRIENDLY civs infringing on your territory by settling cities right next to yours - or at least thats how they should work.
Something annoying happened to me in a game of SMAC, where a loyal Pact Brother of mine kept founding a base right in the middle of my territoy. Becuase they were sea bases, the territory did not extend far, and so there was a small gap where the other faction could squeeze in a base and take squares of my territory for their own. I couldnt exactly attack an ally outright wen they hadnt technically done anything wrong.
Maybe founding a city so that it changes borders with a friendly civ should require their consent? That way allies and treaty parters cant grab your territory (or vice versa) unless they want war.
I think a click-and-drag border system would be best. You could have the game display "controllable territory"(standard SMAC borders) as an aid to the player, and have an option that keeps you from accidentally setting over another player's border.
It should allow overlapping borders (disputed territory) as well. This will generally be in war/uneasy peace(war or truce), And deeply cutting into another player's territory with your (3 or more squares say) should be considered an excuse for war (no rep-hit for the other player), As would claiming one of his cities.
"Dammit, where is the 'shoot messenger' button?"
If you're going for realism, borders should not exist until at least around the time when one acquires gunpowder / invention. Surveying techniques were simply not accurate enough to establish them before this. But yes, in the modern era borders would add a lot to the game and remove annoyances.
This issue depends a lot on whether population is going to be spread out in every hex/region/square... which I for one think it should.
With regards to borders, i like the idea of draging the borders to how you want them, the idea of not having true borders until a certain time is also a very good one. I believe however that instead of lacking borders until that time it might be better to simply have uncertain borders which rather than being a simple line, could be a line of squares, a 'buffer zone' rather than a border. This would maintain most of the advantages of a border (knowing if anyone is in your territory ETC) but would perserve historical accuracy. Eventualy this could become a normal border, either when a certain advance is made or after a period of time. Perhaps it could also make this 'fringe' of your civilisation a focus for renegade activity (like the American West) whereby you might find criminals staging barbarian style attacks from until your border is standardised. Because it makes your edge cities more vulnerable to attack this might be interesting.
Also on the subject, perhaps you could make a declaration of your territory, or territory that you claim (like the Irish Republic claiming Northern Ireland until recently). I believe this is possibly better than the simple drag box idea, because you would be able to drag your boundries over a new region of land and then have to justify your claim. If you claimed a piece of land for no real reason and could not enforce your claim, no one would take notice. Possible reasons for claiming land might be; that it has special stratigic importance, that it is an area of high *place your civilisation name here* activity, that it historically belonged to you or that it is a site of great cultural importance (perhaps if we are to have custom religions for each civilisation some can grow 'sacred sites' for whatever reason, and these then give an advantage to that civilisation provided it remains within its borders). After making your declaration other civilisations could contest it, ask you to step down your claim or state thier own claim for the any area you have claimed which lies within thier borders. Perhaps if a UN authority exists they could judge the claims and award the land to whoever.