especially in early ages, i think a citys border wich is expanding near a river, should stop at the river and expand further in other directuins rather than crossing the river (unless the civ have a city on both sides of the river., mountains should also slow down the advance of borders but in a different way. i think when two civs borders touch, the should stay that way, unless you take over their city. so if your culture is higher than theirs, it should not push back their borders. that would also fix the problem in smac where you could build a city near the border and gain extra land.. well i really hope thats how borders will be in civ3 and i hope not too many topics have been made about this earlier..
Last edited by ancient; July 9, 2001 at 10:31.
well its already been stated that higher cultures will eventually creep onto enemy borders, and perhaps even ENGULF enemy cities.
and there are a ton of border threads, dolt.
anyway, i do like your idea of borders being influenced by geographical terrain, though i believe it has not been implimented.
i remember a huge debate in a screenshot, a mountain or hill was in a city's border.
not sure if that means anything, btu i think geography plays a minute role, if any at all.
"I've lived too long with pain. I won't know who I am without it. We have to leave this place, I am almost happy here."
- Ender, from Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card
screw you
Geography should definitely affect borders, as in real life borders are often marked by a river or mountain range, and in straight lines on relatively featureless terrain (take a look at the Sahara; in Arabia, there are no established borders in the desert). Culture also affects borders, too. Territories with a dominant culture sometimes do engulf smaller cultures, like Prussia in the Zollverein before 1870. Before that, Germany as we know it was a bunch of weak, separate states.
Would you own half a tile if a river divided it?
It's probably too late to make any major changes in the borders like that. They have to finish up the program and get it ready for beta testing soon, and Firaxis seems fixed on that goal as they haven't had time to update their website!
Civ fans:
Firaxis:
Hey, go screw yourself, he didn't say anything that would offend you. You need to stop being so damn judgemental of other people's opinions and facts that they state.screw you
he called me a dolt... can you read or did you just skip that part?
i think rivers should be between land tiles, not as part of them, so you could have 1/2 tiles and quarter tiles where cities cant be made.... maybe not in civ3 though but id be nice...
He did call you a dolt, but he had a smiley next to it. Or can't you read?
What the hell's a dolt, anyways?
I agree with Ancient that SMAC-style "instant border-boxing" should be avoided in Civ-3. This have already been fixed however since present preview-info suggests that each newly founded city always start out with no culture-borders at all - regardless how culturally advanced the rest of the empire is. Sure, some Wonders gives you a free border-layer, but hopefully only too more established & advanced cities - or IF they add something to newly founded 1-pop cities (that belonges to mature and culturally advanced empires); then only max 1 layer of 8 tiles - never more then that.
I really hope that each 1-pop newbie-city always must "earn" its own culture-borders the hard way (regardless of the cultural status of the rest of the empire), instead of getting these borders instantly for free - as in SMAC. Otherwise we get the same annoing "instant border-boxing" phenomenon in all mid & late- Civ-3 game-eras, then all (well most) Civs is culturally advanced. I would hate that.
------------ edited:
Once the first border-layer of 8 tiles have been established though, a tiny city belonging to a culturally superior empire should never be allowed to be "swallowed up" by borders belonging to more established and powerful forreign cities - but who happens to belong to a culturally more inferior empire.
------------------
What about mountain- and river-slowed down border-expansions? Well, as long as it isnt too calculate-intensive for the AI to handle - why not? It would certainly make borders expand more irregulary = more naturally. I would suggest not making the idea more complicated then it has to be, though.
I think that rivers should slow down (detract or set back) the border-expansions by 1 layer at all river-tiles - provided that you havent founded your city directly on top of a river (perhaps in a large river-delta). If the latter is true, then any river-dipended border slow-downs gets bypassed, unless there are some regular terrain-types in between. Mountains should set back the border-expansions by 2 layers at all mountain-tiles. Several tiles deep mountain-ranges should always count as max 3 layers set back - never more then that.
Last edited by Ralf; July 8, 2001 at 01:05.
Is there a Firaxis statement to this effect? I thought that was Apolytoners making assumptions.Originally posted by UberKruX
well its already been stated that higher cultures will eventually creep onto enemy borders, and perhaps even ENGULF enemy cities.
On the insult front, I don't think a smiley makes up for a derogatory comment. The statement would have stood up quite nicely without it. Insult someone and you lay yourself open to be insulted back. A joking tone of voice cannot be expressed in text.
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
H.Poincaré
no, I really don't like the idea of your own borders shrinking just because the other civ's got stronger culture. SO unrealistic.I mean, if Norway would build more museums, would Sweden shrink? Eh?
You should have a map interface in the diplomacy screen so you could decide exactly what areas will belong to who etc. Or atleast after negotiating eith the neighbour Civ fot the first time, you both have accepted eachother, and the borders stand permanent.
The idea is already 100% implemented so they wont change it now. Most civers seems positive. Personally, Im all for it as long as each newbie-city starts from scratch.Originally posted by uncle_funk
no, I really don't like the idea of your own borders shrinking just because the other civ's got stronger culture. SO unrealistic.I mean, if Norway would build more museums, would Sweden shrink? Eh?
yes but the smiley is a stick tung out smily which just adds to the effect of it being an insult and ill so screw you if i want to its my own imature way of dealing with it..Originally posted by Sabre2th
He did call you a dolt, but he had a smiley next to it. Or can't you read?
dolt n : a person who is not very bright:
"I've lived too long with pain. I won't know who I am without it. We have to leave this place, I am almost happy here."
- Ender, from Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card
I think it would be nifty if exploring units (settlers, military, and explorers) could "carry the flag" with them, allowing the civilization to claim areas for expansion. These units would be allowed to (on command) plant border flags, which then would be traced back to the inhabited areas of the civilization.
"I say shoot'em all and let God sort it out in the end!
Maybe borders should expand by movement points, rather than by square. City built makes border widen by x movement points rather than x squares, so mountains and hills slow it. Rivers are a little ambiguous. For them to cost 1/3 movement point for walking on, then they must have some sort of advantage. I think rivers are crossable in Civ. Uncrossable rivers are shown as water (or shallow water in CTP). These would act as slow-down points for borders
[stupid flinking double posting computer]
Last edited by Immortal Wombat; July 8, 2001 at 19:13.
How ironic that 'ancient' should be immature.Originally posted by ancient
yes but the smiley is a stick tung out smily which just adds to the effect of it being an insult and ill so screw you if i want to its my own imature way of dealing with it..
The. It is a little tease, not an insult, it is a jest, an amusing little witticism, just to poke some harmless fun. Don't take it to heart.
Have you got a link for that Ralf? I've not seen a Firaxian saying borders will push each other back and forth depending on culture strength.Originally posted by Ralf
The idea is already 100% implemented so they wont change it now. Most civers seems positive. Personally, Im all for it as long as each newbie-city starts from scratch.
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
H.Poincaré
A smiley doesn't really make up for it, no. But it was just a light-hearted comment. Nothing serious happening here.Originally posted by Grumbold
On the insult front, I don't think a smiley makes up for a derogatory comment. The statement would have stood up quite nicely without it. Insult someone and you lay yourself open to be insulted back. A joking tone of voice cannot be expressed in text.
I can't think of any rationale why rivers would block cultural influence.
Unexplored areas are immune to cultural influence, sure, but not rivers.
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
There is no way for culture to expand borders in r/t.
If two Civ's are up for "land grabbing" without war in an area, it should be a race to achieve the best growth of your borders, land that have been incorporated should never be lost.
Conclusion: when the race for land is over (no more neutral tiles in the area), borders can only be altered with war or diplomatic bargaining. The one with the best "culture-rating" gets the biggest share of the cake.
What's r/t?
Why can't border be moved by cultural influence? Keep in mind that, before the modern times, borders were largely fuzzy.
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Real time
Yes borders are still fuzzy at some places. Well if you give me a good example of culture that has effected the expansion of a nation's borders......
Russia conquering the vastes of Siberia because of the natives worship of the Kremlin?
USA recieving Puerto Rico because of fast food?'
Hmmmm.....maybe the German "anschluss" of Austria? When the guns were only pointed under the tables?
Personally, I hope that a peace treaty auto-fixes borders. Otherwise, I'm all for "Cultural Imperialism", to coin a phrase.
04-06-04 Killdozer NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Get Rich or Die Tryin'
Where? This certainly was not true for Europe. China built the biggest wall in the world to define where their border was. The only places I can think of would be nomadic tribal types where the territory was not as important - but ownership of all key points like oases and villages were still fiercely contested.Originally posted by Urban Ranger Keep in mind that, before the modern times, borders were largely fuzzy.
To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection.
H.Poincaré
why????
i didnt do anything wrong...
The Mountains DO affect the wide of the borders, but rivers DONT (according with the pictures ive seen).
No they don't. That's just a visual effect.
04-06-04 Killdozer NEVER FORGET
Stadtluft Macht Frei
Killing it is the new killing it
Get Rich or Die Tryin'
Even across mountain ranges and around areas where there were nobody?Originally posted by Grumbold
Where? This certainly was not true for Europe.
The border of Imperial China had exceeded the Great Wall fairly early on.Originally posted by Grumbold
China built the biggest wall in the world to define where their border was.
(\__/) 07/07/1937 - Never forget
(='.'=) "Claims demand evidence; extraordinary claims demand extraordinary evidence." -- Carl Sagan
(")_(") "Starting the fire from within."
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks