End Open Borders Now

[Sloth_DC]

Sheesh, and I completely forgot the Opium Wars.

[1shmae1]

Originally posted by Sloth_DC


The Barbary Wars were the wars fought between the US and the North African states supporting the Barbary Pirates, primarily Tripoli (1801-1805).

And, to my knowledge, this was essentially a naval engagement with no territory changing hands.

The Quasi-War (US/French) was the same time period. The Boer War (and the earlier Zulu War) were also significantly pre-UN. One could easily add the Crimean War (Anglo-French invasion of the Russian Crimea - which the astute reader will note is on the far side of several uninterested countries). I'll leave the Carthaginian Wars and the US-Japanese war of the 1940s out, because even though the countries involved were not neighbors in either case, there were no major intervening powers. Likewise, I'll exclude the numerous Anglo-French wars from the 17th through 19th centuries out, as they are neighboring powers, even though the majority of the fighting was nowhere near the core of either power.

In how many of these wars did military units travel from one nation, over land, to their region of deployment? In how many of these instances did the war occur in the absence of a local conflict in which one local, active beligerant provided land access for one or more great powers?

But you are not looking at the whole of history. I do not say that war is never a game of hopscotch -- just that 99% of the wars in recorded history are between direct neighbors.

But except that debate. The larger issue is that no nation has ever attacked another from the borders of a third without the third party also being implicated in the conflict. Furthermore, it is almost unheard of for an army to pass through a neutral nation on it's way to conflict with another, with that nation remaining neutral in the fight.

[1shmae1]

Originally posted by Sloth_DC
Sheesh, and I completely forgot the Opium Wars.

Another example of an oceanic invasion. No over-land movement of British troops through France, Germany, Austria, The Balkans, Turkey, Afganistan, Iraq....Mongolia to China.

That's what I'm talking about.

[Bill3000]

Even the Falklands war fits my case. The Falkland Islands are British Territory BORDERING Argentinian territory. These are direct neighbors.

Are you kidding me? Just because there was a small amount of british territory controlled in the middle of nowhere does not mean that ARgentinia borders the United Kingdom. The vast amount of British troops would come from the UK, not from the Falklands. That's not "direct neighbors." You are altering your definition to try to prove your point.

[TomVeil]

I agree that it's kind of weird how the AI seems to expect Open Borders agreements, rather than reserving them only for the most trusted AI and player civs.
I haven't played enough to comment on how it affects gameplay balance.
I disagree that it's historically impossible. Most of the historical examples involve nations that were or are in extreme military disparity -- the Cold War, Spanish-American War, etc. There are also lots of examples of nations in various stages of confederation allowing it, from the EU (in limited circumstances) to the Hapsburg alliances to the Greek city-states.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Well, you can count me in on the whole idea of having Closed, Part-Closed and Open Borders at the very least. I think Open Borders should only be for the best of allies-two civs that trust each other implicitly-as it would allow military and non-military units in your territory. The added benefit of such a deal would be both a much greater value for those overseas trade routes AND much better relations.
A part-closed border, OTOH, would allow non-military units in, but give you a reduced trade and diplomacy benefit. Closed borders pretty much as is. Good luck on this mod-whoever, decides to do it !

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[Aileron]

Originally posted by Bill3000


Are you kidding me? Just because there was a small amount of british territory controlled in the middle of nowhere does not mean that ARgentinia borders the United Kingdom. The vast amount of British troops would come from the UK, not from the Falklands. That's not "direct neighbors." You are altering your definition to try to prove your point.

Uh, did those troops have to pass through another country's territory to get from Britain to the Falklands? I think they probably sailed or flew over open ocean which belongs to no one.

I think it should be pretty obvious that in the real world Open Trade Borders does not equal Right Of Passage. The North American Free Trade Agreement is supposed to allow the free flow of goods between Canada, USA, and Mexico without tariffs, etc., but it doesn't allow Canada to march a bunch of soldiers into Michigan. The only important question is whether separating Open Trade Borders and Right Of Passage would be good in the game Civ4.

[1shmae1]

Well I've been testing the game with Open Borders agreements completely removed and I have noticed no adverse effects on my economy at all. Everything seems to be working exactly normal except for one thing -- I only go to war with my immediate neighbors (in the ancient world -- haven't tested it in the modern age yet).

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

So, you're still getting international trade Ishmael-even with closed borders? That seems odd given that open borders are essential for trade. Could you go into specifics? Thanks.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[NoOneLeft]

The main thing that makes sense to me is if someone is attacking you through another nation you should be able to react to botht eh attacker and the nation allowing movement.

But.. and I may be wrong.. seems to me I've gotten plenty of diplomatic scenes where people demand I stop trading with their enemies. Maybe this should be expanded so that civs will demand you close your borders or they will declare war. Seems like it's already there, although the other civs have never actually attacked me because of my trading alliances so far.

[deKoven]

Well sirs, as my usual strategy is to try to divide whatever space I'm located in half, I really want to deny right of passage to the other civs involved. In other words, I don't want them moving a settler past me to flank me on the other side. Makes perfect sense to me, at least. Course, if we were to get a patch which DID split open borders into mil/econ then I'd reconsider my strategies.

[LzPrst]

military\economic split of open borders is a must IMHO.

a full open border total military access agreement is very rare. the german crusaders werent allowed to pass through Constantinople so they conquered it. turkey wouldnt allow the US to invade iraq from their territory despite being "allies" for several decades. the cases where different nations allow military access is usually when both are at war with a third party, OR when one part is dominating the other, like soviet presence in puppet regimes. (or american presence in iraq...)

[1shmae1]

Originally posted by Bill3000


Are you kidding me? Just because there was a small amount of british territory controlled in the middle of nowhere does not mean that ARgentinia borders the United Kingdom. The vast amount of British troops would come from the UK, not from the Falklands. That's not "direct neighbors." You are altering your definition to try to prove your point.

No. I am not kidding you. The two nations were of course direct neighbors. Think of how this situation would be reflected in the game world of CIV 4.

A distant island with perhaps three large cities builds a single city on a small Island half way around the world on the border of another civilization. That small city is then attacked by its immediate neighbor.

99% of all wars fought in history have been fought over a direct border.

[1shmae1]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
So, you're still getting international trade Ishmael-even with closed borders? That seems odd given that open borders are essential for trade. Could you go into specifics? Thanks.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I'm still testing so don't take my word as gospel but I see absolutely no economic impact for "open borders." Perhaps, however, it does adversely affect the Great merchant. I forgot about him. But that's the only thing Open Borders is needed for economically speaking, so far as I can see.

To make the game playable in this situation, I've made the Galley ignore borders. Without this, you can't explore in the ancient world. I've also made the missionary ignore borders -- without this change, you can't evangelize. Unfortunately, this means you can't close your border to galley movement or to missionary movement -- but I think it's arguable as to whether this is or is not more reflective of real history than the default game setup.

To this, I will also need to add the Great Merchant. He too will need to ignore borders. This means that you won't be able to close your border to these great people. But just consider him a "great smuggler" in these circumstances. ;-) You can. of course, still close down any regular trade with another civilization -- just by canceling all deals. So here too, I think it's debatable whether the alteration is more or less reflective of real-world trade.

I'll be running a second test of the "No Open Borders" Mod tonight and will report on the results.

[Sloth_DC]

Originally posted by 1shmae1


I'm still testing so don't take my word as gospel but I see absolutely no economic impact for "open borders." Perhaps, however, it does adversely affect the Great merchant. I forgot about him. But that's the only thing Open Borders is needed for economically speaking, so far as I can see.

To make the game playable in this situation, I've made the Galley ignore borders. Without this, you can't explore in the ancient world. I've also made the missionary ignore borders -- without this change, you can't evangelize. Unfortunately, this means you can't close your border to galley movement or to missionary movement -- but I think it's arguable as to whether this is or is not more reflective of real history than the default game setup.

I don't know what you're testing, even though this has been fully explained to you numerous times. You don't have any Open Borders? Great - go into your city screens and see if any of the trade routes in your cities are with foreign cities, or only your own cities. Now open borders, and note the foreign trade routes that are opened, and compare their value with the domestic ones you had before. This is something that can be tested quickly, not something that, days later, is causing you to say, "I'm still testing and don't see a difference."