End Open Borders Now

[FancyAFrederick]

Let me just add a perspective on the historical aspect of military access.

During WWII, Sweden allowed Nazigermany to move large amounts of troops and material through our northen railroad network, its not something we are specialy proud of but there it is. We have been a neutral country for a long time now, this was true for WWII aswell. Why did we do it? Well you have to ask those in charge back then but I suspect it was as simple as cooperate or be conquered.

Someone mentioned the crusading armies moving through Constantinople too, and them sacking it. On their journey to the Holy Land, Im sure many countries they passed felt realy uncomfortable at the notion, but you are not going to start a war you are sure to loose, so I suspect out of fear they simply "did nothing".

[1shmae1]

Originally posted by FancyAFrederick
Let me just add a perspective on the historical aspect of military access.

During WWII, Sweden allowed Nazigermany to move large amounts of troops and material through our northen railroad network

This is very rare in history. For example, in both WWI and WWII, Belgium refused the same privledge to Germany and suffered the consequence. Nations tend to be very jealous of their soveriegnty. Even the most friendly of nations. A few years back, Canadians nearly had a collective heart-attack when the U.S. navy sent ONE tiny ice-breaker through the North West passage.

In the classical world, during Ceasar's wars with the Gauls, Ceasar had enormous trouble negotiating passage through ostensibly friendly Gaulish territory (in the south of France) to engage a marauding Gaulish enemy that was treatening them both. If memory serves, he ultimately just invaded without securing permission.

My current system does not allow for any "right of passage" agreements ("Open Borders"). This eliminates historically exceptional circumstances (which is unfortunate) but is certainly much more realistic than the alternative. If you want to attack Peter, and Paul seperates you from him, I have now only two options: an infibious attack by sea -- or invade Paul first to get to Peter.

A better solution is to sperate "open borders" from "right of passage" and make "right of passage" very hard to negotiate. But that would require much more skill than I possess. Eliminating "Open Borders" on the other hand is much simpler and I think the results far superior to the current gaming situation -- so far as warfare is concerned.

[LzPrst]

as FaF mentioned, sweden gave german troops "right of passage" during ww2. whether this was because the swedish government at the time were friendly with the nazis or they simply didnt want a war on their turf doesnt matter. it should be ingame possible to manage, if good relations (very good) Right of passage may be granted. if refused there should be an option, "Give our troops right of passage or they'll take it!" if the requested player refuses the demanding civ would get the option of declaring war as a result.

the threat should be linked to their relative military forces somehow. is this doable? and can the AI be modded to handle it?

btw, this is what I mean when I whine that the game isnt complete. theres too many issues like this that should have been playtested further. by firaxis, not by us...

[1shmae1]

Originally posted by 1shmae1
To this, I will also need to add the Great Merchant. He too will need to ignore borders.

I just looked it up and, by default, Great people can enter rival territory already, so no change is required here at all.

[1shmae1]

Originally posted by LzPrst
btw, this is what I mean when I whine that the game isnt complete. theres too many issues like this that should have been playtested further. by firaxis, not by us...

I'm not sure if this is really a "play test" issue. It's a design choice on which I disagree with the game makers.

My question is, how many historians were consulted in the making of Civilization 4? And if some were involved, there is still the larger question of whether Civ is intended to be "just a game" or a kind of historical-model-come-simulation.

We must also remember that there are a great many more controversies in History than the average undergrad is aware of. In fact, there are a great many more unknowns in history than a great many history professors are aware of. Get four history professors together and you'll get five different opinions on even the general flow of world historical development.

For Civ 3, I developed a massive mod that reflected my own views. I never released it to the public because, in my view, I never got it to a point where I could call it "finished." My ambition, however, is to learn enough Python over the next year or so to re-introduce many of the same concepts to Civ 4 and publicly release this time around.

Here's just one small "oversight" of the Civ world for you to chew on.

Take a look at the famous satalite photo of the Earth, taken at night, showing all the lights of the world's greatest cities. Notice where they all are? On the coasts. Most of the world's population and, by far, the majority of its most powerful cities are found on the coast lines.

But in all the versions of Civilization, the largest cities are found inland in the middle of farm country. This is not at all realistic. Not by a long shot. Reversing this was the first change I made to Civ 3.

Reversing it, however, requires a bit of a hack -- or it did in Civ 3. Realisticly, cities ought to be able to purchase food and that has not been possible before. It might be now, if one knows enough Python. I will need to learn what I can. Otherwise, I'll just implement the same kind of hack measures I did before as I was generally pleased with the results.

[Bhruic]

In general, I agree with Firaxis's decision to focus on gameplay over history. However, I also am happy with the modability of the game, although I suspect a change like this one could require the SDK (I should point I out that I suggested this awhile back in the 'simple things to do for the patch' thread).

I certainly, however, would disagree with the assumption that 'open borders' exists because of a lack of play testing.

Bh

[dearmad]

Originally posted by 1shmae1


I'm not sure if this is really a "play test" issue. It's a design choice on which I disagree with the game makers.

My question is, how many historians were consulted in the making of Civilization 4? And if some were involved, there is still the larger question of whether Civ is intended to be "just a game" or a kind of historical-model-come-simulation.

We must also remember that there are a great many more controversies in History than the average undergrad is aware of. In fact, there are a great many more unknowns in history than a great many history professors are aware of. Get four history professors together and you'll get five different opinions on even the general flow of world historical development.

For Civ 3, I developed a massive mod that reflected my own views. I never released it to the public because, in my view, I never got it to a point where I could call it "finished." My ambition, however, is to learn enough Python over the next year or so to re-introduce many of the same concepts to Civ 4 and publicly release this time around.

Here's just one small "oversight" of the Civ world for you to chew on.

Take a look at the famous satalite photo of the Earth, taken at night, showing all the lights of the world's greatest cities. Notice where they all are? On the coasts. Most of the world's population and, by far, the majority of its most powerful cities are found on the coast lines.

But in all the versions of Civilization, the largest cities are found inland in the middle of farm country. This is not at all realistic. Not by a long shot. Reversing this was the first change I made to Civ 3.

Reversing it, however, requires a bit of a hack -- or it did in Civ 3. Realisticly, cities ought to be able to purchase food and that has not been possible before. It might be now, if one knows enough Python. I will need to learn what I can. Otherwise, I'll just implement the same kind of hack measures I did before as I was generally pleased with the results.

interesting... but coast or waterway? I mean:

Paris, Berlin, London, Chicago, Mexico City, Madrid, Cairo, Frankfurt, Zagreb, Stuttgart, Bern, New Delhi, Moscow, Tehran, Bahgdad, Lahore, St. Petersberg, etc...

Of the largest cities in the world, I'd say only half are coastel.

[Aileron]

Originally posted by LzPrst
btw, this is what I mean when I whine that the game isnt complete. theres too many issues like this that should have been playtested further. by firaxis, not by us...

I think in this case they probably just decided to do it this way, rather than it being an oversight, but I'm giving you a anyway for dogmatically restating your point every chance you get. Keep preaching LzPrst.

[1shmae1]

Originally posted by dearmad
interesting... but coast or waterway? I mean:

Paris, Berlin, London, Chicago, Mexico City, Madrid, Cairo, Frankfurt, Zagreb, Stuttgart, Bern, New Delhi, Moscow, Tehran, Bahgdad, Lahore, St. Petersberg, etc...

Bern? BERN??? I've been to Bern and it certainly belongs on no one's list of the world's largest cities.

London and Chicago should not be on your list as both the Thames and the St. Laurence are fully-navigable waterways (the latter, post-errie-cannal). St. Petersberg should certainly never have been on the list (http://versta-travel.spb.ru/pics/_map.jpg).

In "game" terms (Civ Maps), Tehran, Cairo would also count as coastal cities.

Of the largest cities in the world, I'd say only half are coastel.

You are certainly wrong in terms of population distribution.

Here are the ten largest cities of 100AD.

Rome -- Coastal
Luoyang (Honan), China
Bagdad, Iraq
Alexandria, Egypt -- Coastal
Antioch, Turkey -- Coastal
Anuradhapura, Sri Lanka -- Coastal
Peshawar, Pakistan
Carthage, Tunisia -- Coastal
Suzhou, China -- Coastal
Izmir, Turkey -- Coastal

Tha'ts 70% for the ancient world. Let's see for 1950.

New York, USA -- Coastal
London, UK -- Coastal
Tokyo, Japan -- Coastal
Paris, France
Shanghai, China -- Coastal
Moscow, Russia
Buenos Aires, Argentina -- Coastal
Chicago, USA -- Coastal
Ruhr, Germany
Kolkata, India -- Coastal

The ratio's still 70%. Not much has changed.

Nevertheless, in Civ, Coastal cities tend to be at a disadvantage in terms of size. The largest cities are surrounded by 20 tiles of verdant farmland. In reality, that's Winnipeg Manitoba or Omaha Nebraska. Not exactly world-class cosmopolitan metropoli.

In the real world, food is never a limitation. There's always enough of it -- baring war. It's people that are always short and people cost MONEY -- not food. A city actually purchases its population -- in the real world. That's how he Yukon got so populous during the gold rush. That's why New York's so big, despite pouring concrete all over its fertile soil.

In real life, farmland is a massive waste of space. It's always best to get rid of it.

[Sloth_DC]

Originally posted by dearmad


interesting... but coast or waterway? I mean:

Paris, Berlin, London, Chicago, Mexico City, Madrid, Cairo, Frankfurt, Zagreb, Stuttgart, Bern, New Delhi, Moscow, Tehran, Bahgdad, Lahore, St. Petersberg, etc...

Of the largest cities in the world, I'd say only half are coastel.

Bern and Moscow aren't that big. Most of the rest of your list are either coastal or on navigable rivers or lakes. And before you quibble about Moscow, Soviet population figures are notoriously bad. Oh, and how could you leave New York, Baltimore, and Los Angeles off the list? All coastal, I might add. As for Chicago, as with most interior US cities, the pop figures are misleading - these cities may be big, but they aren't dense.

[kallussed]

1shmae1, here's a good test for you. Play George Washington (USA), build towards a coast ASAP (mouth of a river is best). Build all economic buildings (bank, market, etc.) and early economic / water wonders (great lighthouse, colossus, etc.) Sign open border agreements. Play up to year 17-1800ish. Look at how much money you make per round. (ensure no banks, etc. are being built).

Close all border agreements, end a couple of turns, look at income.

Done...

Most of my powerful cities are built on the coast. I use the water for food and money, while I maintain moderate produiction (watermills, mines, windmills), and several towns. Only farm where resources require it. Money can more than make up for lost production when you are making 100+ per round in the BC's, and 1000+ per round in the AD's with 100% research.

[kallussed]

Originally posted by Sloth_DC


As for Chicago, as with most interior US cities, the pop figures are misleading - these cities may be big, but they aren't dense.

Chicago is HUGE! Population density of over 12,700 per sq. mile. And that's with population going DOWN since 1980 from 13,227 (more dense than 2001 London)

http://www.demographia.com/db-chi-nhd2000.htm

Only city in the UK with density over 2000 Chicago (though several are close) is 2001 London

http://www.demographia.com/db-uk-uza.htm

Chicago is a "port" city though. Just like Detroit, they are on the Great Lakes and connected to the Atlantic.

I know that many US cities aren't as dense as those in Europe, but Chicago is indeed far more dense than most.

[1shmae1]

[SIZE=1] Most of my powerful cities are built on the coast.

Question: are most of your largest cities built on the coast?

[1shmae1]

It's clear now that Open Borders is essential to trade. Formal trade agreements between nations are only a small part of the total world trade -- most of which is handled in the background by the AI.

I must admit that the free movement of military units over the planet is a game-breaker for me. And furthermore, there appears to be no easy way to correct the problem! Eliminating open borders agreements hobbles trade so that's simple not an option.

However, I have learned that the AI can deal with closed borders very well. Last night, I was attacked by Napoleon who sent a stack of units by galley, literally half-way around the world, to invade one of my poorly-defended cities (how he knew, I can't say!).

I would be satisfied by a system that never permitted allied troops on foriegn land. This is not a comprehencive reflection of reality but it is, at least, historically typical. The status quo bears no relationship to history whatsoever.

The ideal situation would permit the movement of troops across only allied terrirtory. That is, when two nations are at war with the same enemy, each may choose to open its borders to the other's military units. The aggrement would end should either party make a seperate peace.

I'm a bit disillusioned by this design choice on the part of the game makers. Right now, it's just sucking all the enjoyment out of the game for me. That sounds extreme perhaps but the situation was obviously sufficiently irritating to drive me to this forum seeking a solution. Only time will tell if I can enjoy the game under these circumstances.

One things for sure -- I've got to learn how to alter the program to correct this "problem."

[kallussed]

Originally posted by 1shmae1


Question: are most of your largest cities built on the coast?

My starting city is almost always the largest, so it depends on if I start near the coast. I do know that my coastal cities have plenty of food available, which means thay can grow quite large. So a coastal city with lots of food will grow larger than an inland city with lots of industry.

Simple answer, probably