End Open Borders Now

[Ollywood]

Well, I only read through have the threadso I don't know if anyone mentioned this yet, but I have noticed that often when two civs are at war with one another, oneof the two will frequently not only ask me to join in the war, but also cancel all trades (open borders agreement included).

Say for instance, you are on the east of the continent and your opponent on the west with a buffer country in the middle. You can also either demand tribute or friendly ask the buffer state to stop trading with your enemy. You sometimes even might have to give them something in order to make this deal. This would prevent their military units from crossing the buffer zone on land.

However, lacking in this strategy is that commonly that option in the diplomacy screen is red and and hence you can't even demand from them to stop trading.... :/

[1shmae1]

I've thought about the problem a little more and come up with an alternative solution. I propose attempting a "Free Trade" Mod.

This Mod would make it impossible to close borders to trade. Everyone gets to trade with anyone at all times. No "Open Borders" agreement is rquired.

In fact, it is debatable as to whether this is more or less reflective of real-world history. Trade is very difficult for a governments to stop -- as the war on Drug demonstrates.

So what is the purpose of this mod? To seperate trade networks from "Open Borders Agreements." Once that seperation is made, we are free to increase the friendliness threshold on "Open Borders Agreements" to effectively transform these agreements into rarely-made, "right of passage" deals.

I am wondering if anyone can point me in the right direction to find where the linkage in the system is made between international trade and open borders agreements. Can someone give me a clue?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Surely there must be a part of the python script relating to borders. If so, then surely you could alter the parameters of 'Open Borders' such that they only allow in Scouts, missionaries, workers and settlers-but allow trade. Then, find the alliance conditions, and have them grant movement across borders for all military units AND perhaps grant +50% increase to all trade routes with your ally.
That is one thing to check out.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[1shmae1]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
...you could alter the parameters of 'Open Borders' such that they only allow in Scouts, missionaries, workers and settlers-but allow trade. Then, find the alliance conditions, and have them grant movement across borders for all military units AND perhaps grant +50% increase to all trade routes with your ally.

Now THAT is exactly how the system should work! Perfect!

But I've no idea where to begin. I guess it's gonna be a line-by-line search through the Python files, followed by a great deal of experimentation.

[Venger]

Well allow another chime in...

Yes, ABSOLUTELY there must be separation between open borders and right of passage. This is simply MANDATORY. Most modern TBS games have this clear delineation between trading rights and unit movement rights within national boundaries.

The concepts should be open trade and right of passage. To argue against this seems to go counter to basic logic...

Venger

[Tomsawyer]

I have visions of the longentivity movie from SMAC. The one where the Morgan the Industrist is seen moving against the UN Guy yelling "Get off my land you peace loving son of a b"

[Sloth_DC]

Originally posted by 1shmae1
I've thought about the problem a little more and come up with an alternative solution. I propose attempting a "Free Trade" Mod.

This Mod would make it impossible to close borders to trade. Everyone gets to trade with anyone at all times. No "Open Borders" agreement is rquired.

In fact, it is debatable as to whether this is more or less reflective of real-world history. Trade is very difficult for a governments to stop -- as the war on Drug demonstrates.

True...but it's not that difficult to drive the trade underground, such that neither _government_ benefits from it. That being said, I kinda like your proposed changes - and, yes, alliance seems the natural place to include Right of Passage, at least until somebody figures out how to code a Right of Passage that isn't reciprocal.

[Arrian]

One issue I see with allowing only scouts, missionaries, workers and settlers:

Settlers need escorts. They're dead meat w/o them. Scouts are too weak - run into so much as a barb warrior and your settler is toast.

-Arrian

[arkeide]

I would be agree with this kind of change but I think that settlers should not pass on this kind of agreement.
Only scouts, workers, missionaries and great peoples.

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.

I would be very interested by a mod like this. I always wanted this kind of features in the previous Civilizations. But it seems to me that there was something like that in SMAC...

I always think about Japan, a country with no resources and nearly not enough food to feed his people... it has become one of the most powerful country in the world, has conquered most of asian area during WWII and is now one of the most advanced in technology.
How Japan succeded ? because it has access to a very fertile and resources-rich area : south asia. They never really colonized those countries, but instead exploited their resources by conquest or trade.
The same goes for the Germany during the World War II...
And now most countries are dependant of other countries for food / minary / energy...

What a mod should implement at least:
- Civilizations should be able to exchange not only resources but also production and food.
- A city could gather food or production from another city of the same civilization. It would cost money (proportionnal to the distance and the fact that it is over sea, etc).
It would bring a lot of new strategies: conquering the most cities would not be the only way to have the biggest production, trade and diplomacy would become a lot more useful.
I'm very interested to work on a mod like that, i will look also in python and XML!
Good luck!

[Ryoken]

Just for the record, you are totally wrong about 99% of wars taking place between countries with borders. This is just one time period, but I think it is instructive. You will notice most of the major multi-state wars are in this list.

Major Wars with No Border Fighting: 1500-1815

Italian Wars: 1494-1559
France and Spain send their armies through various allies AND neutral city-states to fight half-century war over Italy. Fighting was NOT along France/Spain border, but in Italy and neutral city-states (Spanish army even sacked Rome after not being paid).

Eighty-Years War (Dutch War of Independence)1568-1648
Netherlands declares independence from Spain. Spain must send troops along the infamous "Spanish Road" from Milan to Flanders. Strategic difficulties lead to Spanish defeat. England sends troops into Netherlands to help many times.

30-Years War: 1618-1648
Denmark and then Sweden invade Holy Roman Empire to fight Austria. Most fighting took place in princely states of the HRE, not in Austria and certainly not in Scandinavia. France joins war and marches into scattered Austrian possessions in the HRE, marching through neutral/friendly territory to do so.

Anglo-Dutch Wars: 1652-1654 / 1665-1667 / 1672-1674
Purely naval wars fought over control of the English channel.

War of Austrian Succession: 1740-1748
Prussia invades Austrian Silesia (border), France joins Prussia (no border with Austria) and marches through neutral territory to reach Austria. England and the Netherlands join Austria and fight against France along the Dutch / French border. Many battles occur in Southwestern Germany (neutral) and in the lower Rhine valley (neutral).

Seven Years War / French & Indian War: 1756-1763
England and France fight colonial wars in Canada and Caribbean (no borders). Both sides make extensive use of Indian allies and neutrals. War in Europe takes place largely in Rhine valley (neutral) and Silesia (border).

French Revolutionary Wars: 1792-1815
Lots of fighting in Italy (neutrals) and central Germany (neutrals). Napoleon invades Austria, Prussia, and Russia (no borders).

[1shmae1]

[SIZE=1]
Italian Wars: 1494-1559
France and Spain send their armies through various allies AND neutral city-states to fight half-century war over Italy. Fighting was NOT along France/Spain border, but in Italy and neutral city-states (Spanish army even sacked Rome after not being paid).

Right. Italy is nowhere near France.

I have never argued that when great powers go to war, they themselves go to war across their common borders. If I did, I would be wrong. But I didn't. Great Powers, in fact, do everything they can to avoid direct border-to-border conflict. Included setting up weakened buffer states to seperate themselves from one another.

What I have argued is that when cities, states, nations and empires do go to war, 99% of the time they are fighting with the guy next door!

And in this case, Spain is right next door to France. Que surprise!

And where do they fight? Right next door in Italy!

But of course, at this time, "Italy" did not exist as a nation state. You are obscuring the truth by mixing terminoloy. The "neutral city-states" you refer to were fully Italian, in so far as anything can be described as Italian at the time.

Eighty-Years War (Dutch War of Independence)1568-1648
Netherlands declares independence from Spain. Spain must send troops along the infamous "Spanish Road" from Milan to Flanders. Strategic difficulties lead to Spanish defeat. England sends troops into Netherlands to help many times.

At this time in History, Spain had a European Empire that included large parts of Europe. This is not a war between one civilization and another (in the Civ sense) but an internal cival war. In so far as Civ models this, it does so by cultural assimilation (Spain loses a distant colonial holding to the cultural influence of a local civiliztion).

30-Years War: 1618-1648
Denmark and then Sweden invade Holy Roman Empire to fight Austria. Most fighting took place in princely states of the HRE, not in Austria and certainly not in Scandinavia. France joins war and marches into scattered Austrian possessions in the HRE, marching through neutral/friendly territory to do so.

Well. Which was it? Neutral or Friendly? That's the whole point. Civ allows for armies to march willy-nilly around Europe, cross borders to invade other nations without compromising anyone's neutrality. No causis Beli is triggered.

The HRE incorporated much of Modern Germany as well as Austria and it's difficult to talk about this kind of political arrangment in Civ terms (which models everyting on the Nation State system). "France" itself is hard to define as such in 1618. Nations don't really exist in the modern sense -- just empires that incorporated various ethnic communities.

What I can tell you is that, in so far as these Empires did not border one another, they were seperated by "Buffer states" which always exist precisely in an effort to MINIMIZE border-conflict between great powers.

Take a look at Isreal, surrounded by Syria, Jordan and Egypt. What do we find at each border? Palistinians. Palistinians between Egypt and Isreal in Gaza. Palistinians between Israel and Jordan in the West Bank and Palistinians, together with the full, buffer-state of Lebenon, between Israel and Syria. Useful people these Palistinians.

Civ has no system by which to model minor buffer states so, in Civ terms, all of these beligerants must be modeled as border-to-border neighbors.

Anglo-Dutch Wars: 1652-1654 / 1665-1667 / 1672-1674
Purely naval wars fought over control of the English channel.

And utterly irrelivant to the question.

Anyway...I don't want to get into the minutia of history. You are perfectly welcome to believe that this kind free-wheeling march of armies over continents is commonplace in history. It's of absolutely no concern to me because I happen to know better.

[Hernadir]

Originally posted by Ryoken

30-Years War: 1618-1648
Denmark and then Sweden invade Holy Roman Empire to fight Austria. Most fighting took place in princely states of the HRE, not in Austria and certainly not in Scandinavia. France joins war and marches into scattered Austrian possessions in the HRE, marching through neutral/friendly territory to do so.

There are some questions about all the wars you mention but I do not have enough knowledge about them but the 30-Years War I have goon knowledge about so a I notice several thing you missed that I just have to point out.

First the 30-Years War was a religious war with most of the European countries involved. Al though the war started 1618 Sweden did not enter the war until 1630 when Gustav II Adolf landed his naval forces on the island Usedom in the northerly Germany. Any way the point is that no country in this was sending any troops thru a neutral country in this war the way you are trying to imply.

Seriously, I doubt that have happened in any of the war you mention and even if it has that is just a hand full of war in ten thousands (per haps its even hundred thousands) of war that have been fought in the history of man kind.

[Ryoken]

Originally posted by 1shmae1


Right. Italy is nowhere near France.

I have never argued that when great powers go to war, they themselves go to war across their common borders. If I did, I would be wrong. But I didn't. Great Powers, in fact, do everything they can to avoid direct border-to-border conflict. Included setting up weakened buffer states to seperate themselves from one another.

What I have argued is that when cities, states, nations and empires do go to war, 99% of the time they are fighting with the guy next door!

And in this case, Spain is right next door to France. Que surprise!

And where do they fight? Right next door in Italy!

But of course, at this time, "Italy" did not exist as a nation state. You are obscuring the truth by mixing terminoloy. The "neutral city-states" you refer to were fully Italian, in so far as anything can be described as Italian at the time.

Clearly, you are ignorant. France had a dynastic claim over the crown of Naples (southern Italy). The French army marched through Savoy (indepedent neutral), over the Alps, and into Northern Italy to conquer Milan (allied to Spain), then marched south through Florentine possessions (allied to France) across Papal land (neutral) and into Naples.

The Spanish contested this and marched their own army into Italy. At the time, the Spanish Empire was subsumed into the huge Habsburg Empire (split into Spain/Netherlands and Holy Roman Empire near end of Italian Wars). France eventually withdraws from Naples and then loses their grip on Milan (Battle of Pavia)

Spain and France were not fighting "on their borders". There were many smaller nations in the way and Naples is a long way from France; especially in the 16th century.

Originally posted by 1shmae1

At this time in History, Spain had a European Empire that included large parts of Europe. This is not a war between one civilization and another (in the Civ sense) but an internal cival war. In so far as Civ models this, it does so by cultural assimilation (Spain loses a distant colonial holding to the cultural influence of a local civiliztion).

This could potentially be true during the first few years on the conflict. It was an Eighty Years War because Spain didnt give up. The Netherlands was a fully functioning seperate nation for the majority of the war, Spain just kept fighting. And they couldnt get there by sea (their attempt to move a large navy into the English Channel resulted in the defeat of the "Spanish Armada" years later. So they had to march across neutral land along the Rhineland.

Originally posted by 1shmae1

Well. Which was it? Neutral or Friendly? That's the whole point. Civ allows for armies to march willy-nilly around Europe, cross borders to invade other nations without compromising anyone's neutrality. No causis Beli is triggered.

The HRE incorporated much of Modern Germany as well as Austria and it's difficult to talk about this kind of political arrangment in Civ terms (which models everyting on the Nation State system). "France" itself is hard to define as such in 1618. Nations don't really exist in the modern sense -- just empires that incorporated various ethnic communities.

Quit talking Casus Belli, this isnt Europa Universalis. You dont need Casus Belli to declare war in Civ, so quit using it as an example. I said neutral/friendly because there were MANY STATES, some neutral and some friendly. France is not hard to define in 1618. It was a functioning nation state. The HRE wasnt, this is true.

Originally posted by 1shmae1

What I can tell you is that, in so far as these Empires did not border one another, they were seperated by "Buffer states" which always exist precisely in an effort to MINIMIZE border-conflict between great powers.

Take a look at Isreal, surrounded by Syria, Jordan and Egypt. What do we find at each border? Palistinians. Palistinians between Egypt and Isreal in Gaza. Palistinians between Israel and Jordan in the West Bank and Palistinians, together with the full, buffer-state of Lebenon, between Israel and Syria. Useful people these Palistinians.

Civ has no system by which to model minor buffer states so, in Civ terms, all of these beligerants must be modeled as border-to-border neighbors.

Those states did not exist as buffers because the Great Powers wanted them to. They existed because of the legacy of feudal law and titles. Duchies like Burgundy were destroyed in the late Feudal era, but Duchies like Savoy and Milan and Prussia were not. It wasnt until Napoleon that a leader was able to wipe away the old Feudal system and impose a new structure in Germany and Italy. Feudal law was entrenched and that is why those tiny states existed.

Originally posted by 1shmae1

Anyway...I don't want to get into the minutia of history. You are perfectly welcome to believe that this kind free-wheeling march of armies over continents is commonplace in history. It's of absolutely no concern to me because I happen to know better.

If you dont want to get challenged, dont make broad incorrect assertions about the march of history.

Originally posted by Hernadir

First the 30-Years War was a religious war with most of the European countries involved. Al though the war started 1618 Sweden did not enter the war until 1630 when Gustav II Adolf landed his naval forces on the island Usedom in the northerly Germany. Any way the point is that no country in this was sending any troops thru a neutral country in this war the way you are trying to imply.

Seriously, I doubt that have happened in any of the war you mention and even if it has that is just a hand full of war in ten thousands (per haps its even hundred thousands) of war that have been fought in the history of man kind.

There were neutral principalities that Gustavus Adolphus marched through all over Germany during the 30 Years War. Violation of neutrality by crossing it with an army occured frequently in the 30 Years War. Half of the princes were neutral and trying to get out of the way. That is why the whole of Germany was looted to the bones during the 30 Years War, because everyone was marching all over the place with hungry & greedy mercenaries.

I clearly specified only 1500-1815 A.D., not all of history. There have not been hundreds of thousands of years of war because people didnt have agriculture until ~10,000 years ago. Tiny bands of people with clubs fighting over hunting grounds is not war.

Because I limited myself to 1500-1815 A.D., I did not bring in how the 2nd Punic War involved Hannibal Barca marching a huge army through southern Gaul into Italy from Spain. I did not bring in the barbarian invasions of the Roman Empire. I did not bring in the Arabic Islamic conquests or the Crusades or the entire feudal period when small bands of knights rode all across the scattered fiefs of Europe. I did not talk about the Franco-Prussian war, the 1st or 2nd World Wars, or hundreds of other wars outside of that time period.

I didnt even talk about all the wars within the time period I picked that matched my criteria, just the major ones. I didnt talk about the Swedish war with Saxony over the crown of Poland, even though it occured during this period. Or the War of Spanish Succession, or Bavarian Succession, or the Holy League campaigns against the Turks.

I just picked the highlights from a small period to illustrate the folly of declaring 99% of all wars occuring with your neighbors.

[eljeffe]

Originally posted by Nik Well I have never heard of "The Barbary Wars" or an special "Spanish-American War" (which to my knowlegde was Mexico-USA).

I don't know if anyone else has corrected you on this, but I'm too tired to look through the rest of the posts. The Mexican/American War was before the Civil War. The US annexed Texas, California and the rests of the southwest from Mexico. The Spanish/American War was after the Civil War. The US took colonial control of Cuba and the Philippines (and some other places I'm forgetting) from the long-faded Spanish Empire. Both wars were pretty silly and based almost entirely on lies.

Neither of these wars have anything to do with the thread at hand though. The Mexican/American War was fought on American (or Texan, if you Lone Stars out there want to get technical) and Mexican soil. No "neutral" third party was involved. The Spanish/American War was fought (if you want to call it that) for control of colonial islands. Again, no neutrals or "Open Boarders"

[Hernadir]

Originally posted by Ryoken
There were neutral principalities that Gustavus Adolphus marched through all over Germany during the 30 Years War. Violation of neutrality by crossing it with an army occured frequently in the 30 Years War. Half of the princes were neutral and trying to get out of the way. That is why the whole of Germany was looted to the bones during the 30 Years War, because everyone was marching all over the place with hungry & greedy mercenaries.

Gustav II Alolf had alliace/defence with several of the German princes and from the information i have the Swedish army only marched through their territory.

But i think this is the wrong forum for this discussion.

Tiny bands of people with clubs fighting over hunting grounds is not war.

Yes it is! Fighting over hunting grounds are a fight over a strategic resource, just as a fight over oil would be today.

I didnt talk about the Swedish war with Saxony over the crown of Poland, even though it occured during this period.

Well sence Sweden and Polen was neighbour at this time that was had been a poor example of troop movment over neutal territroy. And this also show that you list examples that not fit the subject.

I just picked the highlights from a small period to illustrate the folly of declaring 99% of all wars occuring with your neighbors.

The problem is that you are till picking quite "modern" wars. The logistic problems are diminishing over time, in the historical time line. If you look at the whole time period 4000 BC to 2040 AD you will notice that the technial/practical knowledge of troop movment long distances over neutal territory did not exist majority of the time period in question (For the most if the zivilizations anyway.).