Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

End Open Borders Now

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • End Open Borders Now

    In all of history, I am aware of no instance in which one empire or nation permitted the troops of another to march through its territory in war without it too being imp0licated in the conflict. In fact, it is extremely rare for one nation to even permit an aly to march its armys through its territory. It is almost unheard of for a neutral to permit this.

    In Civ 4, not only do empires and nations open their borders freely to one-another's armies (which politely return to the demarkation lines upon the declaration of war, no less!), these same armies are permitted to march enmass across entire continents to conduct wars far beyond their territories.

    The only historical example of this I can recall is the Crusades -- and then it was often more a matter of the intimidating size of the army and its unspoken (and sometimes spoken) threat potential that made the international transport of troops possible. And note that the fellow Christian troops around Constantinople did not politely exit the region when their presence was no longer convenient.

    Civ 4 must be modified such that "Open Borders" agreements either...

    1) Don't exist;
    2) Have no impact on military units -- borders remain closed to all armies and navies (only setlers and workers may pass through);
    3) Have a limited impact on military units (one military unit may pass through at any time and no more); or
    4) Work exactly as they do now except for the following modifications:
    --- a. The AI rarely agrees to "Open Borders" with any party
    --- b. War does not force the exit of suddenly hostile troops.
    --- c. When the units of one civilization, initiate a war from the territory of another (cross a border, for example), that other civilization is also implicated in the war (if you let someone inside your nation, you are responsible for anything they do to your neighbors).

    I'm tired of being attacked by a computer player who resides on the other side of the planet, via a neutral neighbor with whom I am actively trading, without having a causis beli for war with my neighbor as well.

  • #2
    agreed

    Comment


    • #3
      Open Borders for non-military

      I completely agree. I think Open borders has its uses, but it should only apply to non-military units. In other words, open borders allows the following units.

      Settlers, workers, scouts, explorers, great people, missionaries, any other non-military unit I can't remember

      Now, I believe it should be possible for military units to move across foreign soils, but only through an agreement like the defensive pact. Many countries have troops stationed abroad with the understanding that those troops will help out if/when necessary. Of course, in a defensive pact (if I understand it correctly), if one country goes to war, the other one automatically does the same. Thus, certain risks are assumed by the defensive pact. Also, on cancellation of the defensive pact, all units should be moved back as in the current Open Borders implementation.

      Spies, subs, and other covert units, of course, are not affected by either agreement.

      I'd love to get involved with writing a mod for this. Alas, I have not as yet studied the Civ 4 codebase, so at this moment my utility in such an endeavor would be limited. However, this would be a strong motivation to learn.

      One question, how would one alter the weight of such agreements so that the AI could understand that they have changed?

      TTYL all

      Comment


      • #4
        solution
        edit tech tree
        in the tech tree find writing and change from
        "< bOpenBordersTrading>1< /bOpenBordersTrading>"

        to "< bOpenBordersTrading>0< /bOpenBordersTrading>"

        Open borders disabled

        Comment


        • #5
          Yeah. It's a "sort-a" solution. Problem is, it will prevent the movement of missionaries as well.

          UNLESS....

          Missionaries are given the same properties as caravels. Then missionaries can move through all territory.

          Comment


          • #6
            agree. another possible solution is to make open borders for units only possible if you are allied with the other civ. and you have to sign an open borders agreement in addition to the alliance\defensive pact, not automatically get it when you sign an alliance.

            what about trade? well here the modding comes in. you would have to split the trade part of open borders and the army\units allowance part so you could open trade routes, but not allow units at the same time.
            Diplogamer formerly known as LzPrst

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: End Open Borders Now

              Originally posted by 1shmae1
              In all of history, I am aware of no instance in which one empire or nation permitted the troops of another to march through its territory in war without it too being imp0licated in the conflict.
              *shrug* They can't very well limit the game mechanics to things you have knowledge of, or it would be a very limited game indeed. For the immediate example, just consider where all the bases are that the US used in invading Iraq and Afghanistan - Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Essentially, we marched our units through their territory on the way to Iraq.

              Civ 4 must be modified such that "Open Borders" agreements either...

              1) Don't exist;
              2) Have no impact on military units -- borders remain closed to all armies and navies (only setlers and workers may pass through);
              Hmmm, the real question is, why did they get rid of Right of Passage? Open Borders is cool, and needs to be reciprocal, but should be limited to economic effects (and maybe workers, settlers, and naval units). Right of passage should have been retained as a distinct option, possibly non-reciprocal, and affecting military units - and, yes, far less common.

              --- c. When the units of one civilization, initiate a war from the territory of another (cross a border, for example), that other civilization is also implicated in the war (if you let someone inside your nation, you are responsible for anything they do to your neighbors).
              That seems reasonable.

              I'm tired of being attacked by a computer player who resides on the other side of the planet, via a neutral neighbor with whom I am actively trading, without having a causis beli for war with my neighbor as well.
              Now, there's something distinctly lacking - you really shouldn't take a reputation hit or suffer War Weariness if you have a valid cause for war (unless you're the US).

              Comment


              • #8
                *shrug* They can't very well limit the game mechanics to things you have knowledge of, or it would be a very limited game indeed. For the immediate example, just consider where all the bases are that the US used in invading Iraq and Afghanistan - Turkey, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, and Kuwait. Essentially, we marched our units through their territory on the way to Iraq.
                You are quite wrong. Read again what I wrote. Those nations that permitted U.S. troops to attack Iraq from their soil were indeed "implicated in the conflict." This is precisely why Saudi Arabia and Turkey would no go along with the invasion this time around. It's also why Sadam had a "causis beli" to fire missiles at Kuwait once the U.S. military lauched its invasion over the Kuwaiti border.

                Hmmm, the real question is, why did they get rid of Right of Passage? Open Borders is cool, and needs to be reciprocal, but should be limited to economic effects (and maybe workers, settlers, and naval units). Right of passage should have been retained as a distinct option, possibly non-reciprocal, and affecting military units - and, yes, far less common.
                I think the answer is given by an earlier poster: open borders, or "right of passage," is available only to an ally in an already declared war.

                In the meantime, I've set up a mod where open borders does not exist as an option but galleys and missionaries can travel inside any border.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by 1shmae1
                  I think the answer is given by an earlier poster: open borders, or "right of passage," is available only to an ally in an already declared war.
                  That's not an answer - Open Borders is primarily an economic tool, not military. The issue won't be fixed until there is an economic Open Borders, and a military Right of Passage. And your answer ignores a lot of military history - ships, especially, have often put in at "neutral" ports.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Open Borders is primarily an economic tool
                    Is it? You mean I can't trade with someone with whom I do not have an open borders agreement? Are you certain? No wonder I'm doing so poorly!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      I think that there should be a smaller version of Open Borders. Or, rather, have it like this:

                      - Peace: As it is currently

                      - Open Borders - allows trade, non-military units can go through, use of roads. The economic side of old Open Borders. Perhaps there could be non-military transports as well, other than the caravel, to allow sea transport and exploration.

                      - Right of Passage - Military units can go through. The military side of old Open Borders.

                      IMO, that would be an excellent compromise. I wonder if it is possible.

                      And yes, 1shmae1, from what I have seen, trade routes are open borders only.
                      "Compromises are not always good things. If one guy wants to drill a five-inch hole in the bottom of your life boat, and the other person doesn't, a compromise of a two-inch hole is still stupid." - chegitz guevara
                      "Bill3000: The United Demesos? Boy, I was young and stupid back then.
                      Jasonian22: Bill, you are STILL young and stupid."

                      "is it normal to imaginne dartrh vader and myself in a tjhreee way with some hot chick? i'ts always been my fantasy" - Dis

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by 1shmae1


                        Is it? You mean I can't trade with someone with whom I do not have an open borders agreement? Are you certain? No wonder I'm doing so poorly!
                        Yes - trade routes are only established with people with whom you have Open Borders. That's why I said up above, this option should remain common and reciprocal, but Right of Passage should be split out into a new concept. The two are not the same. We may have open trade with China, but not grant them right of passage. And we may have right of passage with Pakistan without granting them open trade.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by 1shmae1


                          Is it? You mean I can't trade with someone with whom I do not have an open borders agreement? Are you certain? No wonder I'm doing so poorly!
                          Yeah, I think that's it. You miss out on the trade benefits if you don't open borders, but then they can march troops into your territory too. I thought it was dumb too, and it would be great if there was a mod to separate open trade borders/open military borders (right of passage).

                          Also, once I was attacked by an AI that I had open borders with and it DIDN'T bump their troops out of my territory.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            You miss out on the trade benefits if you don't open borders, but then they can march troops into your territory too. I thought it was dumb too, and it would be great if there was a mod to separate open trade borders/open military borders (right of passage).
                            I have to tell you guys that I do think you are wrong -- though I'm going to test this for sure today. I have always made a habit of denying anyone "open borders" unless I had an immediate need to cross their territory -- yet, so far as I know, I've been able to trade tech and resources with everyone.

                            Perhaps I just never noticed that I couldn't trade. I'll see now.

                            Also, once I was attacked by an AI that I had open borders with and it DIDN'T bump their troops out of my territory.
                            I think you are wrong here too -- though perhaps it was a bug. I once thought this had happened to me but in reality, the enemy troops moved back to the border then re-crossed it in the same turn.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by 1shmae1


                              I have to tell you guys that I do think you are wrong -- though I'm going to test this for sure today. I have always made a habit of denying anyone "open borders" unless I had an immediate need to cross their territory -- yet, so far as I know, I've been able to trade tech and resources with everyone.

                              Perhaps I just never noticed that I couldn't trade. I'll see now.
                              No, you misunderstand - you can trade techs and resources without Open Borders, but you cannot establish trade routes. Which means your cash flow is gonna hella suck. Open Borders ties you into the global economy, and can _greatly_ improve your city trade route income.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X