End Open Borders Now

[deKoven]

Hmmmm, I almost NEVER grant open borders to any civ. The hassle one gets from watching mil units wandering around my valuable cities is just too damaging to my concentration. I hardly ever trade with other civs either; I just TAKE what I wants if I finds it.

[1shmae1]

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.

Why doesn't this game come with a proper manual????

I have NO idea how trade works in this game. Who's fault is that??? How about a frikin manual Fraxis??? (Anyone want to explain to me how trade actually works?)

So that leaves me now with the original problem. How can I stop armies from crossing continents to attack opponents?

This is extremely rare historically. 99% of all the wars ever fought were fought between immediate neighbors. In fact, great powers often take steps to insure that they don't neighbor one another for this very reason (they put some small, independent and powerless buffer states between one another).

In CIV 4, however, anyone can go to war with anyone else and military units are essentially free-ranging. This is absolutely insane and is a bit of a game-killer for me. It's utterly alien to world history (with rare exceptions).

Perhaps we could make Open Borders available only to Civs of the same religion? That would conceivably divide the world into seven trading blocks that could not trade with one another (except for organized, resource trading). That's actually not completely unrealistic. It would negatively impact economic growth by balkanizing the world trade network but perhaps not cripple it so much the game breaks. It would also elevate the importance of choosing which religion to subscribe to and we might see a more realistic organization of the world economy (The so-called "Western World" is, of course, an outgrowth of Christendom, while pan-Arab nationalism is an outgrowth Islam -- even Latin American anti-capitalism is, in part, a legacy of Latin-American Catholocism).

Limiting Open Borders this way alows for historical troop movements witnessed during the Crusades (or even the pre-Christian barbarian invasions of Greece and Italy from Europe). Armies could move between nations of the same religion but run up against a hard border the moment they met a competitor with a different religion. That might be an acceptable compromise.

[Bill3000]

Perhaps we could make Open Borders available only to Civs of the same religion? That would conceivably divide the world into seven trading blocks that could not trade with one another

This isn't needed. This tends to happen anyways, as those who are not of the same religion will have a serious negative diplomacy penalty toward you and will dislike you, especially if the civilization in particular is spiritual. Open Borders tend to work like this already. As I said before, it would be better to split Open Borders, not to limit it.

Oh, and there is a manual.

[1shmae1]

Originally posted by Sloth_DC


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.

HHmmmm....

Been thinking a bit more about this and I still think you may be wrong. Let me take a stab at guessing how trade works.

There is no trade with other Civs that is not organized by agreements (you negotiate to exchange resources or resources for gold). But who you can trade with is affected by "open borders."

Three civs - X, Y, and Z. X and Z are seperated from, one another by Y. That means X and Z cannot trade goods unless either X or Z has an open borders agreement with Y.

This changes one you get ocean trade routes. Then you can just sail around Y.

So from my perspective (if I am right about the above), I think we can eliminate Open Borders from the game entirely, without breaking game play.

[1shmae1]

Originally posted by Bill3000

Oh, and there is a manual.

I read both the printed manual and the PDF on the CD. Both were inadequate in the extreme.

[Bill3000]

Originally posted by 1shmae1


HHmmmm....

Been thinking a bit more about this and I still think you may be wrong. Let me take a stab at guessing how trade works.

There is no trade with other Civs that is not organized by agreements (you negotiate to exchange resources or resources for gold). But who you can trade with is affected by "open borders."

Three civs - X, Y, and Z. X and Z are seperated from, one another by Y. That means X and Z cannot trade goods unless either X or Z has an open borders agreement with Y.

This changes one you get ocean trade routes. Then you can just sail around Y.

So from my perspective (if I am right about the above), I think we can eliminate Open Borders from the game entirely, without breaking game play.

That's not what it means by a trade route. The trade routes in this game are similiar to SMAC. A trade route with another city increases commerce in both cities.

[Sloth_DC]

Originally posted by 1shmae1


Why doesn't this game come with a proper manual????

I have NO idea how trade works in this game. Who's fault is that??? How about a frikin manual Fraxis??? (Anyone want to explain to me how trade actually works?)

Try page 155 of the frikin[sic] manual.

So that leaves me now with the original problem. How can I stop armies from crossing continents to attack opponents?

You can't.

This is extremely rare historically. 99% of all the wars ever fought were fought between immediate neighbors.

Like Operation Desert Storm? The Barbary Wars? Spanish-American War? Falklands War? Vietnam War? Korean War? French-Indochina War? Boer War? Quasi-War?

[Sloth_DC]

Originally posted by 1shmae1


HHmmmm....

Been thinking a bit more about this and I still think you may be wrong. Let me take a stab at guessing how trade works.

Why guess? You could either read the farking manual, which explains this completely, or play the farking game, and look in your City Screen, which also explains this completely. Either of those options is far more productive than your random guesses.

There is no trade with other Civs that is not organized by agreements (you negotiate to exchange resources or resources for gold). But who you can trade with is affected by "open borders."

See what I mean? RTFM or PTFG. Either one will quickly show you that every city has one or more money-producing trade routes automagically established with other cities, and that these trade routes can be international, but not with civs with whom you do not have an Open Borders agreement.

[Boris Godunov]

And page 103, too. How can someone complain about a manual they never read?

And I don't see why they "must" make this change. Are you dictating things to Firaxis now?

I do like some of the ideas in this thread, and will be interested to see what the mod community comes up with.

[1shmae1]

Let's assume that I am an idiot.

Let's also assume that I am not a liar.

This means that I read the manual and it is not idiot proof.

[Nik]

Originally posted by Sloth_DC

Like Operation Desert Storm? The Barbary Wars? Spanish-American War? Falklands War? Vietnam War? Korean War? French-Indochina War? Boer War? Quasi-War?

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

But all the others were more or less modern wars.

I think there should be 2 kinds of passage:
1. Economic Open Borders
(in which only non-military units can enter)
2. Military right of passage
(All units can move through)

And I support that when attacked by a civ, you should have some kind of causes belli or war will be initiated when the civ granting right of passage to the agressive civilization.

Come up with some real world examples (apart from modern, in which it is much more complex with UN etc.)

[1shmae1]

I stand behind my claim as well that 99% of all wars in history have been fought between direct neighbors. This holds true even today. Get out an atlas and chart every conflict currently occuring. You will find that all of them (with the exception of U.S./Iraq) are taking place state-to-state across a common border (or are intra-state civil wars).

In most cases where direct neighbors are not involved, transport occurs via the ocean -- not land routes. When Britain fought the Turks in the Crimea, it did not move its armies across Europe to invade the Ottoman Empire from the Balkans. This, however, is the invariable occurance in Civ 4. Armies cross entire continents (with your not even being aware of it), show up on your doorstep, and declare war.

This is a-historical in the extreme.

If a civ on the other side of the planet wishes to attack me, let them get into boats and storm ashore.

[1shmae1]

Originally posted by Nik

Come up with some real world examples (apart from modern, in which it is much more complex with UN etc.)

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

[Nik]

hey 1shmae1, I support you!!!! God damn it!!!!

[Sloth_DC]

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).
...
Come up with some real world examples (apart from modern, in which it is much more complex with UN etc.)

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