Need "land claim" feature in Civ3

[Brundlefly]

This may have been suggested before, but it would be nice to see a feature where you could claim land for settlement. The claim would appear on the map with an icon. You could even negotiate the removal or placement of land claims. If a civ ignores your land claim and settles on your claimed territory (which is the actual claimed square or any adjacent square), then it is an act of war. You can only have 3 active claims at any time. The claim cannot be adjusted for 20 turns once you've placed it on the map.

EDIT: (added 5-12-03)
The nice thing about land claims is that you don't spend a lot of time and resource sending Settlers to some area only to find that the AI has gotten to the exact square you wanted for settlement one turn before you. Then you have to start a war to get that spot if you really want it. If the AI moves into your land claim the "Remove forces from our borders or declare WAR" diplomacy options turns on and the AI can make the decision how badly it wants that spot.

Now that I think more about how powerful this could be, I think that the duration of the claims should be shorter, say 10 turns perhaps, and when you build a settler you must settle in one of your land claim blocks (so that you can't use land claims just to keep land from the AI).

Do you think players would easily exploit this new feature? Would there be a balance of usefulness to both player and AI?

[Shadow Dweller]

I like that Idea a lot...

[GhengisFarbâ„¢]

I had thought just being able to negotiate borders and claimed territory not settled would be nice.

[Cookie Monster]

I think this is a great idea as well......

[mrmitchell]

A great idea.

But can the AI handle it?

P.S. Er, I like Ghengis's idea better. Negotiate specific borders with an AI, and settlement of those isn't a major offense but can be used to declare war and will bring an AI civ's opinion of you down by several notches.

[MarkG]

cool idea but i wonder if it would end up like the demand cities feature in civ3 where i dont recall ever geting the ai to hand over a city (in smac it was much easier)

[geniemalin]

Personally I think land claims are too complicated, but I would like destruction of a colony by putting a settlement right next to it be considered an act of war. If they put a settlement 2 squares away and take it 'by stealth', fine, but at least then you've had the chance to respond.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by geniemalin
Personally I think land claims are too complicated, but I would like destruction of a colony by putting a settlement right next to it be considered an act of war. If they put a settlement 2 squares away and take it 'by stealth', fine, but at least then you've had the chance to respond.

I've never had that happen to a colony before, but you're right. A colony is a claim to land rights that is disrespected when someone settles nearby and destroys it. That event should automatically cause war.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by MarkG
cool idea but i wonder if it would end up like the demand cities feature in civ3 where i dont recall ever geting the ai to hand over a city (in smac it was much easier)

Well, that's a good point. What exactly should be the trade value of a landclaim? It should not have as high a trade value as an actual city..... but certainly a landclaim that contains an iron resource is as valuable as a tech advance, don't you think?

[Solver]

It's indeed a good point, Civ 3 AI certainly has difficulty with city trading. In the later versions, the AI would never trade cities, not in any case.

In SMAC, it would, but sometimes too easily. You could get small cities that are very important tactically for too small of a price.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by mrmitchell
A great idea.

But can the AI handle it?

P.S. Er, I like Ghengis's idea better. Negotiate specific borders with an AI, and settlement of those isn't a major offense but can be used to declare war and will bring an AI civ's opinion of you down by several notches.

I like GF's idea, too. To simply set a border would be match closely to how nations interact in real life .

However, I think that my idea of placing 3 blocks of 9-square land claims , while not being as much of a RL example, would be more easily implemented in the game. By using 3 seperate objects for this purpose, the AI can more easily place a value on land-claiming for the purpose of negotiation. You can't expect AI to understand much about strategic placement of things like borders or even landclaims, but I think the AI could understand the value of a good city location with or without resources.

For those that want to make something like a border, you could always manufacture a border by placing your 3 landclaim blocks side-by-side.

[Japher]

bfg, your right, I had no idea this forum even existed... THough I don't really pay much attention.

As for your idea, I think it's a good idea. Maybe you could just "hold" the land with another unit, warrior, to indicate the land claim...

[MattH]

What about making each explorer able to drop one at a time?

[MrFun]

This idea really does sound cool!!

[Andemagne]

YEAH! borders should be negotiable.

Originally posted by MarkG
cool idea but i wonder if it would end up like the demand cities feature in civ3 where i dont recall ever geting the ai to hand over a city (in smac it was much easier)

I have once seen this, the AI traded 1 city for peace with me.