{The List} Borders

[asleepathewheel]

I like these last several ideas as potential tweaks to the current system, which, IMHO, is pretty good, better than the previous games at least. I like the "maintain current border" option as well as Uber's forced cultural subjugation idea. I think that they should make the colonies have a one tile cultural space, so that they aren't taken over (perhaps unless they were completely surrounded by another culture).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
Skywalker,

I see what you are suggesting, but I always perceived the borders (as they are done currently) to represent the "power" of the city. I don't think the power of a city is extended just because the terrain is bad or unwanted. In fact, I think the opposite is true that borders tend to be just assumed, but not defined (think the Saudi Arabian border with Yemen and Oman).

One things humans are good at is identifying what is important, trying to lay claim to it and then fighting over it. In this way, I think the current system works. If you think that tundra is important, go settle Nome, Alaska on it. If not, someone else might come in there and do it. You might be lucky and find oil there later

OTOH, I'm not against the idea of allowing population to work tiles that are beyond the city limits. In this way, its kinda like the colony concept. If your city only has a radius of two tiles all around, but there is something you want to work, three...maybe four (but that would be it) tiles away, you should be able to work it (maybe at a reduction due to distance from the city). However, you do still run the risk that an opponent would plant a city which would bump your populatin out of that tile.

I don't know if I fully understand the last paragraph of your post.

The idea is not that bad tiles increase your power, but rather it is easier to project power across essentially worthless terrain - there is nothing in your way. It is also intended to make places like the Sahara and the Amazon actually part of countries without having to build cities all over it (which is unrealistic and annoying).

[Jaguar]

Allow for the player to have some choice in how his city radii are shaped. For example, if there is a mountain town with three gold resources that can't feed enough citizens to work them all, the player should be able to put the gold resource in another cities' radius, even if the radius has to stretch a little.

[ixnay]

I would like to see rivers and mountain ranges shape borders somewhat.

Perhaps this could be accomplished by making it so that borders from a city x tiles away from the river/mountain range stop at the terrain feature. To expand them, another city must be built closer to or on the other side of the river/mountains.

[Jaguar]

Definitely. And this should work on national borders too.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by ixnay
I would like to see rivers and mountain ranges shape borders somewhat.

Perhaps this could be accomplished by making it so that borders from a city x tiles away from the river/mountain range stop at the terrain feature. To expand them, another city must be built closer to or on the other side of the river/mountains.

give each terrain type a "culture cost", much like a "movement cost"!

so, a desert could have less cost than a grassland, which means the deserts would fill out / expand quickly, and make the mountains cost more to "assimilate", which would make them take longer to grow over.

if you made the costs a MODIFIER rather than a STATIC cost, you could make it so 1 "foriegn culture point" on the other side was worth 5 of your "domestic culture points", which would make it a lot harder to push your culture over geographic barriers.

these modifiers could change with technologies, as their effects become less pronounced as time goes on.

[Roman]

Uber Krux, that is an amazing idea!

[wrylachlan]

That's a great idea Uber! Anything that makes the terrain more important is ok with me!

[DarkCloud]

Here's some old Ideas I have dredged up from this site:

http://home.att.net/~civgames/ideas.html

Allow buying, selling, and trading individual pieces of land. This would allow simulation of: The Louisiana Purchase, The Gadsden Purchase, The Polish Corridor, The Alaska Purchase, etc.”
(HolyWarrior)

I think borders should be another bargaining tool. In the diplomat screen you should be able to move the boards around and offer the new arrangement to the other civilization. (i.e. you move the border) so you have more land (maybe including a city or two) in exchange for something”
(Blue Waldo)

[Rasputin]

culture should probabyl dictate the borders till you meet another civ, once you meet the other civ then you should have to negotiate a political border.

[Jamski]

I really like Uber's idea with cuture costs. If mountains and rivers require BIG culture to expand across, then that would give better looking borders.

Also wanted - culture costs increase if you want to take land in someone elses borders (we were here first syndrome) but this could be cancelled with placement of troops in that particular square. Maybe a square next to your borders with your troops in gains your culture at a faster rate....

-Jam

[Trifna]

Hey, is border really depending on culture to start with?...



Cultural influence is linked to culture, but the boarder is determined by ECONOMICAL and POLITICAL aspects! A city/civ may be very advanced, great and so on, if it has less population and is not using some territory, others will be able to take the territory anytime.

Borders are dependant on the territory you USE and are able to keep, perhaps less/differently when the nation-state comes in modern times. Like Canada: if it is not able to keep its presence in North Pole, USA may just take the territory (even with nation-states) without asking permission!

This is how territory is internationally determined right now, and this is how it always have been in the past. Territorial possession is done by using this territory, OCCUPYING it (economical use, demographic presence, military presence of an empty space (like northern Canada), etc.). Cultural expansion is not directly the same thing as physical border. To resume my point: Territory must be own de facto.


Waiting comments

[wrylachlan]

To expand and slightly change Uber's idea... instead of making the expansion of borders be based on the movement value of the tile, how about based on the "usefullness" of a tile. The way I see it, cultural expansion represents mini-settlers, who go out and set up little tiny villages planting your flag. Therefore, they should expand based on how useful a tile would be. Your borders would tend to expand fastest towards resources, fast along great tiles like grassland and forrests. Slowest along deserts and mountains (note the usefulness should represent what you can get out of a tile without upgrading it).

Once your border meets a neighbor's border, it is fixed. There should also be a way to trade territory.

[Kuciwalker]

To expand and slightly change Uber's idea... instead of making the expansion of borders be based on the movement value of the tile, how about based on the "usefullness" of a tile.

That's what both Uber and I said. Each tile has a movement cost and a culture cost.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by skywalker

To expand and slightly change Uber's idea... instead of making the expansion of borders be based on the movement value of the tile, how about based on the "usefullness" of a tile.

That's what both Uber and I said. Each tile has a movement cost and a culture cost.

Yes, but you were basing it on cultural borders moving faster across deserts, which is exactly the opposite of how I see it. Culture should travel faster towards more "useful" tiles.