{The List} Borders

[MJohn99519]

I like the idea of the territory negotiations and the purchacing of empty lands. However, if the trade of a city occurs under peaceful conditions the improvements should not be destroyed. Perhaps the effect negated while under the new civ, but not the actual buildings.

[snoopy369]

what's the gameplay advantage of that tho? I mean, except for what i'd call cheating (passing around cities for teleportation of units), there's no advantage to having a building that doesn't do anything. It's just a bigger civ file, a more cluttered window, and a lot more coding ... I'd just stick with either dump the culture buildings (as it is now), or keep them all working, one or the other.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by LzPrst
of course claims that couldnt be settled would be "disputed borders" like kashmir is to pakistan and india. what if cities couldnt be built in desert/tundra squares at all. after all noone can or wants to live there, and there are hardly any cities built on such terrain that has grown to any size. in civ I tend to build on these squares since I get the minimum food/production/trade there and will have less crappy squares in the city radius.
you could build forts and possibly even colonies, but they'd be limited so that they never grew beyond a certain size.

Building forts i'd say is the most realistic way of working this out. I liked your initial idea but had a hard time imagining this working -- i mean, drawing a line where and how?? I suppose you could literally draw a line, but civ hasn't ever been playable in that manner, so I don't see why that would be likely to change (even if the whole engine *is* changing, that's pretty drastic).

However, if you could say have a base territory as we do now (culture or just city radius, however), and then any territory that's not in anyones' base territory can be "claimed" through building forts or colonies (in the current usage of the term, civ3 style). You build a whatever, and then your radius extends to that.

Someone who's not necessarily at war with you can lay claim to part of that area as well (by building their own fort), and then there would be some sort of conflict resolution method -- whether that's just simply a war, or some sort of diplomatic arrangement from the F4 screen (maybe the ability to trade forts?).

If multiple people lay claim to one area i'd say you can use it if you have military there and the other guy doesn't (ie I have a rifleman in my fort and yours is empty), but if you both or neither have military there then nobody can use the area until it's been resolved (presumably by gifting the fort, or by taking it by force).

I definitely like the idea, so I don't have to build dumb cities in the middle of the desert just to keep people from building near my territory or to keep people away from "my" resources.

I'd definitely set it so that actually building a city in a "Disputed" zone is grounds for going to war, as well as perhaps disputing it at all (ie if i claim it first, if you lay claim as well second I can go to war with you). It'd make citizens happy to go to war (and mad to NOT go to war, even in democracy -- especially in democracy) for either side, and international law would "side" with the original owner -- ie if #1 attacks #2, all good; if #2 attacks #1, small repercussions on the diplomatic front.

[Boris Godunov]

Not sure if I'm repeating anything, but here is an idea:

Border claims. Perhaps using scouts/explorers (thus adding some real usefulness to them), you can plant "territory markers" in unclaimed lands. Any claims must be within a certain tile radius (varies depending on map size) of one of your cities. These territory claims will enable you to "fill out" those borders and mark areas for future expansion. However, you can't "use" the territories. I.e., no resource gathering from it. If another civ enters your claimed territory, you can demand they leave. If they plant a city or try to claim it themselves, you get a casus belli against them and can declare war free of any diplomatic penalties (I think there should be a clearer casus belli system sorta like in EU).

Also, how about buffer zones? A treaty could mandate neither civ that shares a border can put troops into a certain tile range from the border. Sending in your troops generates a casus belli.

Just thoughts!

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

I think that it would be quite easy to negotiate borders in diplomacy.
Bascically in the Diplomacy screen you would have a mini-map. You point and click on the mini-map to create a line marking where you want your border adjusted to. The When you finish marking this border, the computer will ask you if that is what you want to ask for. If you say yes, then it this demand will turn up on the table! Alternatively, you could use the same point and click system to mark out squares, rectangles circles or ovals of land that you wish to lay claim to. The rest would be pretty much as above.
Of course, unless that territory either belongs to either of the negotiating partners, or has in some way been 'claimed' by one of the parties, then you won't be able to click on it!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[snoopy369]

I'd say that's great in theory but not so good in practice for two reasons: First of all, the coding, particularly the AI coding, would be a HUGE pain, and the AI coding would never work right imho. The minimap would have to be square-by-square accurate (and have that sort of definition) since we're talking about precise borders here, yet be tiny (even on a HUGE map). And you'd have to have several options for each square -- neutral, owner 1, owner 2, DMZ, etc. (Beside the point that there are often more than 2 people disputing a region; what happens when players 1 and 2 agree to some territory that's right outside player 3's land, and then player 3 and 4 agree on its disposition as well?).

Second, it would make the game more complicated to the newer users -- a game that's already considered by many novice players to be too complicated. I agree that experienced Civvers like yourself and myself would love a feature like this, but I don't see a novice civver liking this added complexity. I think that borders being determined by physical placement of objects is much more intuitive and easier to follow for a newer user.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Well, there HAS to be a simpler way that my idea can be implemented, or simulated, coz I just feel that, along with unit trading, this is one part of diplomacy that is severely MISSING! After all, how many wars have started by minor territorial squabbles (like Kashmir), or been ended by ceding territory to another nation (like Mexico ceding land to the US). Also, what about the 'Louisiana Purchase'? I mean, I know that the civ games aren't supposed to replicating history exactly, but it would be good to be able to TRY!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

[snoopy369]

I think that physical markers work fine. You can easily in civ3 give up territory -- by giving up a city, which realistically would happen anyways (ie when we got the Gadsden "purchase" from mexico, which was effectively them ceding us land, we got El Paso, Las Cruces, Deming, etc. with it). The only real issue is unsettled territory, which is more complicated -- but can be simply addressed by giving Forts/barricades/outposts small zone of control factors, like I addressed earlier. You can easily trade these items to other civs just like you can give a worker to them -- heck you could just vacate and they could take them over, wouldn't *have* to be a diplo screen action (ie for MP games), and could be effected militarily. Again, real-life wise, we do NOT really just draw lines in the sand -- there's generally a fort or some sort of outpost associated with it. Even the Louisiana Purchase involved the transfer of many forts, outposts, etc. (though admittedly not that populated), but I don't think we should worry about that close of accuracy -- if we did we'd have a lot better places to look than this.

[Lawrence of Arabia]

movement by other civilization units into another civs borders should consitute a declaration of war if there are more units inside the civs borders than there are cities. this way, some units can sitll move around there exploring and such, but large movements of units will not be possible. i cant stand when they send in 20 cavalry units to my capital when we have peace and then attack me when i try to expel them.

[Panag]

hi ,

it would be nice to be able to negociate the borders , for example the culture borders expand , eventualy the borbers of two civs are next to each other , then with a certain tech we could negociate this tile or this tile , exchange tiles , etc , ....

have a nice day

[grap1705]

Borders is a major issue early in the game when you try to occupy as fast as possible as much space as possible (and possibly as many resources and luxuries as possible).

I was thinking more or less the same thing as Boris Godunov but he said it first:
=> have your exploring units, whether they be explorers, workers or whatever soldiers, be able to claim a square (or hexe), marking it with your color (costs one turn or is free action?), so that you define the land you claim your own.
If someone comes around, wants it because its rich land or because he believes he's closer to it than you are, then you either leave it to him or have casus belli free of diplomatic malus.

Isn't that how it goes in real life? We determine our political borders, over desert and mountain as we wish, independantly of city implantation. Then having indeed a grip over that land we claim and being able to defend it is another matter.


Political borders are indeed very different from cultural borders. So it's not a good idea to link them as is done in Civ3.

The cultural influence is an interesting concept though. Culture spreads among the land, caring only half about political borders, and can then be used to influence citizens of across border cities so that they are more inclined to revolt and try secession to join our culture if a majority of them is favorable to us. If the neighbor wages war against us while we have a strong cultural influence on a good number of his citizens, then the occurence of trouble in his cities will be greatly favored as citizens will mobilize against an unpopular war.
Of course, this is also very true the other way round.

So that in fact, I don't think it is the nationality fo citizens that is interesting, but their cultural inclination. Thus we could see the extent of our neighbours influence over citizens of our border cities and anticipate trouble if too many are gained to his views. Propagande actions can strengthen this tendancy, both in an offensive way over the border, as in a defensive way in our border cities.


The problem with this concept is: will the AI be smart enough to manage this intelligently? Synthetizing a map and its strategic implications at a glance is easy for a human mind, much less so for a linear analytical algorithm. Which is why AI have always been so limited in using land caracteristics in their strategy in a really clever way.

The idea of trading pieces of land in diplomatic negotiations is very appealling. But same as above, I fear however that the developpers won't be able to make the AI "I" enough so that it understands the stakes and is able to negotiate with some sense.


Can't we imagine a terrain improvement similar to an iron wall, that can be build between two fortresses to "peacefully" prevent wanderers from entering our land? They'll have to come by boat or attack and break the wall (easy to do, but gives clear alarm of what is up).

Besides, I don't like at all the AI reacting in a threatening way when peaceful workers or explorers cross their land. Can't people just travel?
If the AI doesn't want them, it can expell them or arrest them and send them to jail (concept to be invented in the game) which can then make way for diplomatic negotiations. This shouldn't cause an automatic declaration of war. But it can also serve as casus belli (with a little diplomatic malus) if we're looking for a pretext.

[snoopy369]

Gameplay wise, *how* borders are determined matters much more later in the game. Early in the game, they're a good part of the strategy -- but the *how* doesn't matter nearly as much as it does later in the game, where you actually have filled continents and tight borders. Explorers planting flags is nice for early in the game, but later in the game real border markers are needed -- forts or otherwise, something that is both clearly present, and negotiable, needs to exist.

[Nikolai]

A new thread with some interesting ideas to add.

[Toby Rowe]

Ubers' idea might have some merit if the AI stops sending settlers to settle on the 9 unclaimed jungle tiles in the heart of your empire. (Or the single hill surrounded by mountains).

The AI needs to be adjusted, or borders do. Using fortresses isn't a bad idea as they historically would control a border- but it forces you to garrison them, and early in the game this is very expensive, also the game isn't set up to factor this additional time (building the unit and fortress) or cost of, into the general AI.

I still prefer either square shaped cities, or a new system of territorial integrity.

As for the current "culture" system- can anyone name a single city that in unison had the population all throwing up its hands saying "We don't want to be Roman, let us be Greek instead- they are just sooooo cultured!!"
(knowing my luck, examples do exist)

Toby

[Veroporo]

Perhaps autoclaim all the terrority that can be accessed from a city in one turn by the fastest unit the civilization has? If two civilizations can claim the same square the first one to claim it gets it. Military units should be able to claim the 3x3 square where ever they want using their whole turn to do so.

It would make roads a mean of control like they were and give possibility to make a road to desert and control it by that.

Also ability to trade (or give) _squares_ would be nice