{The List} Borders

[CerberusIV]

Really the whole idea of borders determined by culture has to go. One of the Civ3 exploits (humans do it, the AI doesn't) is to found a city right on the border and eventually overwhelm the AI city.

Borders should be based on actual city radius with gaps up to, say, 2 tiles wide joining up. To cover deserts, tundra and to extend borders there should be a way to build forts with a ZOC effect that puts the surrounding tiles into your territory. This should be restricted to building them within a couple of tiles of your existing border.

So you could cover a desert with a chain of forts like the French did in North Africa. No forts or cities should be possible immediately adjacent to a rival's border.

Oh, and other civ's units trampling across your territory really needs too be tightened up. What's the point of having a border if no-one respects it?

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by skywalker
Ok, so I put it at the edge of the desert. So what? Look at Europe - it has good terrain and a lot more cultural diversity than, say, the Sahara. Expansion over good terrain is easily represented by people actually settling there. Over bad terrain, where there are virtually no "natives" one city will exert more influence, farther.

Yes, but the cultural diversity in Europe has nothing to do with the way borders work. In civ terms the cultural diversity of Europe is caused by the fact that there are a ton of civs that all "Start" there. You could say that they all start there because the terrain is good, and you'd be right, but civ doesn't model the 20,000 to 4,000 B.C. when each civ's starting settler is travelling from Africa to wherever they start.

If culture travels so easily across uninhabited areas, how is it that so many remote areas remain cultural diverse? Are Mongolians chinese? No. They retain their cultural identity. There are numberous examples of two cultures on either side of a mountain range being totally diverse.

But for me the biggest issue is that allowing culture to "travel faster" across "less habitable terrain" undercuts the best part of the system, which is that it causes borders to be created along geological lines.

Your system would also create a lot more instability. If two civs both have cities bordering a desert and one of the cities has its cultural border grow, since desert is "easy" to grow in, it could gain a bunch of tiles. Then when the other city grows it could gain them back. That's more variability than the system you're replacing.

[Kuciwalker]

But for me the biggest issue is that allowing culture to "travel faster" across "less habitable terrain" undercuts the best part of the system, which is that it causes borders to be created along geological lines.

It has the opposite effect - geographical features like deserts will now affect borders, rather than terrain having virtually no effect at all.

[Flinx]

[PresidentMarcos]

How about being able to just simply CLAIM (annex) land? Drag your cursor...highlight...push the button...and it's yours!

Just the basis. Might grow a bitty bit more complex...

[ScipioX]

My thought was to have a combination of culture and control. Control comes from cities and spreads outward from there. Control come from military units and does not spread.
Culture flows like water, quickly through hospitable terrain that is easy to traverse and slowly through difficult, hostile terrain. Rivers will slow culture when it crosses, but culture will spread faster along rivers.
Control extends from a military unit's square through its ZOC. When it travels through a square, that square becomes controlled. A military unit will leave a trail of controlled squares behind it, but they will evaporate if they are not adjacent to a more permanently controlled square (like a city) or a fort.
A fort will extend control into the adjacent squares by itself. If a unit is garrisoning the fort, control extends outward up to the movement limit of the unit, adjusting for terrain. A fort that is not garrisoned will deteriorate over time.
Units without an attack strength and air units do not control terrain.
Culture and control can spread over water, but only if the technology to cross the water exists. (You don't actually have to have the ships.)
If two or more civs have culture in an area, a civ must exceed the other civ's culture by enough to control the area normally. If it takes 10 points to control a square, and the enemy has 6 points, you have to have 16 points to control it.

[chrispieX]

Not like I'm one to get involved in these kind of discussions normally - but what the hell

It seems to me that the (arguments) here are from people talking at cross purposes over clamied land and cutural identity. That is, a country can claim as much land as it's own as it wants, which I suppose it's the Sahara effect, where as in places like Europe where there is a lot more competition, you can only claim land that you culturely or militarily control.

So the point should be that with your units you can claim all the land you want to (well within limits) that hasn't got people settled on it by other players, however if you just claim it and then leave it, other players can just walk right in and claim it themselves.

So, to keep empty land you need to build colonies or other such things on it, so you have people there to actually state the fact that it is your land.

[Kramsib]

COUNTRY BORDERS, COLONIES AND SIMMILAR.

- General Idea: Colonies surviving among other civilization's city borders.

- Details:

One of my first games in Civ III was on a world map, I was able to rule all over Europe, except Britain and Russia, I have controlled North of Africa too.

As further cities were full of corruption I decided use colonies. I successfully colonize South America and Africa and I used some strategically placed cities as commercial ports in order to unify my trade net.

There is no use to create colonies so far when other civilizations can take them by enlarging their borders over them.

So I think we can simulate Colonialism and Neo-colonialism very easily if we make colonies to have a border (a one tile border) where we can garrison units to protect them.

APPLICATIONS.

As your superior civilization you don't need to conquer natives' cities (as they are so far from your capital the corruption would be extremely huge) you only want their resources.

You can

1) Declare war on them, defeat them and you should be able to put colonies in their territory. They conserve their country but they lose their resources.

2) Buy tiles with resources from these factions where you can build colonies and fill them with units.

On the other hand natives can recover their resorces by declaring war or rebuying the sold tiles. (Perhaps in advanced eras, we should give the UN an important role in such negotiations).

NOTES.

Not only colonies but also Fortresses (military bases), or Airfields. This idea can be used for these items too, in a cold war scenario, USA can buy tiles in Europe to put their bases against the USSR.
(Perhaps we should think about multiproperty bases so allies can use the same fortress or airfield to garrison units of different allied countries).

[chrispieX]

I like that idea, I've always thought that the daftest thing about Civ is that you build your empire in an effectively empty world - which just isn't reality.

The idea of having like minor nations I'm sure was discussed for Civ3 here, but didn't get taken up, so I'm sure it won't this time too but anyway....

Having 'minor nations' brings such colour to the game I think, being able to buy parts of them for your own resource gains, or just plain conquer them (more realistic slave trade can come from that).

IMO, colonies should be something that you need to build to grow it into a city, if you build a colony in already occupied territory (near existing cities I guess) it will grow faster and become a town.

This also would encourage people to sign pacts with the minor nations (lettign you build colonies in the territory, which grow into towns faster), effectively granting your development rights in their lands, as long as you protect them.

Getting back to borders, these type of colonies are really just very small towns, so exert a border in just the same kind of way, only smaller.

[Kramsib]

As far as I am concerned and under the point of view of the game we can talk about 2 kind of Colonies.

- Cities in other continents or territories which involve the intention of a permanent presence (gather resources is an added value).

- Colonies (game concept) with the only purpose of exploiting resources but not maintain unefficient cities or make other kind of investments.

The first option is representative of a colony which depends entirely from the Metropoli as a part of the national territory.

The second option is representative of a Protectorate. And this option involves some diplomatic options to make it fully a Protectorate (control the exterior relations, right of passage, ...).

[MartynC]

I think Colonies next to other Civs would work, & if connected to trade, ie Harbour or Airport, should be just like any other village/town/city you "own". Just look at Hong Kong under the British, or Singapore

[chrispieX]

That's very true, but I don't think of places like Hong Kong as colonies in the Civ sense, they are obviously Civ Cities - that's why I prefer the more natural idea of colonies growing into cities, and otherwise treating a colony like a small city where you can't build improvements etc.

[MartynC]

Maybe I got it wrong, in that case I apologise & withdraw. Colonies should be able to expand, maybe 1 square every direction & become a colony/city cross. It may only work thru, as others have said, it may Food shipments to survive, (Does West Berlin in the 50's & the Soviet blockade count here?)

[LzPrst]

Hmmm. I like to go to history for solutions. As mentioned large expanses of "poor" land has never been settled "properly" by major civs. I'd like to see a clustering of cities where the good terrain is and few or none in a total desert/tundra terrain. How does this become your land? You claim it, and back that claim by force/diplomacy.
for example I'm egypt. most of my cities are along the nile river and the coast. as time goes by I decide that I want to lay claim to the vast deserts nearby. I draw out a line based on my ability to "uphold" my rules in the area (possibly based on military units) or something similar and then its "virtually" mine. The longer the claim the more right you have to it. If another civ shows up, say France, and decides they want the desert you have an "age old" claim and the french would have to pay more for it, if you're willing to sell it at all.
I'm not being 100% clear here, as I have to run soon, but the point I'm trying to make: You claim unsettled lands as far as you can. If anyone challenges that claim you'd have to make some sort of arrangement. Of course this would be impossible unless there was a strong limitation against building cities in difficult terrain.
So your borders are decided by your cities (your home land) and your "claims", sparsely habitated lands that you see yourself as the ruler of.
Thoughts?

[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.