{The List} Borders

[Max Sinister]

Autoclaim? And what if two civs could claim the same tile that way?
Maybe if you could annex every unclaimed tile you uncover... others could take your land, if they want, as long as it's not worked, and you could take their unworked land... but if you take too much, they'll get angry...

[Veroporo]

I ment that nation's terrority would automatically be the area that can be accessed from any city in a turn by the fastest unit available to the nation. Adding ability to claim 3x3 areas by military units would give the possibility to really claim those lands one is moving to.

If two civs are within close enough to autoclaim the same square the first one to claim it gets it. If you want their land, it's war or trade.

[Toby Rowe]

In the game I was playing last night, the Aztec's were trying to get two knights to fight the Egyptians on the other side of my territory, after asking them to remove the troops 5 times, and whilst blocking the AI from allowing them further in, I finally got the desired automatic removal.

The AI moved them from from a square next to their territory (mine) to a gap within my cities, but far closer to the Egyptians. What was that all about?

I'd used 4 Riflemen, whilst in the middle of a war just to stop them broaching my territory- they then magically jump over all 4 and end up in the right direction to fight the nation I was trying to stop them fighting. Only one of the four was one a road- so all the other 3 were wasted units.

It takes about 5 requests to get an AI unit to be automatically be removed (the AI only need ask twice), by the fifth request they are already a city within your territory, or nearly on the otherside of your border anyway- exactly where they wished to be in the first place (if the above settlement inside your border wasn't the stupid AI's goal.).

Stupid and annoying- yet it gets repeated to ad naseum each time you conquer land- daft as a brush AI sending settlers you must stop- unless you want a war with the AI programme, for that is who you really declare war upon. Utter stupidity.

Toby!!

[123man]

External borders come from military and economic power and/or the desire to keep/acquire the land, in addition to terrain. Therefore borders should have a mainly military/production/economic aspect. Colonial powers didn't take over the New World because everyone in the New World liked their temples! Cultural influence may be influential in modern times, but that's because everyone can see examples of culture now(media) and because it is linked to marketing (economic). Also cultural superiority doesn't also engender people to a civilisation, it may cause resentment and hostility. So it seems a bad idea to base borders on culture alone.

Also, I think there should be the option for internal borders (ie States, Counties, regions or Districts). It could be a way of dealing with corruption and taxation in far-flung empires. Taxes could be arranged on a per region basis, so rich central areas can subsidise frontier regions And if the region/state gets unhappy it could result in rebellion or civil war. Also it could be used for enhancing city production governors (ie if a region is bordering a civ that you are at war with they could be put on military footing and produce defensive units, while other areas don't need to be).

[lajzar]

If you can set war footing for individual regions, there is a very obvious exploit. Once your core region is developed, you set it on a war footing, and it builds all military units for every city, while your border cities continue on a peace footing and build city improvements. If your core needs to catch up on city improvements, just rotate your war footed region, rinse, and repeat.

Basically, this is a bad idea.

[jordie]

I like Roman's and Inverse Icarus's ideas of border negotiation. It is a must, at least in the later eras. Also Stefu's idea that borders shouldn't fluctuate once a peace treaty is signed.

On Inverse Icarus's idea of territory cost, I think its ok, but I think it may end up getting too complex? If maybe you keep it simple it would be great.

I like GodKing's idea of "All land in your empire should be productive, the closer to larger urban areas the more productive." as I find it annoying to have a few useless tiles within my empire but no way of using without founding a city that would compromise the cities around it... spare tiles should be allowed to be used.

I also like the idea of colonies being able to grow into cities eventually.. just look at Australia, New Zealand, America... etc.

Initially, I think borders should be determined by the size of cities/towns and how spread out the population is. In later times they should be negotiated only after wars have been fought and peace treaty signed. Before that they should be able to grow.

Also, I think "claiming" land at the beginning should be the way to go, and if it is claimed by you for a long enough time without opposition, it is yours. If two countries claim the same land, they can either choose to agree on borders, occupy with military or even build cities etc. So you can claim as much as you want and other people can see it. So also, say you and your allies are at war, you can claim certain parts of the country you are attacking and if your allies agree, it doesn't matter who take it, once the war is over the city/land becomes yours. This would allow better division and no more single cities in the middle of others or blocking cities etc.

I also like the idea of provinces, you select a few cities to join into one province and they would work together and allow shield and food sharing. Also, if you put a captured enemy city into a province with a lot of cultural influence, then there is a better chance of assimilation. Or if you group a bunch of enemy cities together they may be happier cause they are working with their own people... but also the province would also be likely want to break away (like Quebec.). It would also allow for the idea of break away states, like with the Soviet Union break up. Also, each province would have a capital that would experience more growth then surrounding cities. It would seem more realistic with one city with 8 million people rather than 5 cities with 3 million people in each clustered together, if you understand me? Look at states and countries. USA, Canada, Australia all have states/provinces where more often then not the capital is the biggest city in the state. While countries with no main provinces like Iraq have a central city like Baghdad. I'm rambling now...lol. These borders would just be the outer border of the selected cities, but the cities must be next to each other or the closest via sea.

I also think, that there should be the possibility that cities can form on their own without user intervention...although rarely. Say on a trade route with lots of traffic, a city with a special economic bonus would form. Or a city in a good place along a river could form with an agricultural bonus, and a city on hills with a defensive bonus....?

[123man]

I apologise if I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to allow different regions to be mobilised at different times, I was talking about the idea of having common regional governors (to cut out on micro management) that could be made to be focused on military production vs. domestic production. That's what I meant by 'military-footing'. But essentially, the way that you described it is the way a civilisation can be run with Civ3. That's usually what I do, the core always is most developed and produces units, while the border and recently captured cities are only building domestic structures, so I don't see how this is different (minus the bonus from mobilisation). It just removes the need to set it up yourself.

I also like the idea of a region capital bonus, most likely in economic terms, since most regional business will be centralised there.

[dexters]

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).

And this is exactly the reason why I'm somewhat cool to a lot of the suggestions being offered here.

-Title by tile border negotiations will be a pain to pull off on the AI side. Even if its possible, it may simply take too much time.

-Unit based or colony based 'land claims' tend to, I believe, favour humans. What's to stop the exploit of building a factory for these things and pump then out every 2 turns. As you noted, the early phase of expansion is crucial. Land claims type units tend to favour humans because as the Civ3 AI shows, we know exactly where and how to expand.

--------------------
It should also be noted that there is really no need for a political and a cultural border. If all you get is basically one border telling you where your culture is, and another telling you where your political borders are, it is again wasted time spent on coding a feature that doesn't do very much.

I've always felt and treated Civ 3's cultural borders as its political borders. Heck, even the minimap seems to suggest this with colored in blots. The political/cultural issue could be solved by simply amalgamating both into one border and call it the 'national' border or some other name.

[jordie]

Your political border could become what is now the cultural border, visible on the map and using the grid as a guide. Then your cultural influence borders wouldn't have to use the grid and could be an overlay that uses irregular borders.

[uXs]

My uninformed suggestion:

Starting from the Civ3 system, implement the following changes:

1) Start with the current city spheres (circles) of influence, but also add a second, "lesser" sort of influence that automatically exists between every 3 points of your primary influences. The effect of this will be almost nothing at first and get stronger over time, until it's as strong as the normal influence. This will eliminate gaps you would otherwise have in your empire.
(Note: this type of influence will have no effect on enemy influence that allready exists.)

2) Forts. These do nothing except claim 1 square of land. (Could be more, or increase a little bit with time.) The secondary influence from point 1 will make this a simple way of claiming land. (Forts should not dissappear if an enemy builds a city in the vicinity.)

3) Border patrols. These will detect enemy incursions in your territory, but aren't powerful enough to actually stop them. (Edit: actually, they probably should be able to stop settlers and other non-military units.) You will get a diplomacy message about incursions though. Depending on border patrol funding, the size of your border, the terrain, and the size and composition of the enemy troops, it's possible for enemy troops to sneak inside your borders without being detected right away.

[Toby Rowe]

The simple fact is none of the Civ series has ever had border integrity, I think most players would agree this is one of the poorest areas, I also suspect most dislike the cultural idea, although most would welcome the national expansion WITHIN your borders that it gave.

I'm certainly fed up on the third version that they still can't programme a way to solve settler units giving you endless grief by trying to pass through your national border to settle inside your territory.

My idea for national borders is: Your outer cities should have a sideward, not outward expansion, once "married", then outward expansion could occur upto usual city limits. (a square box, two tiles deep). After a set number of turns "border creep" towards each other will occur
Areas surrounding a city that are unsuitable for settlement should be "X"'ed by the AI and added to the nearest border. (essentially mountain ranges which provide a route into your territory)

Another, and far simpler idea will be a tech advance, within the middle ages that "discovers" the concept of national borders, at which point the AI draws a circle of tiles around all outer cities of each nation automatically, and from then onwards: And through which NO unit can pass unless a treaty is proposed.

Toby?

[Mart]

Maybe the first paragraph was proposed already by someone, but I haven't found it:

One of the historic facts was that countries claimed some territories for themselves when even noone from that country actually was there. At some point in history Pope divided the world between Portugal and Spain. Obviously, for many native Americans it changed nothing until Spanish or Portugese actually came there, but that might be included in the game too. Each country might (if it chooses so) claim some territory it hasn't visited yet. It would not probably bring a glory to that country among international diplomatic comunity. Also some other country could such "claimed" territory colonize without any obstacles, only claiming country would send some nervous notes to the colonizing king or prince. Might even cause a war.

Territory might be actually controlled. If I send a worrior to a tile, that worrior might declare the land belonging to my country. If the tile is inhabited by some native population (kinda new element here I guess) that population would be included in my country. Their loyalty is another matter. I liked here solution of Europa Universalis 2, although that game is that different. The problem is that there is so many tiles on the map. So maybe when establishing a city, all inhabitants around would during that turn agree for joining new country, or agree but not be loyal, or start uprising right away. Non-inhabited and not belonging to anyone else tiles would be within city limits anexed right away. The need to actually send a unit (military or explorer) to a tile to have it included in the country might be required for tiles not belonging in the city radius.

Present culture influenced territories are not that good. The most annoying thing is their "switching" from time to time. Culture would influence inhabited tiles, so inhabitants from time to time might convert to another country by declaration of its convertion or uprising.

Inhabited tiles - with still increasing resolution of monitors we presently have already so much room in a tile - there is a place for a single hut - making it known someone lives there.

This all may add to complexity, but borders especially in today's world are important. Some countries have borders accepted by some countries, other do not accept them, etc. I think there is a lot of room for "borders improvement" in civ4 compared to civ3.

[Toby Rowe]

mart,

The Falklands were a good example- uninhabited until a Portugese explorer discovered it- I guess he saw no use for them and then "discovered" modern Argintina 400 miles away, for which the Treaty of Tordesallis was brought in for? What dispute brought conflict between Spain and Portugal to need the Pope to intervene?

Too much EUII I reckon!

At least in Civ 2 et al, we start as a Unique Civ, so nobody nicks anyone's land and the world is your oyster.

I think the concept of "border creep" in the awful cultural model is very good- losing a city to a rival nation, 3 cities further inside your nearest bordering city to the nation is just %^&*$£ due to total lack of testing by Infogrammes.- great concept Infogramme- but needed testing, It would have shown them just how silly it was, as existing on our PC. (all that money to buy the temple quickly for "culture points") per-lea-se....!!

I do believe they tried their best to address the "settler inside your border AI", but failed by tagging it to the disaster of "culture".

Culture and Identity within each city I have no problem and was way better than "Partisans take to the hills" in Civ 2 I felt. (Ps, why is the Roman AI so bad in this version?)

Anyway, if Civ 4 adopts the "cultural influence" without the city allegiance- great- but on a fast war your best mates on the AI planet will still know the spaces within the map- just like as you spend max money on research- the most advanced seems to give it to the others for a biscuit(cookie), so you might as well "stay with the pack" rather than running ahead of them, as you get a whole loada money more.

Toby?

PS: Just once, I'd love to encounter a nation that hasn't invested in research much and still has horseman to your dragoons/Cavalry! Why waste your time if they get your advances 5-10 turns later?

I'll stop moaning!!

Pps; Create individual islands for each nation, surrounded by mountains, such that they can never settle on the coastline, and thus never meet another Civ- Invade one and 2.000 years later they still have horseman- the AI doesn't properly function unless another AI "gifts" or exchanges a tech, which the rest by the same mechanism then get.

I hope Civ 4 will be very different- cheating AI is lazy programming to me. Fine in other games, not in the benchmark strategy one.

[Ur]

The Borders

This is mainly borders and cities, with a couple of other things thrown in.

Having played all the CIV's, I'm interested in exploring a couple of more radical ideas around borders and cities.

1. Like Majesty I'm interested in the concept of having a less directive approach to how the Civ works socially and economically.

So I as King, set policy and purchase items to influence economic, cultural and social conditions etc - and the people respond accordingly to these influences.

They set out to colonize local areas in response to saftey, terrain, policy etc. So rivers, coastlines, high grain areas, crossroad, forts etc would be high profile areas for people to build farms, inns etc (and a percentage of the population are always on the move)

Military control of a region could be directly established as it is now (around Forts, watch towers, military camps etc). The direction of the military must remain in direct hands of the "king" otherwise its no fun. This would require money of course....

I find the current situation quite contrived - to build a settler and tell him to go places and then build a "city" is too controlling. (this probably breaks Sid rule - which says you must be in control of all units)

2. I would like to move further away from the current city concept - yes cities are necessary, but I would like settlements to grow as people congregate together (as result of above) then a city would occur when enough people where present. The king could influence this with policy decisions, stationing military units, and even errecting structures.

(This is after the establishment of the captial of course)

It would be nice to see the process of settlement occuring, but without have to micromanage everything.

Size of civilization should rest on the area of land (region) rather than on the city as a base unit. Inns, farms etc should appear as people spread out etc

A tile based game should be able to handle this - metagame data should tag each tile to handle ownership issues.
The actual ownership would be determined by the presence of structures - like farms, inns, forts.

When enough of these structures are in one place - and the conditions are right - *pop* a town appears.

A political map could be triggered to give the player an idea about what they control.

The actual border (which becomes very important after Nationalisim) would then be agreed through a diplomatic process. I don't see it too hard in a tilebased game to agree on a border, either via natural features or between cities of different nations, but based on the political map.

Again the policy, purchases (infrastructure, buildings) and miltary strength/positioning of the would influence:
- Influx of people (refugees, immigration)
- Rise of banditry/tribal attacks
- Tax collection

I guess I'm wanting to have more a petrie dish approach - don't want to lose all control - just some. Game balance will be main concern I guess.

I don't know if these ideas are particularly new, but as I said I would like them to be kicked around.