The borders of your empire

[Modo44]

Originally posted by General Ludd
I think it your suggestion force a war in circumstances where it might not be called for requires more justification.

It is not "my" suggestions, it is one of CIV designers'. I happen to agree with it.

You are right. It forces a declaration of war if you enter someone's territory without having a ROP signed. Which is normal, for a ROP can be forced if a strong country wants to fly over or cross another's territory, and among friends, while a hostile civ will have to fight it's way through.

Note that it is ridiculously easy to get a Civ3 AI to sign ROPs, as long as one is trustworthy. So, with the solution mentioned, only the "bad boys" would actually have to declare war to get into, or through someone's territory. Sorry, but if you want to sneak-attack someone, I find you should have to use a ROP, hence spoiling your reputation big time.

[Addled Platypus]

Originally posted by GAZ082
Yeah, humm, perhaps if you have a open borders pact the other nation just send a SOD for elephant hunting or something like that.

tourisim en mass

[patcon]

Here is a problem I sometimes face -
I've sent a unit out exploring and it's time to come home. Or I need to send unitsto defend a distant city or to fight in a distant land. But the only reasonable way is through another civ's territory. I try to walk across, but keep getting stopped and sent back across the border. This is completely reasonable on the part of the AI. I could ask for RoP, but I don't want to open my borders to him for 20 turns just to get those few units where I want them.

Two solutions I have proposed in a previous thread (with some added thoughts)-

One-sided RoP, such as the US has with most other nations. US military planes may fly over other countries, but I don't see the US allowing French fighter to overfly Washington. Although I guess Civ already has this, in a way - if you're strong enough you can ignore the request to leave with impunity.

A new type of arrangement, Safe Conduct. Two nations could agree to allow Safe Conduct of a specific unit (or stack of units) across territory to a specific destination on a case-by-case basis, with the moving unit unable to do anything except move and defend itself against (presumably third-party) attack while en route - no scouting, no sneak attacking, etc.
The way I see this happening is as follows:

Your (non-covert) unit attempts to cross, without a RoP already in effect, the border into another nation into an undefended (except by the presumed border patrol) tile. This generates a pop-up giving the following options:
(1) Oops, sorry, never mind, we got lost! {Uses 1 MP while your forces stammer out an apology.}
(2) Stand aside, out of the way, we ARE coming through! {not a declaration of war, but a causus belli if the offended nation wishes; if war does not break out - road bonus, but no RR bonus; if war breaks out - no movement boni and you are considered the agressor, triggering Mutual Protection Pacts, etc.}
(3) We desire Safe Conduct for this unit to the following destination. {The screen reverts to the map, where you indicate the desired destination on the inside edge of the other nation's border. The other nation then decides whether or not to grant SC. This uses 1MP while negotiations take place.}
(4) How about a Right of Passage? {followed by the RoP negotiation screens. This should use 1 MP for negotiations, to encourage nations to conclude RoP agreements in advance.}

The AI decision on granting SC would be based on: relations between you and granting nation; relations between the granting nation and nations near the destination (I wouldn't mind you putting forces near someone I wasn'f fond of, but not near a good friend); nature of units (I'd be more inclined to allow defensive-type units, less inclined for offensive-type units, absolutely opposed to settlers, and "no problemo" to workers); (maybe) the time for the trip; and perhaps pot sweeteners offered in negotiation (perhaps paying for the transportation and escort {not that kind of escort} costs).

If SC is granted
Your units are blind and disarmed while en route. Movement of your units is taken over by the IA, treating them for movement purposes as if they were native units of the host (sharing tiles with native units is OK and getting all movement boni), except they move during your turn, and proceeding via the shortest route to the destination. If attacked (by a third party) en route: units suffer 1 HP automatically (they are defenseless until rearmed by the presumed escorting native guards) then defend normally; you may counter attack on your turn, but your units remain in place if victorious. In any event, 1 MP is used while your units disarm to continue their journey. Upon arriving at the destination, you are notified by pop-up that your forces have arrived, are sharing a farewell feast with their escorts, and will be ready to do your bidding next turn. On this next turn, you indicate 1-tile movement (possibly attack) out of your host nation, said movement costing normal MP+1 (the +1 to account for rearming your units and the hangover from the farewell feast). A peace treaty is in effect with your host for 2 turns after leaving.

If SC is not granted, your units have used 1 MP and can try something else if they have movement left.

What if the borders change while your units are en route? The AI picks a new destination as close as possible to the original.
What if you need to change the destination of units en route? Too bad, that's the risk you took.
What if war erupts between you and the host nation while units are en route? MAJOR reputation hit for the agressor (no more SCs for you!) and your units are executed by their escorts.
What if war erupts between you and the host nation within 2 turns of arriving? MAJOR reputation hit for the agressor.

[Xorbon]

Originally posted by patcon

...

A new type of arrangement, Safe Conduct. Two nations could agree to allow Safe Conduct of a specific unit (or stack of units) across territory to a specific destination on a case-by-case basis, with the moving unit unable to do anything except move and defend itself against (presumably third-party) attack while en route - no scouting, no sneak attacking, etc.

...

You must have been reading my mind!

I think this is a neat idea, and a good alternative to having to sign an RoP just to allow a single unit to pass through someone's territory. I don't know the number of times I've had exploring warriors stuck behind the newly expanded borders of another empire...

[Addled Platypus]

and if one chnages is mind halfway througha territory while in "Safe Conduct" and decides to attack

what would be the penalty?

part of Safe Conduct is an armed escort?
Units attack values ae halfed?

[GAZ082]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
and if one chnages is mind halfway througha territory while in "Safe Conduct" and decides to attack

what would be the penalty?

part of Safe Conduct is an armed escort?
Units attack values ae halfed?

A terrible stain in his honor.

[patcon]

Originally posted by Platypus Rex
and if one chnages is mind halfway througha territory while in "Safe Conduct" and decides to attack

what would be the penalty?

part of Safe Conduct is an armed escort?
Units attack values ae halfed?

You can't change your mind (for those units), they're under the control of a neutral AI for the purposes of movement (that's why they're blind). Ties your hands, but that's the you pay and the risk you take.
If your other forces attack. Your disarmed units are "neutralized" (executed, maybe giving the escorting nation your weapons - 1/2 price tanks, etc. for each one lost?) by the presumed armed escort (not an actual unit, just like border guards.)
I think the answers are in my original post. I tried posting a more detailed response earlier today, but it got lost and I'm on the way out right now. I'll give a more detailed reply later (way later).

[Imran Siddiqui]

May I agree with General Ludd? It would be foolish to force a war. Allow the player to have a choice of declaring war. After all, if you want to act like a patsy and be a quasi-colony, why not? More power to ya.

[Grandpa Troll]

I reckon this fits here:

One of the things about CIV that really irritates the P!$$ outta me is say you have an Island Continent say Germany is to your east and you have 30 cities between him and he decides what an appropriate place for a city and builds one deep within your territory

I dont think they should be able to simply walkabout and plant cities

I know build military units and kill 'em..but for real, we would allow this now in the real world and even though this is not real world, the ai should not be able to just build a city in a small tile area yet unihabited

Gramps

[GAZ082]

Tha's why now you have a Closed Borders pact where the AI cannot cross your borders nor commerce with you.

[Grandpa Troll]

Originally posted by GAZ082
Tha's why now you have a Closed Borders pact where the AI cannot cross your borders nor commerce with you.

sweet

thanks

so much information to disect here

Gracias

Grandpa Troll

[Aro]

Two annoying ideas... The Civ III RoPs and warnings or totally closed borders?

Too simplistic. One of the major issues on diplomacy is the lack of... diplomacy. I want a more sophisticated bunch of alternatives when dealing with the AI.

We'll see it.

Note: patcon suggestion is very interesting and well developed. Is it possible? Seems to be difficult to program, but who knows?

[GAZ082]

I bet that with the new mod capability this will be address within months of its release, along with many other diplo options.

[Aro]

Originally posted by GAZ082
I bet that with the new mod capability this will be address within months of its release, along with many other diplo options.

I hope so...