Border disputes

[Rook]

I think this is something missing in Civ 4. Culture determines borders, but I think once a nation discovers nationalism, That Civ's borders should be set. Any border that they own by 75% or more is theres. If it is less than 75%, then the tile is considered disputed and this should result in heavy conflict on the diplomacy level. The only way to settle the dispute would be by trade, diplomacy, or of course war.

Cities close to the disputed areas could have extra unhapiness because of the border dispute.

Real world examples are places like Japan and the USSR, India and Pakistan, Israel and Palestine, Turky and Iraq, etc. It happens too much to be ignored in the game.

[Axxaer]

Sorry I don't quite understand that... the borders should be "set"? Do you mean so they don't grow? Then why would you get nationalism then if it just limits you?

Also disputed territory does result in "conflict on the diplomacy level", that's why it says "-# Our close borders spark tensions". And cities to the disputed areas have riots and can change which nation they side with.

As I said I don't quite understand what you want changed...

[Aro]

He wants fixed borders, after Nationalism. No more cultural expansion (or retraction, btw)

It’s not an absurd thought as it seems… (j/k, Rook)
In fact, makes A LOT of sense if you think about it…

[Rook]

OK you have a point. In game terms, getting nationalism may not seem like a good idea, but your borders wouldn't shrink either so its somewhat of a trade off. Maybe I am looking to add more challenges I guess. Once you reach the point of Nationalism, you would need to find other ways to expand.

The border tension you are describing is more kin to real world borders like that of the USA and Mexico. There is tension, but it isn't really going to lead us to war. What I am talking about is actual territory dispute where two countries both lay claim to areas of land.

The thing I love about Civilization is how the game progresses and changes as time goes on. The player has to change his play style as the world grows and new techs are invented, nations rise and fall, etc. The game kind of stagnates though in the modern age. Real-world problems like border disputes are not modeled.

In modern day, culture does not determine borders (Did it ever?) France is not going to take charge of Northern Italy, just because someone builds a radio tower in a nearby city. That's my basis for the post.

[AoA]

Or are you saying that a tile will ONLY be in your territory if your culture is >75%. And if our culture grows, then the border would only change if the 75% threshold is met? Possibly not as relaistic, but still allows the growth through culture.

[Aro]

Originally posted by Rook
Once you reach the point of Nationalism, you would need to find other ways to expand.

Maybe not Nationalism. Could be when you had entered in industrial age or something. In this way, you can't avoid fixed borders for long time.

In modern day, culture does not determine borders (Did it ever?) France is not going to take charge of Northern Italy, just because someone builds a radio tower in a nearby city. That's my basis for the post.

[Axxaer]

Originally posted by Aro
Maybe not Nationalism. Could be when you had entered in industrial age or something. In this way, you can't avoid fixed borders for long time.

Also this way it would happen at the same time for everyone, as opposed to people who are behind having possible advantages.

[Rook]

I'm just looking for more reasons for Civs to conflict over.

What we have now on the negative is

Religious differences
Previous wars
Bringing an ally in
Attacking an ally
Trading with the enemy
not giving tribute
Not helping in war
Not giving aid
Border tension

Possibly more, but can't think of them all at the moment.

Border tension is a conflict area, but I don't think I have seen it at more than -1. Border disputes have been huge sparks for wars in history. So I came up with the nationalism thing to model it.

I guess I wasn't thinking in a game sense.

[Strategist83]

It is certainly an interesting idea, Rook, but I think losing the culture city flipping gameplay is too steep a price to pay.

[Rook]

Maybe link it to a wonder. Call it the Monroe Doctrine or something? Closest thing I could think of to setting borders.

[Rook]

Originally posted by Strategist83
It is certainly an interesting idea, Rook, but I think losing the culture city flipping gameplay is too steep a price to pay.

Hmm, well culture flipping could stay on with set borders. Culture flipping is kin to rebellion. The USA got the Sandwhich Islands (Hawaii) in this way. If I remember, the Islands belonged to Great Britian, but the Islanders asked the US to annex them.

So cities can still flip taking the immedate area with them if the culture causes it, but individual tiles wont.

[mrboo123]

Originally posted by Strategist83
It is certainly an interesting idea, Rook, but I think losing the culture city flipping gameplay is too steep a price to pay.

In this model, I think city flips could still happen. The border won't change, but that doesn't mean the culture's blocked. Basicaly, it would be the same as before, but instead of slowy takeing the terroty, and workable squares for the city, it would revolt in one fell swoop.

EDIT: cross post. What Rook said

[muflonex]

It's quite good idea, in reality it was linked with nationalism. In Europe most of border disputes were solved after WW I on national basis, and it was nationalist factions who wanted them solved so (because of xenophobia). Although I'd link it with later discoveries in Civ, 'cause nationalism is quite early one. Late culture-flipping ban shouldn't change the game itself much.

[johnmcd]

I put some similar thoughts and ideas down in the Pesky Settlers thread if you dig that out. I think another important angle on this should be the ability to annex large tracts of land that are unsettled (frozen wastes for example), depending on various factors.

[Axxaer]

Agreed. I usually end up just waiting for the barbs to spawn a city in the tundra fog then take it from them (marginally cheaper and easier than having to make a settler and also often get a free worker). Being able to control that land other ways would be nice. I'm sick of size 2 tundra cities taking hundreds of turns to grow.