Open Borders

[Forwarn45]

I'd like to see an option that allows free trade without opening one's borders to troops (other than scouts, ships, and perhaps settlers). Allowing foreign troops free passage was much more akin to an alliance and was uncommon unless countries were fighting together (probably in part because it was socially disruptive). It also leads to odd results in game terms - such as when a country has open borders with BOTH belligerents in a war. Allowing enemy troops in should be an option when your relationship is very close, virtually akin to an alliance. I'd like to at least be able to ask/demand another country stop letting the enemy troops in (and be asked for the same in return), without requiring that all trade be cancelled.

[rjwoer]

Yes. I've had this thought (or similar ones) before. I agree completely. I think this is an addition of complexity which is warranted and realistic.

[drsparnum]

Yes.

Also, this could open things up for one sided open borders.

Nation A can move troops through B but B cannot move troops through A. I want this when I'm powerful and nation B is between me and C, who I'm fighting. I need to go through nation B to get to Nation C, but I don't really want nation B's units in my territory. Heck, I might even give nation B a few gold a turn for this privilege.

It has historical precedent too*. I can think of a few times the USA put troops in other countries without having those countries put troops in the USA. A. USA and Germany or Japan 1946. B. USA and Phillipines. C. USA and Turkey. Three different reasons too. One country was defeated and had to give in. One country was liberated and wanted protection. One country wanted economic assistance and feared a potentially hostile neighbor (USSR).

Its actually hard to think of true open border situations outside of war time where troops from A went into country B and vice versa at the same time. I suppose it might happen sometimes as part of a coalition (UN, EU) but does it happen when troops are just standing around? Even when the countries get along really well. I mean, I don't see UK bases in the USA.

*And I'm not one to put realism ahead of game balance or fun. I'm just saying this extra option is really the more likely option then the way the game does it now.

[LordShiva]

Originally posted by drsparnum
Its actually hard to think of true open border situations outside of war time where troops from A went into country B and vice versa at the same time. I suppose it might happen sometimes as part of a coalition (UN, EU) but does it happen when troops are just standing around? Even when the countries get along really well. I mean, I don't see UK bases in the USA.

This is probably less a function of the way the treaties are structured than of practicality - there is no reason for Turkish or British divisions to hang out in the US, so they don't. But I'm sure their armed forces have more access to US ports, academies, airspace, etc., and in that sense the open borders go two ways.

[occam]

This issue would be even more acute if there were a proper negotiation option for "stop letting my enemy's troops funnel through your lands to my border." Why do I have no influence over this even when the most powerful nation? I can't even go to war to stop it. Broken in my opinion, at least compared to my mental idea of how geopolitics should be modelled. [Especially needed as a surrender condition... ] In the real world, funneling an invasion is tantamount to participating in the war.

If this option existed, then we would REALLY want a trade vs. troops breakdown to keep the demand more reasonable.

But it doesn't, so carry on.

[djpsychonaut]

Originally posted by occam
In the real world, funneling an invasion is tantamount to participating in the war.

If this option existed, then we would REALLY want a trade vs. troops breakdown to keep the demand more reasonable.

Agreed, in the real world, if a country allowed another nation to use its territory to funnel in enemy troops, it would be considered an act of war. To stay neutral, a civ shouldn't allow either warring party into their territory.