Open Borders Question

[bjsiders]

I usually sign open borders with EVERYBODY I can get it from as soon as I have writing. I don't know why, it just seems like there's no downside, you can explore everywhere, spread your religion, get trade routes, etc. Almost invariably, I get 3 or 4 AIs all asking me to cancel with somebody which I eventually do, and that AI comes back and wants open borders again some time later and sign, am asked to stop, agree, etc.

What is the downside? For reference I usually play on Prince or Monarch.

[N35t0r]

Just as you can explore and spread your religion through them, they can do the same through you...

[bjsiders]

That sounds like an upside. More religions, more temples, more monasteries, more specialists, more happiness, and more benefit to the free religion civic when it rolls around.

[Olavi]

I usually keep my borders closed during the expansion phase, if the geography suggests so. The idea is to grab larger land area than my neighbours. With the borders closed, I push my first two or three cities out to stop the expansion of my neighbours. I fill the empty space between the capital and the outpost cities later, when the economy allows.

The downsides are obvious: religions don't spread, neighbours get pissed off, and the first couple of cities take more time to found and more money to maintain.

But the good thing is there too: if succesful, this strategy gives a large land area with plenty of resources.

Anyone else doing this? Do you think it's wise?

[binTravkin]

Playing on emperor and keeping borders open as much as possible is the best way to enhance your own civ by diplomacy - most of the neighbours will attempt to spread their religion in your territory, to get you as their friend.
Most of the times, that will also be the only way to get any religion as you are usually to poor in comparison, to get any religion yourself up until midgame and islam probably.

When they ask to cancel deals, its best to refuse - you usually gain more commerce and the annoyment from refusing to cancel is less than from cancelling.

[couerdelion]

Open Borders generally has more positives than negatives. And once you get a trade link to your neighbours, the trade income is also valuable on the higher levels. The only downside will come if you have open borders with civs that are “annoyed” with each other – in the early game this is basically Agg civs vs Non-Agg civs. Then you’ll be getting demands to break deals with one or other party and risk a diplomatic hit from one or other side.

And the diplo hit from the civ that you cancel the open border agreement is that they will refuse to talk to you.

[N35t0r]

Originally posted by bjsiders
That sounds like an upside. More religions, more temples, more monasteries, more specialists, more happiness, and more benefit to the free religion civic when it rolls around.

Not in MP. Letting your opponent see the contents of your cities isn't a very good idea...

[Olavi]

I must admit that keeping borders closed during expansion is a bit of a gamble. It's not only the diplomatic hit you get when you refuse to open your borders. I think AI civs are also more likely to start a war if they've got no room to expand peacefully. In the worst case, border cities could be attacked very early, when there is no defence or even road connection to the capital.

Still, it has worked ok for me. I try to get some kind of military cover before my neighbours start getting really angry, and I also hurry to open my borders immediately when I've filled my land area.

But then again, I've been playing only Prince so far. It could be a different story on higher difficulty levels.

[binTravkin]

Not in MP. Letting your opponent see the contents of your cities isn't a very good idea...

Indeed, but in MP, there's much bigger chance you get a religion yourself, as usually most or all players will be human and on playing by the same rules.
However, even in MP, there are allies, neutrals and enemies and you can always negotiate people to not spread religion or you'd attack them/side with their enemies.

Also, if you're
- warlike
- want the gold from trade
- dont want hostile religion spread
- dont care about managing your upkeep so much
(which unsurprisingly fits as description of many MPers )
theocracy is the way to go.

[Shr3dZ]

In the early stages of the game I take a look around and decide who I want to be friends with. Once someone comes and asks me for open border and do the behind the scenes work and see what their attitude is towards everyone, then I decide if they get open borders with me. I perfer to have a few strong friends then a bunch of 'waiting to backstab you' friends. Plus if yer cultural you block them off from getting in behind you in many cases.

Generally speaking I will only deny 1 AI open borders, most likely the rest will get it...

[rah]

Yes, I used to agree to it with whoever asked, but now pay a bit more attention. IT"S A TRAP, danger, danger will robinson.

I think it's the goal of all the AIs to get an open border just so they can demand that you cancel it on someone else. The nick away until all it takes is for one of them to change religions and presto, someone is declaring war on you. They don't care which one finally gets around to it, they just want to keep making offers that will hurt your rep with someone.

I refuse to allow open borders with all the psyhcos out figuring they're either going to attack me regardless or I'm going to have to take them down a few pegs so why make agreements that will piss off the other civs.

I will with a small group of predetermined civs that I plan on keeping around a while.

But it depends on the game. Sometimes you want to keep the psycho happy.

[joncnunn]

In Single Player, if the map is a kind of open layout; I'll sign Open Borders with everyone ASAP. (On that sort of layout, it's not like you can prevent AI encrougment anyway.)

Now on a layout with natural choke points, yes found those cities and keep the borders closed until you infill.

[MrWhereItsAt]

Originally posted by rah
Yes, I used to agree to it with whoever asked, but now pay a bit more attention. IT"S A TRAP, danger, danger will robinson.

I think it's the goal of all the AIs to get an open border just so they can demand that you cancel it on someone else. The nick away until all it takes is for one of them to change religions and presto, someone is declaring war on you. They don't care which one finally gets around to it, they just want to keep making offers that will hurt your rep with someone.

I refuse to allow open borders with all the psyhcos out figuring they're either going to attack me regardless or I'm going to have to take them down a few pegs so why make agreements that will piss off the other civs.

I will with a small group of predetermined civs that I plan on keeping around a while.

But it depends on the game. Sometimes you want to keep the psycho happy.

But if the psycho is likely to declare war anyway, why not have the Open Borders until then, and gain the commerce income? Refuse any of the psycho's requests to cancel Open Borders with your favoured civs, and eventually you'll be at war with the psycho just the same. Only you might have a few more of their cities with your religion, and you'll have gained some extra trade income.

And if you signing an agreement with said psycho civ causes a favoured civ to demand you cancel, isn't that your prereq for the favoured civ to in fact be another psycho? And even if not, just agree to the request/demand to cancel open borders with the psycho civ, so you stay in the happy with your favoured civ, and have still got some time with the benefits I mentioned above.

[Six Thousand Year Old Man]

I used to sign OB agreements with everyone, just to make them happy.

In my last game, I was playing with 16 AIs and space was at a premium, so I didn't sign any open borders agreements with any of my near neighbours. Planted my second city on a chokepoint and then had eons in which to backfill, with little worry of AIs sneaking onto my land. When I finally opened borders and they snuck some little chickencrap cities, those cities were culturally untenable.

Despite the lack of OBs, my neighbours remained friendly until the end.

[Tattila the Hun]

That's one thing that bugs me... I have two cities in nice places, five squares apart by necessity, and the bloody AI plops a measly city between them... And there's room elsewhere. Then there's the one city placed half a globe from their capital, doing absolutely jack for his economy. It's like Rome establishing a city beyond the Urals... I wonder, if one could mod some sort of "distance to capital/nearest established city"-check...

Same with warfare, the AI has no concept of distance... Supply logistics would kill them! Distance to friendly city modifier would be nice here, too...

Just musing.