borders

[Immortal Wombat]

Maybe borders should expand by movement points, rather than by square. City built makes border widen by x movement points rather than x squares, so mountains and hills slow it. Rivers are a little ambiguous. For them to cost 1/3 movement point for walking on, then they must have some sort of advantage. I think rivers are crossable in Civ. Uncrossable rivers are shown as water (or shallow water in CTP). These would act as slow-down points for borders

[Immortal Wombat]

[stupid flinking double posting computer ]

[Immortal Wombat]

Originally posted by ancient
yes but the smiley is a stick tung out smily which just adds to the effect of it being an insult and ill so screw you if i want to its my own imature way of dealing with it..

How ironic that 'ancient' should be immature.

The smilie is like . It is a little tease, not an insult, it is a jest, an amusing little witticism, just to poke some harmless fun. Don't take it to heart.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Ralf
The idea is already 100% implemented so they wont change it now. Most civers seems positive. Personally, Im all for it as long as each newbie-city starts from scratch.

Have you got a link for that Ralf? I've not seen a Firaxian saying borders will push each other back and forth depending on culture strength.

[Sabre2th]

Originally posted by Grumbold
On the insult front, I don't think a smiley makes up for a derogatory comment. The statement would have stood up quite nicely without it. Insult someone and you lay yourself open to be insulted back. A joking tone of voice cannot be expressed in text.

A smiley doesn't really make up for it, no. But it was just a light-hearted comment. Nothing serious happening here.

[Urban Ranger]

I can't think of any rationale why rivers would block cultural influence.

Unexplored areas are immune to cultural influence, sure, but not rivers.

[Rollo_CH]

There is no way for culture to expand borders in r/t.

If two Civ's are up for "land grabbing" without war in an area, it should be a race to achieve the best growth of your borders, land that have been incorporated should never be lost.

Conclusion: when the race for land is over (no more neutral tiles in the area), borders can only be altered with war or diplomatic bargaining. The one with the best "culture-rating" gets the biggest share of the cake.

[Urban Ranger]

What's r/t?

Why can't border be moved by cultural influence? Keep in mind that, before the modern times, borders were largely fuzzy.

[Rollo_CH]

Real time

Yes borders are still fuzzy at some places. Well if you give me a good example of culture that has effected the expansion of a nation's borders......

Russia conquering the vastes of Siberia because of the natives worship of the Kremlin?
USA recieving Puerto Rico because of fast food?'

Hmmmm.....maybe the German "anschluss" of Austria? When the guns were only pointed under the tables?

[KrazyHorse]

Personally, I hope that a peace treaty auto-fixes borders. Otherwise, I'm all for "Cultural Imperialism", to coin a phrase.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Urban Ranger Keep in mind that, before the modern times, borders were largely fuzzy.

Where? This certainly was not true for Europe. China built the biggest wall in the world to define where their border was. The only places I can think of would be nomadic tribal types where the territory was not as important - but ownership of all key points like oases and villages were still fiercely contested.

[ancient]

why????
i didnt do anything wrong...

[Asesino_Virtual]

The Mountains DO affect the wide of the borders, but rivers DONT (according with the pictures ive seen).

[KrazyHorse]

No they don't. That's just a visual effect.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Grumbold
Where? This certainly was not true for Europe.

Even across mountain ranges and around areas where there were nobody?

Originally posted by Grumbold
China built the biggest wall in the world to define where their border was.

The border of Imperial China had exceeded the Great Wall fairly early on.