Borders

[BeeBee]

Those borders in Alpha Centauri were a great improvement. I hope Firaxis goes further this way (don't remember ctp having this, no?).

One annoying thing were floating boarders when an enemy base was founded near yours. I think the first base has right to its whole territory. The last base founded should only get what remains.

What do you guys/ladies think?

------------------
C'est dur etre bébé

[WarVoid]

I think the idea is great. Borders would be an excellent addidtion to the game. They would especially interesting to use in scenarios.
As to the "first come first serve idea" I think the land should be divided at the exact middle point of the two bases.
Or it could be based on the diplomacy of the situation. Such as if the two nations bordering were at war, then the new bases borders would extend further into the area. If there was a cease-fire, then the middle. If peace or alliance then no territory would be gained. Is this a good idea?

[The 1212 Problem]

or better yet have the borders size depend on you civ's strength. that way some one that is really powerful will have larger span of territory to control. well maybe its not that great of an idea.

[Stuff2]

I agree.

First come, first to get. If u wanna change your borders u will have to fight for it.

[Paul]

BeeBee is absolutely right.

[WarVoid]

Looks like i'm outvoted.
BeeBee you win.
Dammned the torpedos and all that bloody rot.
Lets take the fight to the invaders.

[BeeBee]

I originally meant the shifting of the borders concerning the radius of the cities!

As to me, it is just frustrating when you've built a nice base (surrounded by resources e.g.), and a few turns later you notice that half the base's territory 's gone in favour of a new enemy base nearby.

Do you think this is justified, or do you want to see it changed (like me)?

------------------
C'est dur etre bébé

[raingoon]

Here's one I've never commented on. I agree and then some, with the first come rule for borders. Borders in Civ 3 should be first come and then completely negotiable. That is, if I want to cede various parts of of my civ to a neighbor, I should be able to drag my border and cede them. And visa versa. This means control of rivers, valuable mountain ranges, etc., is always negotiable.

[Earthling7]

Something like "click and drag a border to your liking and then submit... the rival civ will come up with yes, no or a counter offer" sounds great

------------------
Greetings,
Earthling7
ICQ: 929768

[DanM]

I was happy to find a thread on this topic(or I would have started one) Right on Beebee.
I am sure I am not the only one who had this problem:
Another civ who I am not at war with fortifies his unit(s) on MY railroad track in the middle of my territory.This link is vital for me for the rapid movement of my units,but,because the other civ's unit is not within any city radius,I can do nothing to get rid of them(except start a war,in which case I am looked on as the bad guy and I recieve the penalty in my standing).
Imagine this scenario in the real world.
At the very least I agree that the system used in Alpha Centauri would be an improvement,but I agree with Raingoon's idea that a negotiable border would be better.And I would like to see this border remain permanent and could only be changed through diplomacy, after wars etc.,or even by selling chunks of controlled land.
I like the click and drag idea,or even click on each individual square(or maybe hex)to draw out a border.
This to me is an issue of great importance,and should NOT be ignored in the new version.Every aspect of the game needs to be looked at in order to make the game as realistic as possible because to me,thats what Civ is all about.It's not just pump out units and nothing else.Lets leave those games for Nintendo.

[Tuerkuem]

How about having borders partly influenced by the lay of the land in the immediate area?
Perhaps they could be determined only partly by the proximity of your city, but also be more likely to follow natural features, such as mountain ranges or rivers.

[grapevine]

I like the idea of whoever discovers a piece of land first should get it and if you want it you have to fight for it or perhaps buy it would be a good idea I think

[Otso Vuorio]

Yeah, I have thought this "border-thing" too.
Borders would absolutely make the areas of different civs more solid. And as
And WarVoid, I like your idea of changing borders during cease-fire, peace and war.
But...I'm not sure, would the "no borders"-idea during an alliance work out. There are borders between US and Canada, even if they are very good allies.

[Az]

let's get this border thing farther . let's say a teritory of mine was conquered . this teritory should be under the rule of the enemy . but if I have United Nations I can demand it back , and let's say , even a thousand year have passed , we still feel connected to that land , even if there is no city that was once mine to feel connected to me ,as was purposed in one topic ...

[general_charles]

Here's what I think:
How about we say that the first that gets the land keeps it but if a military unit from another civ comes on your land without declaring war (this could only be done when the civs have no peace treaty, either no contact or a cease fire agreement), the other civ actually takes the land, and when we sign a peace trety, it means that we agree to respect the other player's land and eventually airspace and seashores. This means that if a player breaks the agreement, war is declared (or at least the country who ows the land has the right to declare war). I think the sea territory should be based on the seeshores, not on the city's area, all sea land that has contact with the sea shore should be declared territorial waters. This will prevent units from landing.