BORDERS (ver1.0): Hosted by Lancer

[Lancer]

I believe if we can come up with some good suggestions regarding borders that there is a chance that we might be able to help in some small way to make the Civ games better.I know for a fact that Brian Renolds is paying attention to this subject in the posts since he chose it as a subject to comment on.
Some of you like borders and some don't.It appears that Civ 3 will have em so get used to the idea.
This thread is to submit ideas,not to determine merit.


On Borders:
We all know that borders are artificial lines on the map of the world.
Some borders are the dividing lines of ideologies.Such places are a focal point where the power of nations gathers.This is one place to meet some of the most determined SOBs in the world.

Some are dividing lines between the have and have nots.Immigration and emmigration,the flow of people that built the United States.The policies of corrupt monarchies that started that flow.The population preasures that continue it.Nations whose dynamism create for the world an ideal,a vision of plenty,a destination.Nations whose huddled masses yearn to realize the dream of a place where work can be had and where they can provide for their starving families.

That's what I see borders as in reality today.

How do you see them in Civ 3?

Think before you type!

***Lancer, I'm putting this quote in here again in case people come later to the forum and missed it. Welcome aboard! *Yin*

My guess is Civ3 will have borders, but their extent and effect will vary with your government type and technological progress. Clearly a Bronze Age city state would resolve borders in a different way from a modern nation state, and you'll see an evolution from one to the other in the game.
In SMAC we found that borders not only made the game more fun, they made the AI smarter.

As with Alpha Centauri, you'll probably be able to reduce the effect of borders by editing the rules file, if for some reason (?!?!) you don't like them.

Brian Reynolds
Civilization III Designer
FIRAXIS Games

[This message has been edited by yin26 (edited May 22, 1999).]

[Koyaanisqatsi]

I think the system in SMAC where you claimed territory by placing cities was good, but there needs to be a provision for fixing the borders diplomatically so the constant land-grabbing isn't possible. This should only be possible in relatively modern times, as borders should get more and more fixed as time and technology move forward.

Another option I'd like to see is the ability to define a specific border as being an 'armed border.' For instance, if you've just inked a new peace treaty with your neighbor, but don't really trust them, you should be able (for a cost) to monitor the entire borderline with small detachments of troops. These troops don't even show up on the screen, they just function as spotters and maybe a tripwire force that can cause minor damage to an enemy unit crossing the border. On the turn after the border has been breached at a certain square, though, it returns to a normal border and units can pass without harm. That part of the border will not 're-arm' until all enemy units are out of your territory.

Also, to keep people from overusing armed borders, in addition to the cost there is a random chance (that increases as time passes) of one of your troops taking some pot shots across the fence, and causing a diplomatic incident. The effects of this depend on your diplomatic relationship with the other country, ranging from a slight hit to relations to the begining of a war.

[This message has been edited by Bell (edited May 22, 1999).]

[This message has been edited by Bell (edited May 22, 1999).]

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Other borderish thoughts . . .

Borders should come in different types, that become available as your government structure gets more advanced. (Yes, I know, some of the governments aren't really 'medieval' or 'modern' but they're more advanced from a game perspective.)

At the beginning of the game, you have Ancient government types. These are Anarchy and Despotism. There are no borders under these governments (for game purposes, at least.)

Next, you move to Medieval governments, Monarchy and Feudalism. These introduce borders, but they are similar to the ones in SMAC and thus fairly flexible. It is possible to fix borders between two civs with at least Medieval-level governments, but they will still move when a city is taken. Also, you can appropriate a square of territory by moving a military unit over the border and giving it a conquer order (of course, the civ you're taking it from may not react well, but that's the chance you take...) You can not arm borders under these governments, but you can order intruders to leave (again, like in SMAC.)

Finally, Republic, Democracy, Marxist, Fundamentalist, and Fascist governments are considered Modern. Under these governments, borders are flexible only when they would extend into unclaimed territory (by the time you reach these governments, your borders with other civs should be fairly well defined anyway.) You can not conquer individual squares under these governments, but taking a city still moves the borders. You can also arm your borders with any other Civ, although this incurs a slight diplomatic penalty, in addition to what I already described.

For any border between two civs with different levels of government type, the more advanced one takes precedence in the stability of borders. However, no matter what the government on the other side of the border is, only Medieval governments can conquer territory, and only Modern governments can arm borders.

[russellw]

How about having borders conform to terrain features, i.e. rivers and mountain ranges? These natural barriers are things that are defensible by the "armed border" guards as suggested by Bell.

For example, when you build a city/fortress/outpost in a valley, you
gain claim to that whole area. In order to gain more land on the other side of the river, you have to build a settlement on that side.

Of course, if you have a large stretch of
plains in front of you, your border eventually hits a limit where the supply line to your troops would run out.

In case of peace treaty settlement or land sale, you can redraw the lines so it goes wherever. This whole idea is mainly so that so don't get that annoying feature where the computer sits down near your town, pushes his border over and steals your nifty resources. If he wants it, he'll have to get there first or build some military to exert control over it.

[DanS]

Borders should have a default, but you should always be able to change them. I think the technology to have borders is a red herring, because in the early game, nobody is going to care if there are somewhat overlapping borders at the outskirts. When it really matters, they will become important and the tech will be there.

That is, unless you "grab" too much and tick off your neighbors. This conflict is fun. In MP games, people seem to be too peaceful. Too peaceful means too much time to build up large offensive forces, etc.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

How about something like this (all of these assume that the border is with unclaimed space, not another civ.)

A city will establish borders in an 8 square radius around it on a featureless plain.

The smallest a radius can be is 3 squares. No matter what terrain is within three squares, it is claimed by that city.

Between 3 and 8 squares, a border will conform to a river that exits the 8 square radius. So, if a river is 4 squares away, your territory will stop at that river.

The same goes for mountain ranges. The first square or line of mountains within 8 squares is inside your territory, but beyond that, it's free land.

Borders also extend into the sea for 2 squares off the coast (or bombardment range, if it is over 2 squares.) A sea border can not be armed, but trespassing is handled just like a land border. Sea borders extend from any piece of land you have claimed.

No other land types have an impact on borders.

[NotLikeTea]

I like the idea of fixed borders in the modern era.

How have borders changes in, say, the last 100 years? (little colonisation)

1) Wars, and capturing territories

2) Diplomacy, trading land for peace, dividing up a conquered territory among victors.

3) Civil wars

4) Merging of states

Only #1 is present in SMAC, with a slight version of #2 (giving up a colony for a ceasefire). #3 and #4 are the most important these days, and totally unpresent in any CIV game.

[Lancer]

These posts are exactly what I don't want to see...
My job is to condense your posts down and these ideas are

>>>>>>>TOO FRIGGIN GOOD TO CUT<<<<<<<<<<<

I'm impressed,seriously I had no idea that this thread would draw such good concepts.
Anyone else have anything before we assume all the great ideas are in and close the borders section?
I can't imagine that there could be any more said on the subject but we'll keep it open for forms sake...

[HolyWarrior]

Borders as introduced in SMAC are a very good idea, but can be made better. Two areas:

1. The land grab. I build a city and it has been established for several turns. X comes along and builds a city, cutting my city's production radius.
"I don't think so!" Once a city is established, its production radius should be set in stone and counted as the border. Borders as in SMAC would be set up between cities, but the cities themselves would have their own borders.

2. Control of the seas. In SMAC, land and sea borders were considered separate. This is bogus. All cities had control of offshore waters even in ancient times. A city's radius is the same, regardless of land or sea.

Later.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

--==BUMP==--

Bumping in the name of Yin!

[CormacMacArt]

I like the idea of borders, although I think that the idea of an "Armed Border" is redundant; I succeed in doing the same thing by building a fort and sticking a unit there. That protects three squares. One problem that I see is deciding who gets what square when arguing with an AI civ. If only one square is overlapped by two opposing civs, who gets it? (Of course he does, he earned it didn't he? - Abbot) Is that area declared "No-mans Land"?

[NotLikeTea]

Little idea, combining borders and diplomacy.

Perhaps a passing of a "Law of the Sea" type resulution would automatically grant all nations a 200mile control of the seas around their nation (say, 2-3 squares surrounding any land square in their nation).

[Koyaanisqatsi]

CormacMacArt writes:
I think that the idea of an "Armed Border" is redundant

Not really. This allows you to watchdog your entire border, without tying up your troops or sending them out of your cities (and thus making your people unhappy.) Also, there's no ZOC involved in them, and there isn't a full-scale battle involved if someone tries to enter your empire. Think of it as a cheaper, weaker, automated way of posting a unit and fortress every three squares around your border.

One problem that I see is deciding who gets what square when arguing with an AI civ.

Same way as in SMAC.

NotLikeTea: I think it should be automatic with your government type like land borders, not a separate law. If a civ is advanced enough to declare any borders at all, it's advanced enough to declare sea borders.

[Harel]

The image of borders in Civ always reverts to the first game that used borders to the full extent: Settlers.
The problem is, that SMAC border system was just like settlers, flexing. Un-like history.
I belive we need to combine diplomatic conditions to this.
When you have peace ( better then blood truce ), the borders are automaticly sealed between your two countries. No one may gain terratoriy of the other side.
Non-aggression will automaticly cause a "Border region" when both countries have ANY sort of claim on that area ( in the 8 square part of every nation ), when the 3 square radius of a city production always stays in the older city owner hands.
The border region is a dead area, none may enter it or build upon it.
In war, its all game along the border line.

[Koyaanisqatsi]

Harel: Do you mean none may enter, or none may enter without diplomatic penalties?