Need "land claim" feature in Civ3

Brundlefly · December 4, 2003, 17:32

This may have been suggested before, but it would be nice to see a feature where you could claim land for settlement. The claim would appear on the map with an icon. You could even negotiate the removal or placement of land claims. If a civ ignores your land claim and settles on your claimed territory (which is the actual claimed square or any adjacent square), then it is an act of war. You can only have 3 active claims at any time. The claim cannot be adjusted for 20 turns once you've placed it on the map.

EDIT: (added 5-12-03)
The nice thing about land claims is that you don't spend a lot of time and resource sending Settlers to some area only to find that the AI has gotten to the exact square you wanted for settlement one turn before you. Then you have to start a war to get that spot if you really want it. If the AI moves into your land claim the "Remove forces from our borders or declare WAR" diplomacy options turns on and the AI can make the decision how badly it wants that spot.

Now that I think more about how powerful this could be, I think that the duration of the claims should be shorter, say 10 turns perhaps, and when you build a settler you must settle in one of your land claim blocks (so that you can't use land claims just to keep land from the AI).

Do you think players would easily exploit this new feature? Would there be a balance of usefulness to both player and AI?

Shadow Dweller · December 4, 2003, 17:39

I like that Idea a lot...

GhengisFarb™ · December 4, 2003, 17:44

I had thought just being able to negotiate borders and claimed territory not settled would be nice.

Cookie Monster · December 4, 2003, 18:34

I think this is a great idea as well......

mrmitchell · December 4, 2003, 18:39

A great idea.

But can the AI handle it?

P.S. Er, I like Ghengis's idea better. Negotiate specific borders with an AI, and settlement of those isn't a major offense but can be used to declare war and will bring an AI civ's opinion of you down by several notches.

MarkG · December 4, 2003, 19:07

cool idea but i wonder if it would end up like the demand cities feature in civ3 where i dont recall ever geting the ai to hand over a city (in smac it was much easier)

geniemalin · December 4, 2003, 22:03

Personally I think land claims are too complicated, but I would like destruction of a colony by putting a settlement right next to it be considered an act of war. If they put a settlement 2 squares away and take it 'by stealth', fine, but at least then you've had the chance to respond.

Brundlefly · December 5, 2003, 10:58

Quote:

Originally posted by geniemalin
Personally I think land claims are too complicated, but I would like destruction of a colony by putting a settlement right next to it be considered an act of war. If they put a settlement 2 squares away and take it 'by stealth', fine, but at least then you've had the chance to respond.

I've never had that happen to a colony before, but you're right. A colony is a claim to land rights that is disrespected when someone settles nearby and destroys it. That event should automatically cause war.

Brundlefly · December 5, 2003, 11:08

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
cool idea but i wonder if it would end up like the demand cities feature in civ3 where i dont recall ever geting the ai to hand over a city (in smac it was much easier)

Well, that's a good point. What exactly should be the trade value of a landclaim? It should not have as high a trade value as an actual city..... but certainly a landclaim that contains an iron resource is as valuable as a tech advance, don't you think?

Solver · December 5, 2003, 11:23

It's indeed a good point, Civ 3 AI certainly has difficulty with city trading. In the later versions, the AI would never trade cities, not in any case.

In SMAC, it would, but sometimes too easily. You could get small cities that are very important tactically for too small of a price.

Brundlefly · December 5, 2003, 11:50

Quote:

Originally posted by mrmitchell
A great idea.

But can the AI handle it?

P.S. Er, I like Ghengis's idea better. Negotiate specific borders with an AI, and settlement of those isn't a major offense but can be used to declare war and will bring an AI civ's opinion of you down by several notches.

I like GF's idea, too. To simply set a border would be match closely to how nations interact in real life .

However, I think that my idea of placing 3 blocks of 9-square land claims , while not being as much of a RL example, would be more easily implemented in the game. By using 3 seperate objects for this purpose, the AI can more easily place a value on land-claiming for the purpose of negotiation. You can't expect AI to understand much about strategic placement of things like borders or even landclaims, but I think the AI could understand the value of a good city location with or without resources.

For those that want to make something like a border, you could always manufacture a border by placing your 3 landclaim blocks side-by-side.

Japher · December 5, 2003, 14:53

bfg, your right, I had no idea this forum even existed... THough I don't really pay much attention.

As for your idea, I think it's a good idea. Maybe you could just "hold" the land with another unit, warrior, to indicate the land claim...

MattH · December 5, 2003, 16:41

What about making each explorer able to drop one at a time?

MrFun · December 6, 2003, 03:25

This idea really does sound cool!!

Andemagne · December 6, 2003, 03:30

YEAH! borders should be negotiable.

Quote:

Originally posted by MarkG
cool idea but i wonder if it would end up like the demand cities feature in civ3 where i dont recall ever geting the ai to hand over a city (in smac it was much easier)

I have once seen this, the AI traded 1 city for peace with me.

Twelvebottoms · December 6, 2003, 16:14

Quote:

Originally posted by Andemagne
YEAH! borders should be negotiable.

I'm not sure about that. I think it would unbalance the game, powerful civs making unreasonable demands for land with resources etc.

Trifna · December 6, 2003, 18:55

I think that the idea about claiming land as yours while you didn't occupated yet is great. But it would mean that the AI is able to see if it is worth declaring war for it. Like when you claim half the planet as yours :P

So does anyone know what an AI can do?

Rubychaser · December 8, 2003, 04:20

I like the idea of land claims and border agreements. Could be great in Civ IV.

Oncle Boris · December 8, 2003, 23:57

Land claim is a great idea, but it would require a rethinking of some concepts.

Basically, there are too few civilizations and too much terrain.

There are hundreds of nations in the world. Even in the ancient times, all land was filled with something or someone.

Have a game with 100+ civs. At any given time, only, say, 15 of them would be considered "major powers" and have access to diplomatic benefits.

Major powers can land claim only on minor nation's territory, and in a certain era- the exploration era.

In the beginning, the struggle would be to become the most powerful city-state that collects tribute from other cities. Gradually, you could create a national identity. This should take centuries, just as it did with France, Germany, Japan or China.

Land claim obey to some historical conditions that must be reached in order to be possible. A nation must be strong and united, and the claimed territory must be inhabited by a backward people.
This is the kind of thing that could be easily integrated into the Clash of Civilizations concept (which is brilliant IMHO).

DarkCloud · December 9, 2003, 00:07

Quote:

There are hundreds of nations in the world. Even in the ancient times, all land was filled with something or someone.

Have a game with 100+ civs. At any given time, only, say, 15 of them would be considered "major powers" and have access to diplomatic benefits.

Major powers can land claim only on minor nation's territory, and in a certain era- the exploration era

Interesting idea and a good way to integrate 'minor civs' and ntaive tribes and barbarian tribes, Oncle Boris

Frankly, I can see this being implemented in a Europa Universalis sort of way with the native tribes existing in an area at peace with the settlers until a certain date or certain expansion point or until the military annoys them, and then the natives make war on the settlers.

If Civ Integrated ETHNIC GROUPS in the game, then this land claim thing and the game as a whole could rise to a new level of both strategy and simulation!

Gangerolf · December 9, 2003, 07:52

I also would like to see borders subject to negotiations. I mean real-world-line-on-the-map-borders. I'm thinking Berlin conference 1884 here

Trifna · December 9, 2003, 08:38

Really, I believe that the diplomacy system would need a face-lift. Diplomacy is more than just economic exchanges and wars. Diplomacy needs a bit more. And this could be part of this face-lift.

Brundlefly · December 9, 2003, 10:08

Quote:

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
Land claim is a great idea, but it would require a rethinking of some concepts.

Basically, there are too few civilizations and too much terrain.

There are hundreds of nations in the world. Even in the ancient times, all land was filled with something or someone.

Have a game with 100+ civs. At any given time, only, say, 15 of them would be considered "major powers" and have access to diplomatic benefits.

Major powers can land claim only on minor nation's territory, and in a certain era- the exploration era.

In the beginning, the struggle would be to become the most powerful city-state that collects tribute from other cities. Gradually, you could create a national identity. This should take centuries, just as it did with France, Germany, Japan or China.

Land claim obey to some historical conditions that must be reached in order to be possible. A nation must be strong and united, and the claimed territory must be inhabited by a backward people.
This is the kind of thing that could be easily integrated into the Clash of Civilizations concept (which is brilliant IMHO).

This sounds like a great concept for a scenario. However, I'm looking for something that not only makes sense both historically and within the current game (like both of our ideas) but also can be easily implemented (like my idea). The AI can barely handle 16 civs plus barbarians now, I can't imagine it dealing with 100+ civs properly. I imagine a huge lag in between turns in such a game. My approach may be crude as far as dealing with land claim and borders but it is a good foundation from which to build on this idea.

The game has something similar to what you describe already: the minor barbarian tribes in the game are sometimes assimilated when a goody hut reveals a settler to you.

DarkCloud · December 9, 2003, 13:39

Quote:

The AI can barely handle 16 civs plus barbarians now, I can't imagine it dealing with 100+ civs properly

Computers will be up to 10 GhZ by 2008... I think that the technical requirements coud probaly be pushed up to 32 civs without too much fear, unless the ram is a problem... but even that has been pushed in to the GHz.

Locutus · December 9, 2003, 14:07

CtP1 could easily handle 32 civs in 1999, Civ3 not being able to deal with less is just poor programming...

orange · December 10, 2003, 04:43

I argued quite a bit for this feature a few years ago for Civ 3...still think it would be a good idea

I think it would be even better though if it took a while to do...not just in a turn...or if tiles are smaller (maps much bigger)

Could be performed by settler/colonist units?

Brundlefly · December 10, 2003, 09:48

Quote:

Originally posted by orange

Could be performed by settler/colonist units?

I think a claim could be made by any unit, but if that claim overlaps another civ's landclaim, a popup window will remind you that settling in your landclaim will cause war with the other civ.

orange · December 10, 2003, 10:07

eh, i don't know if I like the idea of any unit being able to claim land. What about only for certain non combat units like explorers and settlers? Otherwise, you could just plop down a bunch of defensive units around an enemy capital and claim their land. I don't think I'd want to have to reclaim land every time a nation invaded me.

Jon Miller · December 10, 2003, 10:31

I think that for this to work there should be two things

claimed land and acutal land

Jon Miller

Brundlefly · December 10, 2003, 11:12

Quote:

Originally posted by orange
eh, i don't know if I like the idea of any unit being able to claim land. What about only for certain non combat units like explorers and settlers? Otherwise, you could just plop down a bunch of defensive units around an enemy capital and claim their land. I don't think I'd want to have to reclaim land every time a nation invaded me.

Well, if every civ had a scout unit then I would say yes, this is a good idea, but not every civ has a scout unit. By the time explorers appear, chances are your civ's expansion phase is almost over. If you are cranking out settlers fast enough to settle wherever you want then landclaims would not even be necessary, right? I think that any unit should be allowed to claim land in the name of its civ. Whether the civ will actually settle there is another matter.

As far as your scenario of defensive units around an enemy capital, this is the reason why I said landclaims should be limited to 3 active at any time with every landclaim expiring within 10 turns. And that it is also the reason why I said that landclaims are the only areas on the map where you may settle with your settlers. So if you want to use your landclaims to restrict AI settlement, you won't be settling any new cities yourself.