{The List} Borders

[Frozzy]

Introduction

Borders. The limits of our empire. The shell of our civilization. It's the crux of what we can do, and a show of our power over the world. Here is a place to discuss and improve aspects of this feature for Civilization IV

Summary

FILL IN

The ideas

1 - Cities
1.1 - City Radii

"The 21-square blob doesn't cut it. Allow cities' radii to 'meld', allowing for greater freedom in city placement. If two cities have overlapping radii, they should gain extra squares elsewhere. It should be possible to cluster your cities along rivers or fertile coastlines." - Sandman

2 - National
2.1 - General
"A distinction between CULTURAL border and PHYSICAL border. It's not the same thing and while happiness can go down when a city is more attached to another culture, it doesn't mean it can't be countered, nor is the physical border itself dependant on culture." skywalker

"Let borders be affected by the terrain." - Brent

Conclusions

FILL IN

Respectfully Compiled - Frozzy
With special thanks to:

[Kuciwalker]

I don't think they should make a distinction between the cultural and physical borders, but I do have a proposal that I think will solve the problem nicely. Over "bad" terrain (desert, tundra and tundra forest, jungle, maybe mountains) make cultural borders propogate a lot farther. This fixes the problem of having large, useless but unclaimed land. Then allow people to trade (or occupy) that extra territory (the territory outside what the cultural borders would be).

This territory would be divided into large chunks all containing only one terrain type. The chunks of the same terrain type would be divided by lines between cities. To gain useful territory, though, you would have to trade (or capture) actual cities.

[Lorizael]

I'd be in favor of the construction of military forts that created borders. It would be the simplest way to model planting a flag in the ground. You'd get nine squares that would never expand. Nine might be too much, though. Hmm.

[POTUS]

I like the idea of forts, but I think a fixed number is too infexible. I think that they should have forts, and with one unit in them automatically, i.e. a garrison. The fort would give you a 1 tile radius around the fort. Then for every military unit in that radius, you'd gain an extra 1 tile radius, up to a 3 or 4 tile radius. This fort, given time and terrain could grow into a city. Maybe, the fort could count as a colony if it was connected to the rest of your empire.

[Tiberius]

I like the fort city idea.

Forts would be created by army engineers (a special worker, that would cost 1 or 2 pop points, would be much more expensive than a regular worker and would be able to build only roads, fortifications, barricades, fort cities, radar towers, and other military related improvements) and would have a fixed, one tile wide cultural radius. Army engineers should be able to build forts on mountains, too.

A fort city would have zone of control, would offer a defence bonus similar to a barricade and would act as a radar tower.

The cultural radius would never grow and the fort would never culture-flip.

[Shogun Gunner]

Is it too difficult to ask for the ability to negotiate borders with the AI? As I type this I'm already thinking that this will be too complicated for the AI to understand properly and would be ripe for exploits.

But I'll post it anyway. If you plant a Fort/City on the border, but later choose to give the land away for a price (a la Louisana Purchase) you should be able to identify the hexes to trade away.

Regarding the fort city specifically, these would often be used to secure resources since they would have a one tile wide cultural radius. It's a good idea.

[Shogun Gunner]

I like the concept of the cultural borders being different than the national borders, but this would be difficult to implement, no?

One color for your national and a different for your cultural border? What about the other guy? His cultural border could overlap your national border. Lots of lines on the map. If this idea could be done with lines on the map, then there's a possibility.

[Trifna]

Why not puting only a physical border, but to show a gradual influence of culture? The more you approach a civilization, the stronger its influence. Perhaps it could be a toggle on/off color (the darker it is, the strongest is the influence). If your influence is too low and some other civ's influence is too high, the morale would be affected (and a recolt could come if it gets too extreme).

In modern times, the culture would cover even more, as Japanese culture now goes to US and vice versa.

[Kuciwalker]

no comments on my proposal?

[Shogun Gunner]

Skywalker,

I see what you are suggesting, but I always perceived the borders (as they are done currently) to represent the "power" of the city. I don't think the power of a city is extended just because the terrain is bad or unwanted. In fact, I think the opposite is true that borders tend to be just assumed, but not defined (think the Saudi Arabian border with Yemen and Oman).

One things humans are good at is identifying what is important, trying to lay claim to it and then fighting over it. In this way, I think the current system works. If you think that tundra is important, go settle Nome, Alaska on it. If not, someone else might come in there and do it. You might be lucky and find oil there later

OTOH, I'm not against the idea of allowing population to work tiles that are beyond the city limits. In this way, its kinda like the colony concept. If your city only has a radius of two tiles all around, but there is something you want to work, three...maybe four (but that would be it) tiles away, you should be able to work it (maybe at a reduction due to distance from the city). However, you do still run the risk that an opponent would plant a city which would bump your populatin out of that tile.

I don't know if I fully understand the last paragraph of your post.

[Roman]

I would like to be able to redraw borders in negotiations with other civilizations.

[Lorizael]

I'd like to be able to redraw borders as well, but I don't think that's something the AI would be able to handle very well. But if you could trade border-making forts... you'd be set.

[Inverse Icarus]

the ability to manage borders is a must.

1. there should be a way to "trade" borders (redraw them with a nation). This could be used in negotiations / peace treaties. Rather than give the Germans Paris, i can give them the 2 tiles they want.

2. there should be a way to expand borders BY FORCE. if i can station 20 panzers on the outskirts of an Egyptian cultural influence near my border, why can't i work the tiles?

[Stefu]

I think there should be an option to make a border treaty, which makes all the borders between two nations as they are at the moment of the signing of the treaty stable, so they no longer fluctuate with the cultural changes (unless there's an assimilation of a city, changes because of conquest or so on.) The border treaty would also give all the small clumps of stranded uncultured area between the two nations part of one nation or the other. In effect, this would make a cultural border a physical border. There would still be an "invisible" cultural border going on to show the cultural influence.

[Roman]

Originally posted by Stefu
I think there should be an option to make a border treaty, which makes all the borders between two nations as they are at the moment of the signing of the treaty stable, so they no longer fluctuate with the cultural changes (unless there's an assimilation of a city, changes because of conquest or so on.) The border treaty would also give all the small clumps of stranded uncultured area between the two nations part of one nation or the other. In effect, this would make a cultural border a physical border. There would still be an "invisible" cultural border going on to show the cultural influence.

Good idea, but I would prefer if physical and cultural borders were one and the same and such treaty prevented even assimilation of the other side's cities.

[asleepathewheel]

I like these last several ideas as potential tweaks to the current system, which, IMHO, is pretty good, better than the previous games at least. I like the "maintain current border" option as well as Uber's forced cultural subjugation idea. I think that they should make the colonies have a one tile cultural space, so that they aren't taken over (perhaps unless they were completely surrounded by another culture).

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Shogun Gunner
Skywalker,

I see what you are suggesting, but I always perceived the borders (as they are done currently) to represent the "power" of the city. I don't think the power of a city is extended just because the terrain is bad or unwanted. In fact, I think the opposite is true that borders tend to be just assumed, but not defined (think the Saudi Arabian border with Yemen and Oman).

One things humans are good at is identifying what is important, trying to lay claim to it and then fighting over it. In this way, I think the current system works. If you think that tundra is important, go settle Nome, Alaska on it. If not, someone else might come in there and do it. You might be lucky and find oil there later

OTOH, I'm not against the idea of allowing population to work tiles that are beyond the city limits. In this way, its kinda like the colony concept. If your city only has a radius of two tiles all around, but there is something you want to work, three...maybe four (but that would be it) tiles away, you should be able to work it (maybe at a reduction due to distance from the city). However, you do still run the risk that an opponent would plant a city which would bump your populatin out of that tile.

I don't know if I fully understand the last paragraph of your post.

The idea is not that bad tiles increase your power, but rather it is easier to project power across essentially worthless terrain - there is nothing in your way. It is also intended to make places like the Sahara and the Amazon actually part of countries without having to build cities all over it (which is unrealistic and annoying).

[Jaguar]

Allow for the player to have some choice in how his city radii are shaped. For example, if there is a mountain town with three gold resources that can't feed enough citizens to work them all, the player should be able to put the gold resource in another cities' radius, even if the radius has to stretch a little.

[ixnay]

I would like to see rivers and mountain ranges shape borders somewhat.

Perhaps this could be accomplished by making it so that borders from a city x tiles away from the river/mountain range stop at the terrain feature. To expand them, another city must be built closer to or on the other side of the river/mountains.

[Jaguar]

Definitely. And this should work on national borders too.

[Inverse Icarus]

Originally posted by ixnay
I would like to see rivers and mountain ranges shape borders somewhat.

Perhaps this could be accomplished by making it so that borders from a city x tiles away from the river/mountain range stop at the terrain feature. To expand them, another city must be built closer to or on the other side of the river/mountains.

give each terrain type a "culture cost", much like a "movement cost"!

so, a desert could have less cost than a grassland, which means the deserts would fill out / expand quickly, and make the mountains cost more to "assimilate", which would make them take longer to grow over.

if you made the costs a MODIFIER rather than a STATIC cost, you could make it so 1 "foriegn culture point" on the other side was worth 5 of your "domestic culture points", which would make it a lot harder to push your culture over geographic barriers.

these modifiers could change with technologies, as their effects become less pronounced as time goes on.

[Roman]

Uber Krux, that is an amazing idea!

[wrylachlan]

That's a great idea Uber! Anything that makes the terrain more important is ok with me!

[DarkCloud]

Here's some old Ideas I have dredged up from this site:
http://home.att.net/~civgames/ideas.html

Allow buying, selling, and trading individual pieces of land. This would allow simulation of: The Louisiana Purchase, The Gadsden Purchase, The Polish Corridor, The Alaska Purchase, etc.”
(HolyWarrior)

I think borders should be another bargaining tool. In the diplomat screen you should be able to move the boards around and offer the new arrangement to the other civilization. (i.e. you move the border) so you have more land (maybe including a city or two) in exchange for something”
(Blue Waldo)

[Rasputin]

culture should probabyl dictate the borders till you meet another civ, once you meet the other civ then you should have to negotiate a political border.

[Jamski]

I really like Uber's idea with cuture costs. If mountains and rivers require BIG culture to expand across, then that would give better looking borders.

Also wanted - culture costs increase if you want to take land in someone elses borders (we were here first syndrome) but this could be cancelled with placement of troops in that particular square. Maybe a square next to your borders with your troops in gains your culture at a faster rate....

-Jam

[Trifna]

Hey, is border really depending on culture to start with?...



Cultural influence is linked to culture, but the boarder is determined by ECONOMICAL and POLITICAL aspects! A city/civ may be very advanced, great and so on, if it has less population and is not using some territory, others will be able to take the territory anytime.

Borders are dependant on the territory you USE and are able to keep, perhaps less/differently when the nation-state comes in modern times. Like Canada: if it is not able to keep its presence in North Pole, USA may just take the territory (even with nation-states) without asking permission!

This is how territory is internationally determined right now, and this is how it always have been in the past. Territorial possession is done by using this territory, OCCUPYING it (economical use, demographic presence, military presence of an empty space (like northern Canada), etc.). Cultural expansion is not directly the same thing as physical border. To resume my point: Territory must be own de facto.


Waiting comments

[wrylachlan]

To expand and slightly change Uber's idea... instead of making the expansion of borders be based on the movement value of the tile, how about based on the "usefullness" of a tile. The way I see it, cultural expansion represents mini-settlers, who go out and set up little tiny villages planting your flag. Therefore, they should expand based on how useful a tile would be. Your borders would tend to expand fastest towards resources, fast along great tiles like grassland and forrests. Slowest along deserts and mountains (note the usefulness should represent what you can get out of a tile without upgrading it).

Once your border meets a neighbor's border, it is fixed. There should also be a way to trade territory.

[Kuciwalker]

To expand and slightly change Uber's idea... instead of making the expansion of borders be based on the movement value of the tile, how about based on the "usefullness" of a tile.

That's what both Uber and I said. Each tile has a movement cost and a culture cost.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by skywalker

Quote:

To expand and slightly change Uber's idea... instead of making the expansion of borders be based on the movement value of the tile, how about based on the "usefullness" of a tile.

That's what both Uber and I said. Each tile has a movement cost and a culture cost.

Yes, but you were basing it on cultural borders moving faster across deserts, which is exactly the opposite of how I see it. Culture should travel faster towards more "useful" tiles.