borders

ancient · July 7, 2001, 18:17

especially in early ages, i think a citys border wich is expanding near a river, should stop at the river and expand further in other directuins rather than crossing the river (unless the civ have a city on both sides of the river., mountains should also slow down the advance of borders but in a different way. i think when two civs borders touch, the should stay that way, unless you take over their city. so if your culture is higher than theirs, it should not push back their borders. that would also fix the problem in smac where you could build a city near the border and gain extra land.. well i really hope thats how borders will be in civ3 and i hope not too many topics have been made about this earlier..

Inverse Icarus · July 7, 2001, 20:26

well its already been stated that higher cultures will eventually creep onto enemy borders, and perhaps even ENGULF enemy cities.

and there are a ton of border threads, dolt

.

anyway, i do like your idea of borders being influenced by geographical terrain, though i believe it has not been implimented.

i remember a huge debate in a screenshot, a mountain or hill was in a city's border.

not sure if that means anything, btu i think geography plays a minute role, if any at all.

ancient · July 7, 2001, 21:30

screw you

JellyDonut · July 7, 2001, 21:32

Geography should definitely affect borders, as in real life borders are often marked by a river or mountain range, and in straight lines on relatively featureless terrain (take a look at the Sahara; in Arabia, there are no established borders in the desert). Culture also affects borders, too. Territories with a dominant culture sometimes do engulf smaller cultures, like Prussia in the Zollverein before 1870. Before that, Germany as we know it was a bunch of weak, separate states.

Would you own half a tile if a river divided it?

It's probably too late to make any major changes in the borders like that

. They have to finish up the program and get it ready for beta testing soon, and Firaxis seems fixed on that goal as they haven't had time to update their website!

Civ fans:

Firaxis:

TechWins · July 7, 2001, 21:38

Quote:

screw you

Hey, go screw yourself, he didn't say anything that would offend you. You need to stop being so damn judgemental of other people's opinions and facts that they state.

ancient · July 7, 2001, 21:45

he called me a dolt... can you read or did you just skip that part?

i think rivers should be between land tiles, not as part of them, so you could have 1/2 tiles and quarter tiles where cities cant be made.... maybe not in civ3 though but id be nice...

Sabre2th · July 7, 2001, 22:01

He did call you a dolt, but he had a smiley next to it. Or can't you read?

TechWins · July 7, 2001, 22:31

What the hell's a dolt, anyways?

Ralf · July 7, 2001, 23:30

I agree with Ancient that SMAC-style "instant border-boxing" should be avoided in Civ-3. This have already been fixed however since present preview-info suggests that each newly founded city always start out with no culture-borders at all - regardless how culturally advanced the rest of the empire is. Sure, some Wonders gives you a free border-layer, but hopefully only too more established & advanced cities - or IF they add something to newly founded 1-pop cities (that belonges to mature and culturally advanced empires); then only max 1 layer of 8 tiles - never more then that.

I really hope that each 1-pop newbie-city always must "earn" its own culture-borders the hard way (regardless of the cultural status of the rest of the empire), instead of getting these borders instantly for free - as in SMAC. Otherwise we get the same annoing "instant border-boxing" phenomenon in all mid & late- Civ-3 game-eras, then all (well most) Civs is culturally advanced. I would hate that.

------------ edited:
Once the first border-layer of 8 tiles have been established though, a tiny city belonging to a culturally superior empire should never be allowed to be "swallowed up" by borders belonging to more established and powerful forreign cities - but who happens to belong to a culturally more inferior empire.
------------------

What about mountain- and river-slowed down border-expansions? Well, as long as it isnt too calculate-intensive for the AI to handle - why not? It would certainly make borders expand more irregulary = more naturally. I would suggest not making the idea more complicated then it has to be, though.
I think that rivers should slow down (detract or set back) the border-expansions by 1 layer at all river-tiles - provided that you havent founded your city directly on top of a river (perhaps in a large river-delta). If the latter is true, then any river-dipended border slow-downs gets bypassed, unless there are some regular terrain-types in between. Mountains should set back the border-expansions by 2 layers at all mountain-tiles. Several tiles deep mountain-ranges should always count as max 3 layers set back - never more then that.

Grumbold · July 8, 2001, 02:35

Quote:

Originally posted by UberKruX
well its already been stated that higher cultures will eventually creep onto enemy borders, and perhaps even ENGULF enemy cities.

Is there a Firaxis statement to this effect? I thought that was Apolytoners making assumptions.

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.

Juggernaut · July 8, 2001, 07:23

no, I really don't like the idea of your own borders shrinking just because the other civ's got stronger culture. SO unrealistic.I mean, if Norway would build more museums, would Sweden shrink? Eh?

You should have a map interface in the diplomacy screen so you could decide exactly what areas will belong to who etc. Or atleast after negotiating eith the neighbour Civ fot the first time, you both have accepted eachother, and the borders stand permanent.

Ralf · July 8, 2001, 08:18

Quote:

Originally posted by uncle_funk
no, I really don't like the idea of your own borders shrinking just because the other civ's got stronger culture. SO unrealistic.I mean, if Norway would build more museums, would Sweden shrink? Eh?

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.

ancient · July 8, 2001, 14:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Sabre2th
He did call you a dolt, but he had a smiley next to it. Or can't you read?

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..

Inverse Icarus · July 8, 2001, 15:35

dolt n : a person who is not very bright:

Dr Strangelove · July 8, 2001, 18:21

I think it would be nifty if exploring units (settlers, military, and explorers) could "carry the flag" with them, allowing the civilization to claim areas for expansion. These units would be allowed to (on command) plant border flags, which then would be traced back to the inhabited areas of the civilization.

Immortal Wombat · July 8, 2001, 18:54

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 · July 8, 2001, 19:04

[stupid flinking double posting computer

]

Immortal Wombat · July 8, 2001, 19:10

Quote:

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 · July 8, 2001, 19:35

Quote:

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 · July 8, 2001, 20:34

Quote:

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 · July 9, 2001, 01:32

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 · July 9, 2001, 02:01

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 · July 9, 2001, 02:07

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 · July 9, 2001, 02:17

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 · July 9, 2001, 02:25

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

Grumbold · July 9, 2001, 03:57

Quote:

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.