Borders Don't Work Well?

Raleigh · November 10, 2001, 21:54

Is it me, or do borders work worse than they did in Civ2?

Example, I put roads all over strategic resources and mined the mountains near it. They were well within in my borders. The Americans landed in the one box that was exposed to the ocean. They established a city that not only threw back my borders, not only took over those resources (b/c they are within one box of their new city), but also kicked out my population from working the square.

At least in Civ2, if i got there first I got to keep the square.

What's the deal?

DaddyCool · November 11, 2001, 00:25

A political entity must occasionaly justify its existence and enforce its territorial claims with froce. I say, tell those Americans that you will not stand for such blatantly imperialistic actions, and then show them that you can enforce your will by taking their new city.

If you are not in a possition to do this, then the AI can only be praised for pressing its advantage when it senses that you are weak.

I see nothing unhistorical about this.

dexters · November 11, 2001, 01:01

Sigh, why can't people just come out and say it.

DECLARE WAR!

Hehehe

DaddyCool · November 11, 2001, 01:06

I was...umm...trying to be all Machiavellian and stuff. This is the kind of thing Civ3 does to me.

Sixty_four · November 11, 2001, 03:45

In a recent game I've had to keep a pikeman posted on the one oceangoing square on my entire island so that my allies didn't come and put a city on that one square.

It's been that way for 600+ years now, and if I ever move that unit, the allies somehow figure it out and send out a boat. When I move the unit back to that square, the boat retreats!

Funny as anything.

Raleigh · November 11, 2001, 06:11

Irritating that the computer knows that.

Yeah, I finally declared war and just took over all those cities, but some of them are lousy. Now, does anyone know how to check your reputation?