Borders

[BeeBee]

Those borders in Alpha Centauri were a great improvement. I hope Firaxis goes further this way (don't remember ctp having this, no?).

One annoying thing were floating boarders when an enemy base was founded near yours. I think the first base has right to its whole territory. The last base founded should only get what remains.

What do you guys/ladies think?

------------------
C'est dur etre bébé

[WarVoid]

I think the idea is great. Borders would be an excellent addidtion to the game. They would especially interesting to use in scenarios.
As to the "first come first serve idea" I think the land should be divided at the exact middle point of the two bases.
Or it could be based on the diplomacy of the situation. Such as if the two nations bordering were at war, then the new bases borders would extend further into the area. If there was a cease-fire, then the middle. If peace or alliance then no territory would be gained. Is this a good idea?

[The 1212 Problem]

or better yet have the borders size depend on you civ's strength. that way some one that is really powerful will have larger span of territory to control. well maybe its not that great of an idea.

[Stuff2]

I agree.

First come, first to get. If u wanna change your borders u will have to fight for it.

[Paul]

BeeBee is absolutely right.

[WarVoid]

Looks like i'm outvoted.
BeeBee you win.
Dammned the torpedos and all that bloody rot.
Lets take the fight to the invaders.

[BeeBee]

I originally meant the shifting of the borders concerning the radius of the cities!

As to me, it is just frustrating when you've built a nice base (surrounded by resources e.g.), and a few turns later you notice that half the base's territory 's gone in favour of a new enemy base nearby.

Do you think this is justified, or do you want to see it changed (like me)?

------------------
C'est dur etre bébé

[raingoon]

Here's one I've never commented on. I agree and then some, with the first come rule for borders. Borders in Civ 3 should be first come and then completely negotiable. That is, if I want to cede various parts of of my civ to a neighbor, I should be able to drag my border and cede them. And visa versa. This means control of rivers, valuable mountain ranges, etc., is always negotiable.

[Earthling7]

Something like "click and drag a border to your liking and then submit... the rival civ will come up with yes, no or a counter offer" sounds great

------------------
Greetings,
Earthling7
ICQ: 929768

[DanM]

I was happy to find a thread on this topic(or I would have started one) Right on Beebee.
I am sure I am not the only one who had this problem:
Another civ who I am not at war with fortifies his unit(s) on MY railroad track in the middle of my territory.This link is vital for me for the rapid movement of my units,but,because the other civ's unit is not within any city radius,I can do nothing to get rid of them(except start a war,in which case I am looked on as the bad guy and I recieve the penalty in my standing).
Imagine this scenario in the real world.
At the very least I agree that the system used in Alpha Centauri would be an improvement,but I agree with Raingoon's idea that a negotiable border would be better.And I would like to see this border remain permanent and could only be changed through diplomacy, after wars etc.,or even by selling chunks of controlled land.
I like the click and drag idea,or even click on each individual square(or maybe hex)to draw out a border.
This to me is an issue of great importance,and should NOT be ignored in the new version.Every aspect of the game needs to be looked at in order to make the game as realistic as possible because to me,thats what Civ is all about.It's not just pump out units and nothing else.Lets leave those games for Nintendo.

[Tuerkuem]

How about having borders partly influenced by the lay of the land in the immediate area?
Perhaps they could be determined only partly by the proximity of your city, but also be more likely to follow natural features, such as mountain ranges or rivers.

[grapevine]

I like the idea of whoever discovers a piece of land first should get it and if you want it you have to fight for it or perhaps buy it would be a good idea I think

[Otso Vuorio]

Yeah, I have thought this "border-thing" too.
Borders would absolutely make the areas of different civs more solid. And as
And WarVoid, I like your idea of changing borders during cease-fire, peace and war.
But...I'm not sure, would the "no borders"-idea during an alliance work out. There are borders between US and Canada, even if they are very good allies.

[Az]

let's get this border thing farther . let's say a teritory of mine was conquered . this teritory should be under the rule of the enemy . but if I have United Nations I can demand it back , and let's say , even a thousand year have passed , we still feel connected to that land , even if there is no city that was once mine to feel connected to me ,as was purposed in one topic ...

[general_charles]

Here's what I think:
How about we say that the first that gets the land keeps it but if a military unit from another civ comes on your land without declaring war (this could only be done when the civs have no peace treaty, either no contact or a cease fire agreement), the other civ actually takes the land, and when we sign a peace trety, it means that we agree to respect the other player's land and eventually airspace and seashores. This means that if a player breaks the agreement, war is declared (or at least the country who ows the land has the right to declare war). I think the sea territory should be based on the seeshores, not on the city's area, all sea land that has contact with the sea shore should be declared territorial waters. This will prevent units from landing.

[Grumbold]

I like the borders realigning themselves a bit when new towns are founded - the AC borders start a long way out from any city and often encompass land that neither side have actively explored. I totally agree that the border should never compress so far that it removes workable land from an existing city though.

I favour allowing compression down to a firm minimum of 3 squares from a city and one square away from a fortified 'border' unit. That allows a player to actively stake a claim to land provided they expend some effort to do so.

[Hawkman142]

you should be able to draw your border around your cities.(maybe allow 10 or 15 tiles, but you don't have to take that much) You can ask others to give up land or you could be ask by other to give or sell your land. The USSR sold Alaska to the US!

[Earthling7]

Claiming a land because you were the first one to walk on it is OK, but to keep it you would have to fortify units or build cities.

Do I hear the clash of metal?

------------------
Greetings,
Earthling7
ICQ: 929768

[Donn]

As I earlier stated (colony-thread by Sir Shiva) the lack of borders in Civ2 was one of its larger drawbacks. Mostly for the tactical and military reasons DanM pointed out. After the discovery of e.g. 'Political Borders', the borders should be considered the same as city radii and violating them by military units results in a severe diplomatic crisis and, unless an immediate (next turn) withdrawal is executed, it's treated as an automatic declaration of war on the trespasser's fault (diminishing his reputation). That would reflect the political realities of modern times.
On the other hand borders are the necessary prerequisites to have exterritorial regions (for instance colonies) to rule and exploit- another very important aspect of true history that was not handled in Civ2, perhaps because Sid Meyer already dedicated to it an entire game of its own (Colonization).
Last to mention that the important feature of trading and selling/buying territory apart from cities cannot be performed without clear ownership - which could be expressed by borders.

[Slax]

Donn's post reminds me that one great benefit of borders is that it would help those players (you know who you are) who would like to try to win by peaceful means. I know for me my first battle is always with some foreign civ that has plunked a city in the middle of my array of cities.

[mwaf]

quote: Originally posted by DanM on 04-24-2000 05:22 PM Another civ who I am not at war with fortifies his unit(s) on MY railroad track in the middle of my territory.This link is vital for me for the rapid movement of my units,but,because the other civ's unit is not within any city radius,I can do nothing to get rid of them(except start a war,in which case I am looked on as the bad guy and I recieve the penalty in my standing).

Fortyfying on a railroad track is a good srategic move and in CivIII roards(railroads) should more stategic value and not be built just to incrase trade and food (maybe by having some minor roads for the cities that wouldn't increase movement). In your case, however, this should be a reason good enough to declear war against the other civ without you being blamed.

[general_charles]

I think that borders are very important, besides, if there were no borders in real life, how could we know where the power of a government stops. I think that if an enemy unit is within your borders, you either have the choice to expel it, to declare war without damaging your reputation but with damaging the other civ's ones, and to ask for sevrious retribution in exchange for such an agressive move.
However, I think that once countries are allied, they should be allowed to go in their allies' territories and their units should be allowed to be on the same squares and therefore defend together (maybe not attack together) and as I have said in my thread (BATTLE), units should benefit from artillery and air support from other civs that are allied to them.

[DanM]

quote: Originally posted by general_charles on 05-03-2000 02:26 PM I think that once countries are allied, they should be allowed to go in their allies' territories and their units should be allowed to be on the same squares and therefore defend together

Remember those pesky caravans from your allies which would slowly plunk their way along or beside your roads,thereby impeding your own units movement?
I agree that allied units should be able to occupy the same spot.

[general_charles]

I know that this is a good idea, it feels stupid (maybe it was because of programming problems) that allied units are not on the same squares. Concerning the caravan system, I think that civ3 should learn from CTP, it was greatly improved... To take an historical example, let's take WWI, where english troops came to fight in France, they fought along side the french even though they never really attacked together, but they lived right next to each other. Another example in american history is when the french gave them support in their struggle for independance, this time the troops fought amonst each other even though the french troops remained under french command (Rochambeau and LaFayette)

[general_charles]

go check this out to see how CTP2 handles borders:
http://apolyton.net/forums/Forum35/HTML/000049.html

[Grier]

Heres my view: If you are allied then all units can enter your borders, if you are at peace or during a ceasefire then any intrusion of a combat unit is an act of war, if you are at war then military units moving into your borders reduce your border.

If you have had your border reduced then it creates a temporary void where other nations can move in and take that territory, otherwise after a while (or after sending your units out to take it back) then it would become your territory again. I also think that if a city has been cut off from your capital for a long time then the chances of it revolting will increase.

quote: Originally posted by Grier on 05-10-2000 05:42 AM If you are at war then military units moving into your borders reduce your border.

This doesn't always apply. Just because a country has military units somewhere doesn't mean that the country loses it's border there. Think US/Vietnam War. We had troops all over the country(ies), it doesn't mean that we gained that land or that they lost it. I think you're thinking along the lines of a war with bordering nations. But your rule doesn't always apply. Especially when considering air strikes against a country (US strikes on Yugoslavia)

quote: Originally posted by Grier on 05-10-2000 05:42 AM I also think that if a city has been cut off from your capital for a long time then the chances of it revolting will increase.

I think we're thinking along the same lines when I compare this to England's expansion into India, North America, and Africa. By "cut off" do you mean if it a certain distance from the capital? If so, I completely agree. Corruption and waste already occurs in Civ 2, but a "revolution factor" should be used to determine a city's hunger for independence or joining a new civ. In the capitol = 0%. In a city 5 square away = 2%. Across the globe = 75%. Is this what you meant or something else?


------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[Grier]

I was think more that if enemy units are inside your borders then you have no effective control over that area and will create a vacum for others to exploit.

I dont think that troops would take control of territory unless they are bordering nations. How about this as a solution, the number of turns an enemy unit sits on a square then it takes that many turns to return that sqaure to your border by natural means.
For example: A unit moves into your territory and sits there for 8 turns before returning to his own civ, that area would be owned by nobody for the next 8 turns at which point it would return back to you. Moving one of your own units into the area would return the area to you much quicker.

I think that there should be an additional border line that shows (maybe as a dashed line) the greatest historical extent of your empire. This would be of use when claiming lands during diplomacy.

[ember]

This would only apply when at war though.
I think millitary units should have an ability (sor of like pillage) that would claim territoty, this is how you would advance your border during war, if you can't capture cities.
If your units don't stop to take terrritory, like a blitz, you would not gain it unless, the cities were taken.
A common cease fire aggreement might include ceeding all territory captured since the last aggreement back to the original owner.

Double post, sorry
------------------
~~~I am who I am, who I am - but who am I?~~~

[This message has been edited by OrangeSfwr (edited May 11, 2000).]