Borders

The Patriot · January 27, 2001, 23:56

First off, I am not new, so I dont need all "the welcomings". My VERY OLD registered user got screwed up, and I havent been here in a while, so I am re-registering...Just to let everyone know.

Not only should borders be in civ3, but also, borders should cover ocean squares as well. So that there is not free naval travel as there was in civ2.

comments?

------------------
We are not Westernors. We are not Southernors. We are not Yankees. WE ARE AMERICANS.

New Yorker · January 28, 2001, 00:27

i don't like this idea, just playing with you

i think it is a good idea, but how would your border thing would work out-something like in SMACrossfire or in CTP 2

------------------------------------
New Yorkers aren't human cuz its not a human who could be immune to such levels of pollution, well maybe people from New Jersey

magma12 · January 28, 2001, 15:28

I like the border, but it have to be better than CTP2.
There might me a contest land in which can lead to a conflict. We might be able to demand AI to give the contest land to us etc. I hope if there is a border in the game, the AI would pay more respect to it than in CTP2.

I really hate when AI settler move in my land and build city.

Sean · January 29, 2001, 06:43

Borders over the sea are a must. But I do not like the way ctp II does not allow you to build tile improvements, like roads, outside your borders. Borders should also be more flexible, and take terrian into account. There have been some excellent posts on this subject, previously.
[This message has been edited by Sean (edited February 06, 2001).]

bagdar · January 29, 2001, 07:14

quote:

Originally posted by Sean on 01-29-2001 05:43 AM
Borders should also be more flexible, and take terrian into account.

Yes! That'll make them more realistic, and they'll look great. Mountains, rivers, etc. have always played an important role in determining borders.

January 29, 2001, 10:57

I agree national borders over the sea should be incorporated into CIV3. The one thing I don't like about CIV2 is that in the beginning of the game the AI can come up to my city by boat and attack it, or sit next to my city (in my waters) but I can't diplomatically contact him because "I have not made contact yet" Really?? I can either see him sitting off my coast, or he just rammed his ship up against my defensive unit in my city...and I have no contact??

National borders are a must and they need to extend out over "your" waters too.

EnochF · January 29, 2001, 16:57

As a peaceful, expansive player, I think borders might provide a good deal of incentive for me (and players like me) to begin to use more warlike tactics. That was my experience in SMAC, anyway. Whenever that great, vast frontier to the west (that I naturally assumed I would fill with cities in a few turns) suddenly gets cut off by an enemy border, I seriously contemplate a military offensive to take it back.

Which is probably good, in the long run.

Thumbs up to Borders.

In fact, I'd like a way to negotiate borders in Diplomacy. You could have the player draw a border, and the computer can accept or reject (or accept it as long as you pay gold, or give them a tech advance, or whatever). Or you could even give the computer the ability to draw borders and ask for agreement (and the player could accept it in exchange for gold or a tech advance or whatever).

Cyclotron · January 29, 2001, 19:54

Well, one idea is no water borders... If sea units don't exert a ZOC and don't expel enemy workers, why have a border? Why attack a ship that doesn't harm you in the least? What is the use of trying to keep it out? Reasons for realism are fine, but realize that gameplay should take precedence. What good are sea borders at all?

Cyclotron · January 30, 2001, 01:00

Umm... I don't know. I like the strategic value of being able to blockade and bottleneck crucial straits and such, but I think having the entire radius be yours including the sea is somewhat excessive. Theoretically, I could have a city on the north side on the English channel that would make it impossible for any ships to successfully leave the city on the other side, and vice versa. So both cities would be "locked down" by sea until they cancelled their treaty. I think that since there are current treaties about international waters that limit them to x-distance, I think that controlled waters should only be ones both in your city square and adjacent to a land square.

As for adjustable borders, I agree entirely. I think that there should be a 3 or 4 -square MAXIMUM radius around each city. With each population, you choose a square to occupy, and this becomes your territory. It then becomes possible to encompass a long valley into one city, or a section of coastline rather than just a circular blotch.

I also think their should be something about claiming land... perhaps land that you claimed somehow could not have cities built upon it by other civs unless they paid you money for the land.

The Patriot · January 30, 2001, 01:30

you have a very good point. Bottlenecked areas would be extremely hard to implement with water-borders. I cant think of any idea to shove this problem asside. anyone else have an idea?

tniem · January 30, 2001, 17:08

quote:

Originally posted by The Patriot on 01-29-2001 12:30 PM
you have a very good point. Bottlenecked areas would be extremely hard to implement with water-borders. I cant think of any idea to shove this problem asside. anyone else have an idea?

Aren't the oceans supposed to be international bodies where any nation can go?

Of course there would be a square or two where you can claim dominion to protect your cities, but not over a great deal of the ocean. I believe that their is still freedom of the seas.

January 30, 2001, 20:51

I think I may have not explained myself with my concern for borders which extend over water.

These borders which actually extend over water would only be the water squares adjacent to land squares WITHIN the given city radius.

- Groucho - · January 30, 2001, 23:28

quote:

Originally posted by The Patriot on 01-29-2001 12:30 PM
you have a very good point. Bottlenecked areas would be extremely hard to implement with water-borders. I cant think of any idea to shove this problem asside. anyone else have an idea?

How about this? Assuming that SMAC equiv borders are used, everybody gets a one or two square border along any shore that is in their borders (to reflect the current law of the sea which only gives nations either 10 miles/250 kms/ or the continental shelf - pick your poison). Additionally, Diplomacy will allow you to negotiate allowable sea routes with the AI which don't constitute treaty violations (as long as you move straight through and don't complete your move next to a city or something). The downside is that the AI would have to be able to recognize when bottlenecks occur and be able to decided if it was in its interest to allow the route. That might be a tricky bit of coding.

------------------
Echinda
"That which does not kill you ... will likely try harder the next time."

January 31, 2001, 12:05

quote:

Originally posted by Echinda on 01-30-2001 10:28 PM
How about this? Assuming that SMAC equiv borders are used, everybody gets a one or two square border along any shore that is in their borders (to reflect the current law of the sea which only gives nations either 10 miles/250 kms/ or the continental shelf - pick your poison). Additionally, Diplomacy will allow you to negotiate allowable sea routes with the AI which don't constitute treaty violations (as long as you move straight through and don't complete your move next to a city or something). The downside is that the AI would have to be able to recognize when bottlenecks occur and be able to decided if it was in its interest to allow the route. That might be a tricky bit of coding.

You have my vote Echinda. That's exactly what I was thinking

Grumbold · January 31, 2001, 12:35

A sea border of 2 squares from any claimed land seems suitable. Should two or more civs claim the same tiles then it should be 'disputed' territory like BotF. The diplomatic offer of relinquishing/claiming certain disputed tiles as part of an agreement was one of the best ideas in that game. If that cannot be easily included then there should always be a 1 tile wide channel through any narrow parts of international waters. I'm also fond of the idea of units being able to stack or pass through each other without causing combat. The idea of a transport ship, sub, plane or settler blocking movement of another empires units has always seemed ridiculous to me when tiles represent tens if not hundreds of square miles.

January 31, 2001, 20:20

Yes, having disputed territories would put a neat twist to the game.

Lancer · January 31, 2001, 22:01

I strongly urge that borders should be placed at the edges of each Civ.

(I just wanted to say something everyone could agree with)

Blockade is an act of war yes? Nations at war haven't had alot of respect for borders in my experience. So forget blockade as a problem.

The idea of borders, far out to sea, particularly in ancient times and right up to the advent of flight is kind of difficult to accept. How would you know that someone had crossed your sea border? The ocean is a huge place, the horizon is just 3 miles out.

Until flight ocean borders are impossible. Until radar they would be difficult and costly to monitor.

My suggestion is to have as a border the square the coastline is in until flight, which would extend it, but even after flight ships crossing the border would only rarely be detected. When radar comes along, it should be possible to build a radar station on the coast, and everything in range is detected. When satalites come along, everything is detected.

Roman · February 3, 2001, 08:26

Firaxis already said that borders will be included in Civ 3, but that they will be even more realistic than in SMAC. I wonder what that could mean.

Shaka Naldur · February 3, 2001, 08:41

it would be cool if you negotiate with other countries or if there are intertanional contract about territories like in the past centuries, for example the one that discovers where a river borns is the owner of the river´s territory,like the Missisipi and the french
that would it be really complicated but really cool also

Krippled · February 4, 2001, 22:02

Ok borders.

Yes trhere should be borders and in watwer. Need to alter the different kinds of "relations" in SMAC so that you can prevent your ally etc. from building in, or near your zone and taking parts of your borders. That gives me the ...annoyances when that happens. It's my territory and I want it to count as mine!

Furthermore, it should be possible to buy at an expensive price a tile of land from your opponent - say for example to make a border straight if u so desired...

Krippled · February 4, 2001, 22:15

Another thing about borders. All people who you are not at war with should be able to negotiate a "pass" through your territory (perhaps with a financial incentive?). Ie.Player A requests Player B allow unit A through B's territory. This fully discloses unit makeup and desired location. Once unit A has entered or is about-to enter B territory, the computer takes over and sets the path for that travel, once there control is returned to player A.

Straybow · February 5, 2001, 04:10

Computer control? No way. If you can't trust 'em, don't let 'em in.

Sarxis · February 5, 2001, 05:50

International waters start relatively close to land. I don't think that having borders extend too far into seas is very realistic. Besides, in pre-modern times, how would anyone be able to enforce deep sea borders anyhow?

pg · February 5, 2001, 16:08

i agree with most stuff here but, i have one thing i'd like to add. if you start the game surrounded you don't have much of a chance if you're playing with good players. maybe borders should be taken less serious during the begginging of the game? it's also kinda realistic to some degree, but what do you guys think?

------------------
-Peter "pg" Groen

Grumbold · February 6, 2001, 11:33

Good point, Lancer. Sea borders are really only applicable after technology allows them to be enforced. Not sure where that leaves us with coastal cities improving sea tiles, though. I guess they would have to stick purely with building city improvements to reflect a fishing fleet rather than putting down PW nets like CtP. That is more aesthetically appealing to me anyway.

Allowing people through your territory: I'd never trust the AI to do it properly, the AI should never trust me to do it for them. The only way I see it working is if the units are allowed to teleport and reappear on another border of yours a turn or more later (depending on distance and transport links.)

Henrik · February 6, 2001, 11:44

In reallity there are many cases where armies have been allowed to move trough others territory even though they where at peace (for example in 1655 when Sweden had Brandenburgs permission to move thier forces through Brandenburg territory to invade the Polish/Lituan Comonwealth).

Krippled · February 6, 2001, 19:01

I like the idea of moving through territories... That way you can explore, colonise areas that have not yet been done, but you are separated. And it means that if your at war with someone, you don't have to be at war/ally with people in your road... otherwise you always must move linearly...

I like the teleport after move rules...