Poll: Should Forts, outposts and Colonies produce borders?

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Sorry to poll you to death like this, but this is one part of the Culture system which I'd like to see altered!!
Basically, the options are:

1) Yes, all the listed terrain improvements should generate borders, and should have "Culture" in the same way as an improvement.

2) Yes, some terrain improvements should generate borders, but I had different ones in mind!

3) Yes, they should generate borders, but they should be a fixed 1-2 squares in radius!

4) No, I like borders and culture just as they are.

If you answer this poll, could you also indicate whether you feel that borders should be negotiable as part of a peace settlement or other form of diplomatic agreement (like trade!)

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Adm.Naismith]

Well, I haven't much time to ponder about these suggestions, so I'm writing my idea as it come to my mind.

Fort: It can be built only in owned territory (civ cultural border) or in open field (outside any cultural border); you can't build a Fort inside enemy border, but you can still keep it if the enemy border expand and include it.
The Fort should excert a 9 square border (like a ZOC) only if garrisoned by a military unit.

Colonies: a garrisoned (by a military unit) colony must survive to border expansion, as far as any proper city. Similar rules should apply for cultural flipping.
an unguarded colony should "flip" side as it is included in another civ border.

IMHO colonies should never disappear: they are population place that can't grow. They should change in cities joining another worker (2 workers = same population count than 1 settler).

The Colony should excert a 9 square border (like a ZOC) only if garrisoned by a military unit.

Note: no defense bonus for a military unit garrisoned in a colony.

Outpost: as I understand so far they are only "sentinel" or "sensor" watchpoint. No way to have a cultural border.

Disclaimer: my opinion hasn't been tested for game balancing, so it can be irrilevant or simply dead wrong. Please forgive me in advance.

[GeneralTacticus]

IMHO colonies should never disappear: they are population place that can't grow. They should change in cities joining another worker (2 workers = same population count than 1 settler).

The problem with that idea is that 2 workers are cheaper than 1 settler, and have the same pop cost. So, it would be more cost effective to build a colony and then turn it into a city than to build the city straight off.

[Sabre2th]

I don't really have an opinion in any of this, but I would like to point out to General that colonies can only be built on a resource.

[m0lok0plus]

One possibility, although it would require a complete reworking of the game, is that colonies and forts can create "territory" which is different from cultural zones. Territory can never grow and may be something like a 9 block zone of control around a fortress or a colony (as mentioned before).

This zone of control acts like your cultural homeland in that enemy units may get booted out and enemy settlers cannot found cities upon this land and there will be no barbarian uprisings within the zone. However, this zone can never grow without building more terrain improvements (ie. more fortresses and colonies). Since this territory is not culturally linked to your homeland these fortresses and colonies will easily be absorbed into an encroaching enemy cultural border.

An example of this would be the Lousiana Purchase. This was American Territory with almost no cultural link to America. However, as settlers moved in it gradually became a functioning part of the union.

Or invision Texas, a Mexican Territory, which felt stronger ties to a foreign (American) power than to it's own homeland so it switched sides.

This might be an easy way to stake a claim on that huge jungle which just isn't worth planting settlers on or to slow the growth of an enemy culture.

Just a thought...

[Panag]

hi ,

you should have posted the option on and off in the poll , ....

have a nice day

[HazieDaVampire]

i'm gunna make a better version of this, it'll have more accurate results.

[Panag]

Originally posted by HazieDaVampire
i'm gunna make a better version of this, it'll have more accurate results.

hi ,

great , post a link when its done

try to include more options if you want

have a nice day

[jsw363]

Originally posted by m0lok0plus
One possibility, although it would require a complete reworking of the game, is that colonies and forts can create "territory" which is different from cultural zones. Territory can never grow and may be something like a 9 block zone of control around a fortress or a colony (as mentioned before).

An example of this would be the Lousiana Purchase. This was American Territory with almost no cultural link to America. However, as settlers moved in it gradually became a functioning part of the union.

Or invision Texas, a Mexican Territory, which felt stronger ties to a foreign (American) power than to it's own homeland so it switched sides.

This might be an easy way to stake a claim on that huge jungle which just isn't worth planting settlers on or to slow the growth of an enemy culture.

Just a thought...

I too have been thinking of a way to "claim" territory without having any cities there. Claimable land that you would defend with military units could be different than your civ's boundaries. There's nothing that's more annoying than landing a settler on a island and while you wait for the new city to expand someone lands their own settler their. This territory would eliminate that problem.

Liked the example of Texas. Hadn't been able to come up with too many examples of culture flipping in RW but that's a great one. (You sort of have to discount the independence part though)

[Inverse Icarus]

i proposed that a while ago.

forts should have borders or at leat FORTIFY borders.

for example, if i have a border with an AI civ, and i build fortresses down it, the border shouldnt push back, makign my fortresses in enemy territory.

[zulu9812]

Borders in civ3 are reliant on culture-generation. Having forts with a fixed 9 square 'zone of control' territory means that a player can just build 1 fort, then another and another, and keep on expanding their territory virtually for free (the only cost being the time it takes the worker to build it). Terrible idea. Secondly, since these forts produce no culture and since if they generate border expansion they should be subject to border shrinking, wouldn't they simply culture flip to an opposing city?

A cost-free, cultureflip-free, risk-free way of expanding your border? No way.

[notyoueither]

They should have a 0 radius border (they only control their tile) they should not generate any culture or grow in any way, and fortresses should be immune to flips (outposts and colonies, I'm not sure).

Correction. Occupied fortresses should be immune to flips.

[Nevs23]

My choice:
"Yes, all of these terrain improvements should generate borders"

[Mongoloid Cow]

Why not have fortresses and colonies produce borders on the square they are on only. If completely surrrounded by other civs territory, it is disbanded, and you get your worker back (if a colony), and all things on the square are moved to your nearest city.

[GoodFella]

A fixed 9 sq radius. I like the idea of territories.