Some of you were discussing this.

Please list here in your opinion pros and cons of raising the threshold of them to a friendlier AI attitude

Raising the threshold makes sense, as long as you add all non-military units to the "can enter rival territory" list (like caravels). I don't think armies were routinely marched to an enemy through a loosely allied nation's territory, as the game now does. It takes a closer relationship than "you seem like an okay kind of leader" to let enemy troops into your lands. Also, testing by a few people here has shown that the less Open Borders you allow, the more historical borders you end up with (since Rome can't colonize Siberia that way). Open Borders should require a +4 relationship or better, but to balance the lost diplomatic bonus that you would normally have with easy Open Borders, some leaders need to be made a little nicer (or some specific bonuses between historically non-hostile civs should be coded in).

There was some talking about dividing them into open trade borders and open military borders. That would be nice, if the AI could use them well. I also think that the open trade bordes should include missionaries and workers.

forget adding new agreements to the leaderhead screen, it's hardcoded afaik

Then allow trade between civs with relations that are +2 or +3 (or whatever) and up both ways no matter what treaties are signed. And for missionaries, you can add a popup when trying to cross the border if relations are not good enough to let them in (and set a certain minimum diplomacy situation for them to be let in with no problem).

Then allow trade between civs with relations that are +2 or +3 (or whatever) and up both ways no matter what treaties are signed. And for missionaries, you can add a popup when trying to cross the border if relations are not good enough to let them in (and set a certain minimum diplomacy situation for them to be let in with no problem).

This can be a nice solution. Too bad the agreements are hardcoded...

Raise the treshold for open borders, and have settlers unable to cross borders by land. When possible, divide it to trade and military ob

Then allow trade between civs with relations that are +2 or +3 (or whatever) and up both ways no matter what treaties are signed. And for missionaries, you can add a popup when trying to cross the border if relations are not good enough to let them in (and set a certain minimum diplomacy situation for them to be let in with no problem).
This is a good idea. Trade and military right of passage need to be somehow separated.

Will the ability to add new agreements be un-hardcoded with Warlords? Because having them as separate agreements would obviously be the best.

Will the ability to add new agreements be un-hardcoded with Warlords? Because having them as separate agreements would obviously be the best.
Would be nice...

I agree: Open Borders should be much rarer, but only if they can be separated from trade, as trade should be quite common. Indeed, trade ought to be MORE common than Open Borders is now: only very unfriendly nations embargo each other.

+1 for making Open Borders more rare.

But if you do that, it might be nice to have some lower level of agreement between less friendly nations. It could be as simple as an "Endorsement" treaty... something that sends a simple diplomatic signal.

It's nice to be able to have some kind of long term agreement with a civilization, to build up relations.

... maybe with an additional small benefit. (Opens up a single trade route between the two capitols.)

In my current game, China attacked me by land. Nothing strange, except that I'm playin Spain.... I agree with the division of trade/military for open borders, it makes sense. To make things more complicated, maybe we can add the difference between by sea and by land, if it's not too hard to implement

Personaly I think that making trade automatic once a relation threshold is reached is the perfect solution, and leaving open borders hard to obtein and military only.

That is a good point about the naval movement. It would be bad if Greece, Egypt, and Rome all became permanently trapped in the Med if they couldn't get the newly hard-to-achieve open borders with Spain.

Maybe if you have +1 relations or more with a country then you get open naval borders and allow trade. The more difficult "Open Borders" treaty would allow land units to pass.

It would be bad if Greece, Egypt, and Rome all became permanently trapped in the Med if they couldn't get the newly hard-to-achieve open borders with Spain.

In what way would it be "bad"? This is basically what happened for the majority of European history.

I think it would be exceedingly annoying if you were the player and weren't able to move your ships out at all.

That´s more reason to start a war, wouldn´t it? It would be nice if the AI understood that and ally you in your quest for open seas. Egypt many times build a Suez channel, so if you have a traty with them you could pass through there.

I wouldn't dare seperate "Right of Passage" from "Trade Between Cities". While it might be realistic, we're talking about something FUNDAMENTAL to the game balance of Civilization 4. When Open Borders means YES you get more trade revenue, but you also give them access to explore your lands -- it's a much harder decision. Seperate the two, and you're back to Civ 3 "no brainer" choices -- the trade component will always be good, and the military component will be avoided as much as possible.

IMO, it is more reasonable and realistic for open borders to be established ONLY when the other side is 'Friendly', why give the open border right to a country when your'e caution about them ?

I wouldn't dare seperate "Right of Passage" from "Trade Between Cities". While it might be realistic, we're talking about something FUNDAMENTAL to the game balance of Civilization 4. When Open Borders means YES you get more trade revenue, but you also give them access to explore your lands -- it's a much harder decision. Seperate the two, and you're back to Civ 3 "no brainer" choices -- the trade component will always be good, and the military component will be avoided as much as possible.

The idea was that the trade passage would also allow missionaries and non-military units like explorers and workers, so that the balance is manteined in that regard.

When Open Borders means YES you get more trade revenue, but you also give them access to explore your lands -- it's a much harder decision. Seperate the two, and you're back to Civ 3 "no brainer" choices -- the trade component will always be good, and the military component will be avoided as much as possible.

I would actually say that Trade shouldn't be a choice at all - just an automatic effect of relations. That gives you an incentive to keep your relations high (which does sometimes require complex choices) without actually introducing a direct "trade/no trade" decision.

I wouldn't dare seperate "Right of Passage" from "Trade Between Cities". While it might be realistic, we're talking about something FUNDAMENTAL to the game balance of Civilization 4. When Open Borders means YES you get more trade revenue, but you also give them access to explore your lands -- it's a much harder decision. Seperate the two, and you're back to Civ 3 "no brainer" choices -- the trade component will always be good, and the military component will be avoided as much as possible.
I disagree. What would be so terribly aweful about changing something that "FUNDAMENTAL" to the game? Wouldn't you consider adding in World Congresses a pretty big change too? What about having all of the civs not start at the same time -- that's something which I would consider as much more fundamental to how Civ4 is played. Change isn't necessarily bad by itself, especially if its something relatively minor like this.

The current system of binding trade and military passage simply doesn't make sense. By changing it so that trade is automatic with +1 relations, it would add extra importance to diplomacy. In addition, going further granting of military passage rights would not be a "no brainer" decision. You would only grant those rights to a civ that you were actually friendly to or if it suited your strategical interests. The rights would obviously have to be reciprocating so there would be pros and cons to weigh.

If it is possible to have trade "by default" once the appropriate tech is discovered, then that would be good.

Then if relations become horrible, trade could cease until such time that relations improve to whatever minimum you want to assign.

Then open boarders would require rather strong relations. I do not think anyone would allow an other nations' armies to cross unless they were friendly enough to welcome at least a defensive alliance (whatever the min relation is for that).

Hey, I have an idea! If agreements are hardcoded, why not change one the mod doesn´t use? I´m referring to Permanent Alliances! It is possible to use the Open Borders "slot" for trading only, and the Permanent Alliances "slot" for military passage? Of course the names and effects must be changed, or also these are hardcoded?

Hey, I have an idea! If agreements are hardcoded, why not change one the mod doesn´t use? I´m referring to Permanent Alliances! It is possible to use the Open Borders "slot" for trading only, and the Permanent Alliances "slot" for military passage? Of course the names and effects must be changed, or also these are hardcoded?
Thats a good idea! I'm not sure if it works like that, but if it did it would be great.

Well, I'm the one who triggered the no-open-borders discussion, so here goes the history...

I decided to experiment with turning Open Borders off - completely! in order to increase AI tensions and cause more wars as my primary reason. "Our Open Borders Agreement Brings Us +1" seemed unnecessary. Also, the minor annoyances of seeing the Spanish attack me in China by land, or French and Roman cities in the Ukraine seemed to make it worth trying.

Not only did it work, it worked quite nicely. Europe looked more European. Germany and Russia were at each other's throats. The Mongols invaded India, which still might have been a complete fluke.

Then, when I started PLAYING instead of watching, as Rome, it added the strategic considerations of getting to the Atlantic much more pressing. Try to get Kopenhagen? Take out France? Northern Spain? Build a route through Africa?

I didn't even notice that I wasn't getting trade from cities that weren't my own, but then, I'm not much of a micromanager. So I came back and reported that not only was Open Borders kind of historically innaccurate, getting rid of it also helped the game.


I agree with the idea that trade should exist automatically when relations are high enough, however, some leaders (Izzy, Monty, Tokugawa, Genghis) always seem to be grumpy, and this might cripple them further.

I would save Open Borders (as an effect) for Defensive Pacts, Permanent Alliances, and maybe mutual wars with allies with high relations. I think what I would do is make Defensive Pacts appear slightly earlier, include Open Borders, and require a slightly higher friendship level to sign.


Just curious - has anyone else actually played with Open Borders switched off?

You know, it's a good point... this IS a new game, and a lot of things required for balance can fly out the window.

Still, it's important to be reward peaceful trading behavior... and to offer appropriate risks for every strategy, so they don't become 'no-brainer' decisions.

Something to keep in mind -- whether this gets tampered with or not.

An advantage to making trade tied to relationship is that it requires you to keep your relations happy. As it is, I tend to declare war on my nearest neighbor, regardless of relations with them. If I knew that this could cripple my trade with them in the future, I might instead turn my armies elsewhere.

i'll try in the next build the effect, so everyone will see and judge.
Arkyaen, can you tell me now where did you change that setting so that I don't waste time looking for it?

If anyone else wishes to test this out, the process is simple enough. Go into the XML of CivilizationTechs, find WRITING, and change Openborders from 1 to 0. That's it!

Quoting him...

I was thinking that it may be good to only have open boarders when allied in a war. So if I am Germany and France wants to to join her against Spain I will be able to move units through France as long as we are both at war with Spain. No netural nation even allows armies to move through their teritory.

Regarding naval acess, I think it may simply be best to let them all ignore borders (same with air unite).

Personally I didn´t notice open borders harder to get in 0.93...

What are people's thoughts on using a system like this:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3879548#post3879548

To replace tech trading.

If it works. Tech trading is annoyingly set in stone. It's better than it used to be, where you click on every diplo screen after getting a new tech just to hit them up for money, but yeah, if it works.

Open Borders still seems to be pretty easy, but I am noticing a lot more AI wars - Egypt got involved! Rome into the Middle East!

What are people's thoughts on using a system like this:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3879548#post3879548

To replace tech trading.

Interesting...has anyone tried how it works in a game?

What are people's thoughts on using a system like this:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3879548#post3879548

To replace tech trading.

What an interesting idea. Does it work?

Back in Civ 3, a tech was cheaper the more known rivals knew it (and the more rivals still alive). I guess it's not that way anymore. It should be simple enough to cut down the price of a tech you're researching or to give a bonus to research on it for each civ with good relations (+1 or more), without actually giving a clumsy bonus to each city. It's just too micromanagy to put the bonus in each city instead of setting it for the tech itself. It can still be displayed wherever the cost of, and progress on the tech is displayed, like this:
1567/2456:science: (3400:science: - 944:traderoute:)
I do think something like this makes a lot of sense. I'm just not as hostile towards the current model as naf4ever is.

Interesting...has anyone tried how it works in a game?

I haven't tried it. But my diplogaming group has our eye on it for our games potentially.

I always found it very nice, but I did not try it myself.

Rhye, what do you think about what I said before?

Hey, I have an idea! If agreements are hardcoded, why not change one the mod doesn´t use? I´m referring to Permanent Alliances! It is possible to use the Open Borders "slot" for trading only, and the Permanent Alliances "slot" for military passage? Of course the names and effects must be changed, or also these are hardcoded?

I always found it very nice, but I did not try it myself.

Rhye, what do you think about what I said before?

It is a complex change, will require some time. In the meantime, let's see how it works with raised thresholds. Download the patch from the 093 thread

I play 093 and I believe the latest build, and still I find open border way too easy to get.
Giving a tech for free gives me open border and "pleased" level of diplomacy attitude in most cases.

I also have not felt any difference playing 093.

Just check the patch Rhye posted.

Giving a tech for free gives me open border and "pleased" level of diplomacy attitude in most cases.
Fair enough. A tech is a valuable thing. Give them gifts, and they will like you better. Before you could normally get Open Borders with everyone immediately and for free, except for the pissy leaders (Izzy, Monty, Tokie, and Genghis). I haven't tried the new version much yet, sadly, but if you need to give gifts to get them to let you in, that's an improvement. This what kind of relations two real-life countries have if they give eachother important technological discoveries freely.

I've tried that model, and I can tell you I know it works beautifully. Realism has it, or something similar to the point of being identical, in its mod. I find it is much more realistic, also, since you can no longer trade techs directly, you can't gift techs to people to make them like you for a simple thing or a short period of time.

As an addendum to the Open Borders discussion...

In an effort to continue to fiddle with diplomacy using my pathetic, XML-only modding skills, I decided to make Defensive Pacts appear earlier, with Writing. I had two reasons for this. First of all, I wanted to have more lopsided wars, which might cause more civs to fall. Second, I wanted the friendly civs, mainly India and Egypt, to be more likely to be drawn into wars. I decided to play as a fairly isolationist China, so I could watch.

The idea, on one playthrough, appears to be a failure. Every Civ still survives, into the 19th century, and I haven't noticed any significant changes in territory.

I still like the idea Arkaeyn. Are there good historical examples of something like a defensive pact that early on?

england and portugal signed one in the 12th century, thats the earliest i know of

I still like the idea Arkaeyn. Are there good historical examples of something like a defensive pact that early on?

Countries/cities of the antique signed defensive pacts all the time. For example the alliance between Lydia, Lacaedaemon, Babylon and Egypt when Persia attacked Lydia.

thank you for the test, Vishaing.

So, did you all feel patched 093 and 096 improved or open borders are still too easy?

I think they could do with being a little bit harder to achieve. Just a tiny little bit more. If it's too much more, they will be too hard to get. Right now the situation is a little too comfortable (though not outright easy).

raising the threshold for most of the civs would cut the differences and make all the leaders like Tokugawa

How exactly does it work? Does each leader have a relations threshold for agreeing to Open Borders? What is the threshold for most? Can't it be raised universally so that Tokugawa is a bigger ass and everyone else is too but not quite as big as he is?

:lol: Very funny and accurate description of Japanese foreign policy in Civ. :lol: Sorry I can't contribute more, I am neutral in opinion. I'll wait and see on this one.

SilverKnight

Right now, the Open Borders raised threshold seems to be preventing civs from traveling through other territory to found colonies, like Rome in the Ukraine or Latvia. So I think it's okay. But on the other hand, India and Egypt still just will not fight and gain or lose any significant amounts of territory!

As for the Defensive Pacts, I'm not certain of any specific ancient-world documents, however, I tend to view it more as a general, lowest-level alliance that Civ offers, so I felt it could be abstracted to ANY alliance. Warlords' Vassalage system may do the trick much better, though. We'll see.

But on the other hand, India and Egypt still just will not fight and gain or lose any significant amounts of territory!

That´s not too bad, as they weren´t very expansionist civs. But the problem is that Rome doesn´t! I think that some more barbarian cities would help (and a more agressive AI for them!).