This was one aspect of the Wild West that I'd like to see simulated in a mod. Terrirorial disputes happened even during times of peace which often times then would eventually lead to full blown Wars.

Wikipedia:
A territorial dispute is a disagreement over the possession/control of land between two or more states, or over the possession or control of land by one state after it has conquered it from a former state no longer currently recognized by the occupying power. These disputes are often related to the possession of natural resources such as rivers, fertile farmland, mineral or oil resources, although the disputes can also be driven by culture, religion and ethnic nationalism.

I been thinking about how this could be added in the game. If a plot of land has multiple Culture percent the one with the highest would actually "own" the plot but others with a high enough percent could also "lay claim" to the land as well.

If one player can "lay claim" to another players plot this gives them the ability to attack that players units that enter that spot. This attack does not cause war or kill any units but instead damages the units and hurts the relation of the two players. It could also maybe immobalize the unit for an amount of turns.

If the attacking player wins the fight the defeated unit is removed from the plot severly damaged. If the defender wins the the attacking player is severly damaged.

There could be other advantages to territorial disputes in that it disrupts other players plot developement. The attacking player could also be able to Pillage the plot and gain a little gold. It could also increase the attacking players Culture and thus claim to the plot when pillaged.

If to many territorial disputes happen the affended player would eventually declare War.:mad:

Sounds like a cool way to pick a fight :D

Strange, it seems I never noticed this thread.

It sounds like an interesting idea. It could be useful for something else as well- Forts.

What if the territories controlled via culture generated by a Fort couldn't be claimed? That would give a solid reason for players to build Forts instead of just popping a settlement down for free.


I probably mentioned this before, but I had a similar idea for a "Railroad Victory" (something I made up when fooling around with ideas for alternative victory options). A Railroad Victory would be won when a player had covered x% of the map in railroads, to represent a trade monopoly, industrialization, and cultural domination.

The only problem was: how would you keep track of which player built which railroads? And wouldn't whoever "owned" the railroad manner more than whoever built the railroad? So one option was forcing the player to cover the map in Forts and Settlements, to culturally control a lot of the map and railroads.

But with a system like this in play, you wouldn't need that. You could make claiming a railroad similar to this system, and then allowing another player to have a territorial dispute over the railroad.

So as I said, I like the idea. It's just a shame I missed it when it was originally posted... three months ago.

We definetly would need more options. When Oregon spits from the USA, my inner historian wants to yell.

The railroad thing sounds a little cheesy. I don't know you're extents, TC01, but perhaps give separate victories to each colony.

Texas-Independence.
Oregon-Large population (Oregon Trail).
California-Large wealth (Gold rush). You should add the gold resource.
Utah-Large religion (this was basically there purpouse for going to Utah.

Sorry for being slightly off topic, but I wanted to suggest this without a separate thread.

We definetly would need more options. When Oregon spits from the USA, my inner historian wants to yell.

The railroad thing sounds a little cheesy. I don't know you're extents, TC01, but perhaps give separate victories to each colony.

Texas-Independence.
Oregon-Large population (Oregon Trail).
California-Large wealth (Gold rush). You should add the gold resource.
Utah-Large religion (this was basically there purpouse for going to Utah.

Sorry for being slightly off topic, but I wanted to suggest this without a separate thread.

Always feel free to make a separate thread. When it came time to implement additional victory options, I intended to start one anyway, but if you started one now, that would have been fine.

However, it's unlikely I'll do anything with victories before 0.6, since in 0.5 I intend to add a few more civs and maybe leaders (there's another thread around about that).

I'm not a fan of making a victory option "specific" to each colony... or, at least, an option specific to each colony that the others don't have. Instead, I'd rather one civ be more focused towards a specific victory- but this certaintly wouldn't be implemented until much later in this mod's development.

I do intend to add Gold. I intended to add it for 0.4, but Kailric had all sorts of good ideas for a Prospector system, which Gold would heavily rely on. I said he should post those ideas somewhere but I don't think he ever has.

Oh, and Westward Ho, like Colonization, like Civilization, is "alternative history"... an alternative history where it's perfectly possible for, say, Oregon to rebel from the United States.

the only thing that is driving me nuts is the whole Utah has Mormon leaders but isn't called Deseret.

the only thing that is driving me nuts is the whole Utah has Mormon leaders but isn't called Deseret.

It used to be called Deseret, in the original version- in fact, if you download the Westward Ho (Incomplete Version) (http://forums.civfanatics.com/downloads.php?do=file&id=12813) (aka 0.1) which is still in the archives, it'll be called Deseret. But then we changed it back to Utah, and set up system where civ names change on Revolution. So Utah changes to Deseret when Utah revolts.