Fixed Borders & Civics

45°38'N-13°47'E;13426849 said:

I suppose it would be better, but I'd wait for Afforess opinion. Maybe a claim territory command that can be used only on your borders and if you use it on another civ's tile, it means war. Something like that could work maybe but I'm not sure it's worth teaching AI something like that.

Click to expand...

If you're already at war you can just claim a hills/forest tile and park your stack of doom there and heal up at the "In friendly territory" bonus rate without the distant unit supply cost being in effect. That's the concept I'm most concerned about really (Aside from using a few weak units to block off access to territory by closing borders and claiming territory at key locations)

The Fixed Borders mechanic itself I've got no problem with. While I can just try and ignore the Claim Tile feature, the temptation to use it is always there
I've used it often to grab an Iron resource that's just outside of my border, when Realistic Culture Spread would mean waiting for a long time to get it and I need the Iron *now* - it's just oooooone measly tile away from my borders, but the actual expansion might not reach it for many turns and settling directly adjacent to it (Or even on top of it) would sacrifice potential commerce/production yields from the surrounding area, which in the early game is pretty major.

That's a mechanic of FB I actually quite like - being able to grab something nearby quickly, securing it until your culture can take it naturally. Being able to do so many miles away from your borders and deep within enemy territory (Even a tile or two away from a capitol!), not as much

I use FB because i need a resource outside my borders but i don't want to build a new city near the resource tile.Also i find a bit unrealistic the fact that i have occupied with my troops an enemy tile for several turns but the tile still belongs to the enemy.I need an option to claim this tile.
The maintenance for SoD on a claimed, with FB, tile which some members referred to is surely unrealistic but don't forget that the SoD with countless units are also unrealistic.That's why i play with 10 units per tile.

Just to be clear, all of you who use FB to claim tiles may do it by building forts. Forts create tiles of your nation with a minimal culture spread. They may be removed later for another improvement or city.

FB is just a quicker and cheaper way to do that.

However, i've no problem stop using FB if this option causes problems to the AI or to the game generally.I don't know if the AI knows how to use FB.

Spirictum said:

Just to be clear, all of you who use FB to claim tiles may do it by building forts. Forts create tiles of your nation with a minimal culture spread. They may be removed later for another improvement or city.

FB is just a quicker and cheaper way to do that.

Click to expand...

Wrong

You cant build forts on enemy tiles. FB is the only way to claim tile using "military force" Its realistic.. thats the way how it usually goes in real world.

Again, please keep it optional.

I think the consensus here is that Claiming Territory with Fixed Borders should be limited to tiles adjacent to tiles you already own. Any complaints if I make that change?

Sounds very good to me

I'd be okay with that change too, but some have said they're in favor of being able to do it in enemy territory, so they might not like that. I can't see any way to both be able to claim said territory and still have to pay distant supply costs though. (I mean you had that territory for like, one turn. Why would you get a free pass on supply costs immediately like that?)

Rezca said:

I'd be okay with that change too, but some have said they're in favor of being able to do it in enemy territory, so they might not like that. I can't see any way to both be able to claim said territory and still have to pay distant supply costs though. (I mean you had that territory for like, one turn. Why would you get a free pass on supply costs immediately like that?)

Click to expand...

Right, it is clearly cheating - I guess players will just have to finance their wars properly.

I'm fine with adjacent tile claiming.

Arakhor said:

I'm fine with adjacent tile claiming.

Click to expand...

Not Adjacent! Only tile claiming adjacent to tiles you culturally own (i.e your culture > 0). I don't intend to let players cleverly double-chain two tiles together to slowly walk their fixed borders into enemy lands.

@rtt4a

You're right! I forgot about that. This is a nice thing to think about.

Afforess said:

Not Adjacent! Only tile claiming adjacent to tiles you culturally own (i.e your culture > 0). I don't intend to let players cleverly double-chain two tiles together to slowly walk their fixed borders into enemy lands.

Click to expand...

And Afforess gives the right way to manage it. I agree completely and I have something to add about it:

Clearly this way you won't be able to make a virtual chain of tiles to reach deep into enemy lands easily.

You'll have to back this up with Forts, and here both features add together to a unique strategy of digging into enemy land:

You make a Fort adjacent to enemy land. Forts spread minimal culture in its adjacent tiles, but culture nonetheless;
Then you claim the adjacent tile you want and start making another Fort on it;
Keep repeating the process;

This feature won't be cheap because forts are really expensive, and workers are vital to the economy. It also encourages the use of War Engineers (the concept of using workers for war efforts, I'm not sure if RAND has anything Modern or Future about it) a lot. It is a way of chaining into enemy territory, but it's really costful, and the longer the chain, the stronger you must be. Conquered Forts will be extra defense to enemy units (so supposedly harder to conquer back then non-fort tiles).

Also let's not forget Fixed Borders can't claim tiles adjacent to cities, so this is a way of stopping this feature that forces a change in strategy on the battlefield. Also not letting a "free siege" (units doing the siege inside our tiles).

I find this a great new concept for the game, I hope nobody thinks it's op or unrealistic. It seems fair balanced and realistic to me, still without testing.

I meant culturally adjacent, but I still like the idea.

Spirictum said:

You'll have to back this up with Forts, and here both features add together to a unique strategy of digging into enemy land:

Click to expand...

Forts take so long to build that they are really not that realistic, but sure.

Afforess said:

Forts take so long to build that they are really not that realistic, but sure.

Click to expand...

That depends.. is it possible to claim tile if its next to tile where is some (1%) your culture? Or do you have to "cultarally own, 50%<" that tile next the one you want claim?

If latter one then you can only claim tiles on boarders and forts has nothing to do with it.

Sorry to say but I dont like it. It takes away only game mechanism that represents using military force to claim tiles.

Sure you can destroy enemy cities and replace them but thats not the way it goes in reality I know, its a game not reality but why not make this new way mandatory and leave the old one optional..? Original idea of fixed boarders was claiming tiles without any role of culture.

rtt4a said:

That depends.. is it possible to claim tile if its next to tile where is some (1%) your culture? Or do you have to "cultarally own, 50%<" that tile next the one you want claim?

If latter one then you can only claim tiles on boarders and forts has nothing to do with it.

Sorry to say but I dont like it. It takes away only game mechanism that represents using military force to claim tiles.

Click to expand...

It is possible to claim tiles where you have culture, but it is not the tile owner. You just have to have any culture in an adjacent tile to claim.

rtt4a said:

Sorry to say but I dont like it. It takes away only game mechanism that represents using military force to claim tiles.

Sure you can destroy enemy cities and replace them but thats not the way it goes in reality I know, its a game not reality but why not make this new way mandatory and leave the old one optional..? Original idea of fixed boarders was claiming tiles without any role of culture.

Click to expand...

The problem with that was the free pass on (usually highly expensive) distant supply costs you got a turn after claiming that tile, because all of a sudden your units are magically in your empire so they're no longer 'distant' anymore.

rtt4a said:

Sorry to say but I dont like it. It takes away only game mechanism that represents using military force to claim tiles.

Sure you can destroy enemy cities and replace them but thats not the way it goes in reality I know, its a game not reality but why not make this new way mandatory and leave the old one optional..? Original idea of fixed boarders was claiming tiles without any role of culture.

Click to expand...

By what Afforess said it actually lets you claim all tiles adjacent to a fort and also all tiles adjacent to those because they will be adjacent to a tile with your culture (forts spread culture to all adjacent tiles, so the second ring can be claimed).

So it's not taking away the role of Military Units in claiming tiles.

Of course you may remember the tile isle inside enemy territory that won't exist anymore. But honestly, what's the advantage of tile control in RL if the area itself is disconnected from your territory by any means? Supply of troops surely isn't.

I may only see the usage of the road network, not even the friendly territory heal bonus should be available (it's controlled but it doesn't have any supply nor the safety of domestic territory).

If we can remove the free upkeep and heal rate, then I think it's ok to let it claim far away tiles, but only to get a road bonus? That you may already do with Commando Promotion? It seems too much work for a little benefit.


So imagine like this: It's still a military operation to take tiles, but now with the need of battle engineers to build the infrastructure to let the troops truly control the zone. It seems realistic to me and it's still a role of military operations to claim tiles. A fort lets you claim up to 24 tiles around it, 2 rings around it (BFC plus diagonals). I loved the new concept.

Would it not make more sense to make it so you get the cheaper unit supports costs only if your units are in territory contiguous with one of your cities rather than changing the FB mechanics?

Combat Wombat said:

Would it not make more sense to make it so you get the cheaper unit supports costs only if your units are in territory contiguous with one of your cities rather than changing the FB mechanics?

Click to expand...

Continuous territory checks would be prohibitively costly in terms of performance. It would involve a full map scan per unit...