Political Borders vs. Cultural Borders

The cutural borders system used by Civ is a perfect representation of power and influence in the ancient times up through the renaissance. However, maintaining the Cultural Borders system well into modern times dosen't make sense.

I'm not a realism freak -- I'll always choose gameplay and balance over realism, but its just kind of silly to see this in indstrial and modern times, especially when exploits like Great Artist Culture Bombs are used - Elvis sings a song and your borders expand!

Therefore, I think a single game tweak might make things more interesting. What if the border system shifted from cultural borders to "political borders" when upon completion of the Nationhood tech?

Here's how it would work:

Until Nationhood, the regular cultural borders system is in place. Upon completion of research of the Nationhood tech, however, your borders would convert to hard "political" borders. This means that you can't expand them through culture, but also neighboring civs couldn't expand into your territory either. (Cultural expansion would still work over neutral territory).

The way to expand your borders (if neccessary) is by taking cities through conquest or trade. (of course, I've never seen an AI trade away a city, except as part of a peace treaty). When you conquer cities in modern times, you would attain the entire cultural "turf" of that city, instead of creating a "no man's land" around the newly conquered city, which must be built up culturally again. I'm still in favor of the city losing it's built up culture points however. The conquest would merely extend your political borders to the extent of the conquered city's cultural influence.

It would be very cool if it was combined with some kind of system that let you negotiate borders, right down a single square. Of course, this would require some kind of complex interactive map, plus it might be too confusing for the AIs.

Opinions?

Your idea is great! I think it would be combined with another one: if you have banking, economics or even the corporation (or the both) I think you can should invest your money in building and technologies to other nations - and result they would open your borders for you to get even more commerce, and it strenghthens the both sides! I think this possibility you might include economic alliances such as European Union or Mercosul! Other possibility is having a commodity-based economy in a civ-game! What do you think? The multinationals will resend money to you and the generate culture in the other nations!

Hello Doctor:

Your suggestion about a commodities based economy - plus a more sophisticated banking system - is similar to what I proposed in this thread.

Basically, I'd like to see a way gain power and win through trade and commerce without the need for a huge empire (like Venice, Singapore, Holland, etc.)

Foreign investment is interesting too... I never thought of this one.

Edit : Corrected typo

I like it. About the "tile trading" I don't think it is even necessary to be that detailed as you propose. A single option, like

"Free all tiles that are in the fat cross of my cities and they aren't in the fat cross of your cities"

would do the job excellently for me.

I think that re-drawing borders would happen most often through peace treaties (just as in real history).

You've just beat up on Montezuma, but at great expense to your own units. You'll eventually win the war, but you'd like to end it because its killing your economy. Ol' Monty will never give you a city or a tech. Maybe a couple of nice towns and a sheep pasture adjacent to your territory will suit you fine.

Im not throwing a wrench in the idea because of the idea, its a great idea. Im just throwing a wrench because its my sport, I like throwing stuff, especially at people.

Economy and cultural diversity did not just emerge in Modern Times. In fact, borders are just as undistinguishable in Ancient Times based on race, economics, religion, and cultural identity. In other words, the Ancient World dealt with diversity if not only in great ways but in bad ways too.

For example, Anatolia-Lycia-Cilicia a region in what is now Turkey. This area was an agricultural rich area with a flow of constant exchanges in people and mixed societies. Earliest being that of the Ubaidians (Proto-Bahrain), Hassuna (Early Mesopotamian), Samarran (Early Mesopotamian), Halafian (Early Mesopotamian), the Hittites (Indo-European), Mitanni (Caucasian), Armenians (Caucasian), Assyrians (Babylonians: Ashur), Chaldeans (Babylonians: Ur), Greeks (Hellenes including Macedonian Hellenes), Persians (Median and Persian combined) and many more. So the feature Civ 4 has where minority groups are allowed to live in different countries works well. As for the change at the time Nationhood is completed, possibly one leader can demand permanent borderlines so as to have more influence over whether the land is being influenced by conservative methods of Nationalism as opposed to what the people actually want to presented as. Solid borders is a Nationalistic quality, that really does not allow for representation to take place.

Your feature does create for some nice Cold War issues, like non-compliance and contries that do not agree on boundaries can have over-lapping boundaries. Overall, the idea is great. But fluctuating boundaries dont necessarially work in the Old World for the same reasons they dont work in Today's World.

My thesis is not based on any notion of a lack of diversity, but simply the historical fact that the concept of a Nation-State is a relatively modern idea that arose in the late 17th to early 18th centuries.

Of course, most civilizations throughout history have encompassed diverse peoples (for better or worse). "Nationhood" does not mean an ethnically homogenous area.

However, the idea of fluid "cultural borders" is accurate for ancient-to-medieval civilizations because those entities more less occupied a sphere of influence based on the spread or imposition of their culture, language, technology and institutions. In those times, there simply weren't sophisticated enough political, economic and communications mechanisms to construct a "nation" that had precise poltical borders that could be drawn on a map, defended by military, and tarriffed for trade.

Think about the Roman Empire, at the time, the most advanced political institution on earth. At the edges of the empire, in places like Egypt and Gaul, where, precisely, were the "borders"? There was, instead of precise borders, a sphere of influence around population centers where Roman culture was imposed, taxes were charged, military was garrisonned, etc. (just like civ's cultural borders around cities).

Moving to the Middle Ages... The Ottoman Empire extended its reach into the Balkans and Spain - again through the imposition of its culture, religion and military might, but did precise, agreed-upon borders between it and European civs exist? No.

Nation-states arose about 250 years ago because more sophisticated political and economic institutions as well as communications and transportation technologies allowed it. It was in the best interest of, for instance, France and Spain to decide exactly where the border between their countries was located and enforce that border with military power and economic tools like import tariffs. These borders, generally, were agreed upon based on ancient "cultural borders" that had evolved over time (although in the France/Spain example the Basques wish they had something to say about it, but I digress).

Once modern Nation-states had been established, "cultural borders" ceased to exist, even though culture itself spreads across borders freely to this day. The only way modern political borders can change is through war or diplomacy, no matter what happens culturally, which is why a "Great Artist" can't sing a song in Seattle and change the US/Canadian border in the Pacific Northwest!

Also, borders should reflect the landscape. Borders on mountains and rivers.

Topographical features - particularly rivers - often define borders because:

A: They act as barriers to cultural expansion
B: They aid in military defense of the homeland

How about splitting culture and national borders entirely? That way your cultural boundaries can extend into another empire and cause culture there, making those cities easier to conquer (they have less unhappiness), the empire more friendly (you share culture) and perhaps enhancing trade.
To start with national borders are determined by taking the average line between the overlapping cultural boundaries, both of which will extend beyond the national border into the other civ.
When you discover nationalism national boundaries are set, but cultural influence can still expand.
Only a minor change to your system.

Brighteye said:

How about splitting culture and national borders entirely? That way your cultural boundaries can extend into another empire and cause culture there, making those cities easier to conquer (they have less unhappiness), the empire more friendly (you share culture) and perhaps enhancing trade.
To start with national borders are determined by taking the average line between the overlapping cultural boundaries, both of which will extend beyond the national border into the other civ.
When you discover nationalism national boundaries are set, but cultural influence can still expand.
Only a minor change to your system.

Click to expand...

Interesting idea, but one vital point. If there are certain territories that are uncontrolled, such as pockets between countries, or pieces of land out to sea, it would make this idea a little less pleasing.

Although, I have an idea for that. Pockets can be filled equally between two countries. It would form a straight, possibly a littler curvy line as a border for countries. If a tile is split evernly, it's a border tile that can be occupied by two different forces at the same time, without stacking them. This way, you can have clean border fights.

With other territories, you could start colonies, or maybe they could implement an "Indigenous" country, that isn't quite like a normal country. II think the last idea would make things more interesting. Non-barbarian NPC nations would be nice.

The political borders would be great for wars:

When two civs are at war and a military unit enter a square the borders move and the square changes side until a unit of the opposing civ reoccupies the square. That would make for more realistic warfare with border defenses. After peace is declared there would be an option to reset the borders or negotiate individual squares.

I think this idea is great......a little bit of comments though.

What should happen when one civ develops Nationhood but the rest have not?
and;
If Nationhood fixes border wouldn't it be a disadvantage for culturally advanced civ? Would the ethnic minorities in civs that haven't developed nationhood want to join their Mother Country, which has developed Nationhood more? That would give the first Civ to develop Nationhood a better advantage.

Kinda irrelevant here, but I'd like to see culture border being more affected by religion, before Free Religion is developed. Like currently I'm playing on a World Map; half of my civ is in christinity, which is my state religion; the other half is mainly Hinduism. There should be a slim chance that my 'heathen half' would break of and form their own civ, possibily one of the former Civs that have been destoryed. This would encourage civs to actively spread their state religion, and create a real danger of breaking up a over-expand empire.

What should happen when one civ develops Nationhood but the rest have not?
and;
If Nationhood fixes border wouldn't it be a disadvantage for culturally advanced civ?

Click to expand...

Yes, A civ trying to expand by culture would find its expansion stymied by an adjacent civ with natiohood - just as a culturally advanced civ that reaches Nationhood would find it's cultural territorial expansion stopped.

This would open up some more interesting strategies, like perhaps doing some heavy culture-building prior to Nationhood.

To anyone who has ever gone after a cultural win, ever notice in the late game, you crank up the culture slider and your empire starts swelling like Kirstie Alley in a time-lapse video. It just dosen't make sense.

Would the ethnic minorities in civs that haven't developed nationhood want to join their Mother Country, which has developed Nationhood more? That would give the first Civ to develop Nationhood a better advantage.

Click to expand...

This is good idea too. Maybe take a happiness hit from minorities.

what about currency??

this is a fantastic idea ppl!! ill throw something in the mix... each civ has its own currency, dollars or pounds etc, and theres a fluctuating exchange rate based on the strength of the economy...

The way that Civilization has always been designed is as a series of really small and simple mechanisms that you can describe in a single sentence.

Culture grows your borders.
Research discovers technologies.
Siege units have collatoral damage.

These kinds of statements all add up to make a very complex game. You won't see the developers ever do anything that's tougher than this. Hence the implementation of religion, too.

I think your heart is in the right place, but it's probably not feasible except in a mod designed for the most hardcore of Civvers.

The way that Civilization has always been designed is as a series of really small and simple mechanisms that you can describe in a single sentence.

Culture grows your borders.
Research discovers technologies.
Siege units have collatoral damage.

These kinds of statements all add up to make a very complex game. You won't see the developers ever do anything that's tougher than this. Hence the implementation of religion, too.

Click to expand...

I don't think the political borders concept is at all complex. I'd argue that my proposal simply makes cultural borders "obsolete", like a lot of other things in Civ. You could say that Nationhood makes cultural borders obsolete in much the same way that Scientific Method makes Monasteries obsolete.

I'll grant you that the negotiated borders mechanism is a bit complex, but that's more on the wishful thinking side. Maybe I should have used a better admonition than "it would be very cool...".

I can't speak for the other posters who took a simple idea and proposed more complex suggestions on top of it, but going back to the original post - it's really not a very complex game mechanism.

The art of good game design is taking complex ideas/concepts and implementing them using simple, elegant and fun game mechanics.
In my opinion an idea cannot be judged too simple or too complex, it is the final design, which is typically an abstraction of the idea, that should be judged.
The final product is only arrived at after discussing all the ideas, some simple, some complex, and then simplifying, implementing and playtesting them.

[ASIDE]
As someone who spent much time turning customer requirements into product feature descriptions and then implementing them I should like to add the following:
One huge mistake people often make when stating and judging requests for features is to go into too much detail too early and then judge the complexity of the detail. Most times the request is looking to solve a problem/annoyance but ends up phrased as a detailed solution or, as often happens here, starts as a simple suggestion but has numerous low-level tweaks suggested before finishing the higher level discussion. (By all means gather these as they are useful for judging the long term viability of the high level solution, just don't get bogged down by them!)
By far the best feature requests are those that start with a statement of the problem and then allow different solutions to be debated so the best implementation can be found by a top down approach.

Point well-taken. I'm in the software biz too - (but not games). I know what you are talking about.

dh_epic said:

The way that Civilization has always been designed is as a series of really small and simple mechanisms that you can describe in a single sentence.

Culture grows your borders.
Research discovers technologies.
Siege units have collatoral damage.

These kinds of statements all add up to make a very complex game. You won't see the developers ever do anything that's tougher than this. Hence the implementation of religion, too.

I think your heart is in the right place, but it's probably not feasible except in a mod designed for the most hardcore of Civvers.

Click to expand...

I dont this would be too hard to do. You could trade tiles the same as cities but it would be easier and you woould have to have some influence on it.