Military Borders

Another thread discussed militarily enforced borders, but I can’t find it to post in, so I will start a new thread.

Historically many borders have been created and held by military might, irrespective of the nationality or customs of local populace. Implementation of military influence could easily be added to the game; here’s how it could work:

Any military unit fortified for a full turn in an unclaimed tile (outside of all cultural borders) exerts military influence on that tile. This military influence has the same affect as if it were within the cultural influence of the unit’s civ.
Effect – If the tile is within a cities fat cross, the city can work the tile. A rival settler can not settle on the tile.

Exception to the above: If more than one rival civ has military units fortified in the same tile for a full turn, all exert influence equally, unless one civ has 2x the current strength of others combined in which case it has sole military influence.

A unit fortified for a full turn on an enemy tile takes control of that tile, but may only access any resource in the tile if it is connected by a trade route or has a contiguous cultural link.

A unit fortified for a full turn in friendly lands will not exert military influence, as that would be an act of war.

Disputed borders
If two or more civs cultural influence on tile is within 10% of each other the border is in dispute. (It could appear as striped with each civ’s colors).

Working a disputed tile is first come first served.

Both sides may freely enter disputed tiles.

A unit fortified for a full turn in a disputed tile adds 20% culture in the form of military influence. Again the 2X strength rule applies. Note that even if the units cultural influence wanes to a point that the rival would have full control, the fortified unit could keep it disputed with the added influence.

Military units entering disputed tiles invoke a 2x borders-too-close penalty.

Military units fortifying in disputed tiles invoke a 3x borders-too-close penalty, 4X with aggressive or defensive civs.

A rival settler can't settle within your fat cross anyway.

I think the fundamental idea about cultural borders is that the military is helpless to do anything about it, unless the generals can convince the civ as a whole to declare outright war.

If anything, military units exposed to another civ's culture should risk mutiny and defection.

That's the power of culture, which I believe is a sound mechanism in the game with a lot of basis in real history, that provides a lot to the "enlightened air" of the Civ series that helps lift it above the level of just an ordinary 4X game.

In short, I don't think we should give this kind of power to military units, which are powerful and useful enough as it is.

On the other hand, perhaps a special peaceful unit could fulfill this function. But then again, we already have the culture bombing by Great Artists.

regards

kazapp said:

A rival settler can't settle within your fat cross anyway.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your input.

What I meant here was working a tile otherwise outside your cultural boundries before the first expansion.

I like the idea.

(I forgot to include ...)

War and Disputed Borders.

DMZ
If a cease-fire is agreed to with civs having disputed borders, neither civ may have or send units of any type into the dispted tiles.

Troop access/denial into disputed borders is negotiable as a war concession.

Khan Quest said:

What I meant here was working a tile otherwise outside your cultural boundries before the first expansion.

Click to expand...

Well, I believe it to be a significant feature of the game that for the most part, cities won't be able to take advantage of resources 2 or more steps away, unless you make sure that your city somehow grows its culture.

If you could get to that Stone resource without having to place a city adjacent to, or on top of, its tile, that would change the very early game quite a bit.

kazapp said:

Well, I believe it to be a significant feature of the game that for the most part, cities won't be able to take advantage of resources 2 or more steps away, unless you make sure that your city somehow grows its culture.

If you could get to that Stone resource without having to place a city adjacent to, or on top of, its tile, that would change the very early game quite a bit.

Click to expand...

Agreed. My intent is for this to be a trade-off. That early in the game military units would scarce and that one would be limited by the number troops available. Should you hold the resource, or explore, fog-bust or defend a city? By the time you have troops to spare, perhaps the cultural borders would have expanded, lessing the impact of this feature.

Perhaps certain military units (melee and gunpowder units) can set up camps or forts in enemy territory. I remember the Norse infantry building buildings in Age of Mythology.

I like the idea of military borders, but I would like to add a big fault with the culture borders first. The idea of national culture did not evolve before the idea of the nation. First identity of a culture group was focus around communities and then progressing to large groups. The inhabitants outside of Rome did not consider themselves necessary Romans first. I would propose individual city culture borders like city-states than stages of development to how many percentage of the population considers themselves part of the empire.

Saying that military borders (from military outpost and units) would be the actual borders of empire in different of culture like Rome. It would be another task to convince the population that they are Roman in this case. This is also another option to convince cities outside of your that think they are Roman without ever having wars instead taking land away till there is nobody left in the city. This would be also a tool for fracturing empires. Other cities would not consider their selves Roman but let's say Jewish, and when they become too unhappy they fracture off the empire. The Jewish people would still have to fight off the Roman units, but if there is no Roman units then in the area then there is no military border around the Jewish area.

Basically to different borders period culture and military. And even perhaps political borders a 3rd border. Being political borders are decided by aristocrats that decide the empire not the actual people. But that is something else.

yeah i like the idea

i like the idea

This idea intrigues me, here's my take on it.

What bugs me about cultural borders currently is similar to johny smith's comment. It doesn't make sense to me in early game situations that the cultural borders preclude other military units from passing through territory. The cultural borders are supposed to indicate the influence of culture - and in those times, the reality of those borders was very nebulous.

I think prior to Nationhood, a civilization's cultural territory should be passable by all opposiing units, unless the territory is militarily enforced. Any fortified military unit within a civilization's cultural borders establishes a 9-tile military border which cannot be entered by opposing units (similar to the old ZOC). So if a civilization has unpatrolled expanses of frontier, other armies may try to pass through. Because if there is no military in the area, what is really to stop them? If a civilization spots unwanted units in it's territory, it can send a unit out and fortify it; and all opposing units in the military border are expelled from the nation's cultural border (similar to how if you sign a peace treaty when you have units in enemy territory). This would avoid annoying diplomatic issues. You could also add a promotion for units that would increase their homeland ZOC.

So a civ could use it's units to vigilantly protect it's cultural borders if it wanted, or just have a more laid back attitude and hope no sneak attacks come.

All ZOC would be nullified for civs that have open border treaties, of course. And military borders would be automatically expanded to include one's entire cultural territory with the development of Nationalism, perhaps.

They are borders, you expand either by military might or by cultural might, so how bout just calling them borders

They are completely different ideas culture and military. The culture border is the border of a group of similar people that speak the same language or whatever makes them feel they are the same. Military is just that what your military has taken.

I wondering if it is possible just to make bases just like cities, and use the a similar border idea but of course renamed military border. An example you send some unit out similar to a settler but called a military engineer. He settles and makes a military base. This military base's borders increase with the amount of units and/or different military structures. Instead building city buildings you would build guard towers or walls or whatever, and maybe the possible of workers linking these bases by walls. I don't know how what color you should display the border but obviously something different then the culture border. I don't know if this can be done. If someone knows whether or not please let me know.

i like Matches10's idea.

Nationalism is a pretty good way for said borders to be enforced, before that you get zilch.

Also, I don't think you should be able to see everything through your borders. I believe in fog of war in the borders, so that one would place units to watch over them.

and the cultural borders are supposed to be for cultural influence, not the size of a nation! thats were national or military borders would come in.

Perhaps the army has borders in enemy territory, but they are not civilization borders. Instead, the army borders are the enemy tiles "grayed out".

yeah thats sounds resonable