Suggestion: Real borders - not cultural borders! (Civ 4 or 5)

[raigainousa]

There are two ways for culture to realistically influence the game without it being used as a land-grab technique--the obvious one should be with regard to foreign relations. Instead a civilizations' expanding culture(created by the collective creative output, or esteem, of that civilization) being a negative to other civs, it should be a positive, an edge that civ has when it comes to trade, open borders, etc., as well as a reciprocal influence. The cultures influence oneanother, and multiple cultures together grow faster.
The next should be with regard to production. That is, a culture that is more creative is more productive, therefore there should be some form of bonus in the way of hammers or of wealth for each cultural stride a civ takes. This prevents a larger and more powerful civ from choosing isolation because it can. There should be these active incentives for civs to ally and exchange on different levels, but without the entire border issue.
This would all leave borders as being established by Direct Influence. That is, as in Civ2(the only other one I've played--and that on the Playstation) a citys' control extends only as far as the fat cross(maybe, MAYBE, an extra square beyond THAT to avoid that exact possesion problem as regards those few unclaimed squares one tends to have in the middle of their territory) and no farther. Culture need not be visually expressed by a "border" when we all know that there are no cultural borders as such.
When a civ is a cultural power house, bonus' of different types should apply, just as in Civ4 there is a defensive bonus(a bit puzzling because the culture-rich Greeks were soundly thrashed by the culturally-poor Romans).
Factors that don't currently affect culture but should are all forms of trade and open borders since these things export your culture. That is, the number of a given civs cities that you trade with should reflect a cultural value because you are exporting your culture. This can lend itself to some interesting economic effects as well, such as the ability to designate an MFN for your civ--most favored nation for trade--exclusive of defensive pacts and permanent alliances which are largely military in nature.
Ultimately, the influence of culture on the game should be more along the lines of that of religion, but a bit more expansive economically, not physically. After all, despite what influence Latino or Asian culture has had on the US, there has been little or no loss of actual territory as a result. It simply has worked to change and expand US culture from what and where it once was.

I agree. "Expanding cultural borders" must be removed, instead use culture for other MORE realistic uses, such as diplomacy.

But how can we fix the borders so that it does not rely on culture, which is SO UNREALISTIC??

[RedRalph]

theres about 50 posts on that very topic. Have a search around, personally I go for fixed borders once Nationalism is researched, then after that tiles can only change hands by war or diplomacy.

[zeeter]

I'll admit that I did not read this entire thread or the original one. If someone already had this idea then I apologize.

Yet my idea is that whoever builds it and connects it to his empire owns it. That is, if I want a certain area with good resources I need to send workers there to improve the land and connect it back to my cities.

Sounds like it won't work, right? Well, let's say that a neighboring civ builds an improvement right next to your city. That's his land now. Your people are furious because someone build on property within your own cultural borders. This leads to unhappiness.

This is a bit more realistic, too. Until you have improved your region how can you lay claim to it?

[raigainousa]

Originally Posted by rysmiel

As if mass media and global telecommunications did not spread dominant cultures around the world in entirely new ways arising long after the Industrial Revolution; there's something peculiarly amusing about having this argument in this particular medium, that it exists at all makes my point for me.

It, however, makes your culture present in virtually every tile in each Civ; it makes cultural borders even obsolete.

On the whole I agree with what PieceofMind said, except for one thing. I think that you should be able to capture any tile of the person who you are at with and immdiately be able to capture it when you have a military unit on it. Also the tile would become ruins because most inhabitants would have left in a hurry.

To prevent people from wildly capturing all his opponents territory except for cities is:
1. You would get extreme unhappiness and maintance costs if the captured tile is three or more tiles from any of your cities.

2. You would get extreme unhappiness and maintance costs if you had no culture in the tile you just captured.

Otherwise than this, I agree with everything esle you just said.

I think extreme unhappiness must bew replaced by happiness(because your people would think, "We are so powerful we can easily expand our empire!"); but with higher maintenance cost in each tile.

[rysmiel]

Originally Posted by raigainousa

It, however, makes your culture present in virtually every tile in each Civ; it makes cultural borders even obsolete.

That's one way of looking at it; another is that your cultural border is spreading and engulfing whole other countries. In Civ terms the US has done that to Britain in the real world, frex.

[raigainousa]

That's one way of looking at it; another is that your cultural border is spreading and engulfing whole other countries. In Civ terms the US has done that to Britain in the real world, frex.

That, in Civ terms is not yet achieved; to achieve that, we must make cutural expansion unlimited. LOL

[rysmiel]

Originally Posted by raigainousa

That, in Civ terms is not yet achieved; to achieve that, we must make cutural expansion unlimited. LOL

You may laugh, but this is exactly what I'm proposing. Unlimited cultural expansion, you convert the whole world to your culture as a victory condition.

[Scilly_guy]

Yeah I like that, better than having three legendary cities. I always thought cultural borders needing proximity didn't make sense, like Rysmiel says the US has spread its culture to the UK (although they were similar to start with what with the US [originally] being a British colony). And there is a lot of Indian culture in Britain now, I mean people think of curry as traditional English, hehe, it makes me laugh.

[rysmiel]

Originally Posted by Scilly_guy

Yeah I like that, better than having three legendary cities. I always thought cultural borders needing proximity didn't make sense, like Rysmiel says the US has spread its culture to the UK (although they were similar to start with what with the US [originally] being a British colony). And there is a lot of Indian culture in Britain now, I mean people think of curry as traditional English, hehe, it makes me laugh.

Many Indian restaurants in Montreal include "London style" on their curry lists, along with the rogan josh and the vindaloo. Whose culture that counts as is beyond me.

[raigainousa]

Originally Posted by rysmiel

You may laugh, but this is exactly what I'm proposing. Unlimited cultural expansion, you convert the whole world to your culture as a victory condition.

Yo! Unlimited cultural expansion, or NO cultural expansion. I actually like this idea so I laughed.