Cultural vs. Political Borders

Colonel

Pax Nostra est Professionis
Joined
May 18, 2004
Messages
4,254
Location
USA
Basically my idea is to have two different types of borders. Your actual border would be your political border, where your treaties about open borders would pertain. However you can have cultural borders that envelope the entire world, obviously make that very difficult.

First off with this idea you would need to get rid of cultural flipping of cities, you could still be able to flip cities through spy ops which would be partially based on how much your culture envelopes the city.

Next would be add more ways to spread your culture, for instance one way would be spreading your corporations to other areas, now how much of a cultural border that would get you would be dependent upon what the host civs culture is. For instance if you were trying to spread a corporation in a civ with more culture then you it would only get you a border of that city, no extra tiles. But on the other hand if this was civ with a weak culture and it was being over run culturally by another civs culture then you would get a border around the entire city.

There would of course be other ways to spread culture.
 
This is a pretty good idea. One question- How are political borders decided?

Ah forgot to mention that, Political borders would be A: Chosen by the player claiming uncontrolled land within his cultural border. of course there would need to be a direct connection without any other civs in the way to claim uncontrolled territory. Now your political borders early on would be completely dependent upon cultural expansion. If you poured everything into culture you could potential develop a fairly large actual border early on, however that would be very difficult. Now later on you would be able to claim other civs territory but with the risk of war, it would depend on how feared you are by those civs that you are claiming. With that it would need to be impossible to claim territory that was actually used by an enemy civs city. Now du ring war you would claim territory by having a claim button for offensive units. Also the claimed territory would have to be within your cultural border otherwise you would only claim that territory directly used by conquered cities. Lastly it would need to be a direct connection with your territory, you can't just have random sections of land in enemy territory.

I think however there will need to be some sort of cost for claiming land so the ai doesn't go crazy until it hits another civ. Perhaps a gold cost for claiming land until it is utilized, would need to create improvements for outside your city radius. Perhaps building a town improvement that would just enhance culture, not to mention regular improvements to claim resources.

Now for Colonies their political border would count as part of yours, so you could create forts, airbases, ports, and enter\exit it without any worry. Vassal states would be their own but obviously you would have open borders with a vassal.
 
I repeat myself, but my wish for Civ5 is to have huge culture areas. culture will expand through natural and artificial means. Plains, rivers, roads, railroads, air, etc... The culture in modern era could reach other continents, like the american one nowadays in true world. Culture would be also a mean to create rebellions. For this, goody huts should be civs, so when you absorb a civ, it may continue to develop culturally, and create a rebellion later in the game.

I also think that a culture of a foreign or absorbed civ could dominate, like the greek culture in Eastern Roman Empire.

The difficulty being in finding a system of culture where all those effects could happen naturally, in real time.

As to political frontiers, they should be established either by the BFC of your cities, like in Civ2, or by your scout discovering new lands. As your scouts progress, the political frontier expands. That would be the political frontier that would be displayed in normal map, just as the culture one is in Civ4 and Civ3. When there is a contestation of political frontier, there is war.
 
Culture should also go with techs. In real life you do't suddenly get a blueprint for a factory and understand it to give someone else blue-prints for other stuff, they come in, live for a few years and direct yourguys to understand the stuff.

Absorbed cultures can attempt to revolt. RAWR!

Finally, I still have my post of the Three Borders and how are they governed...

Military Borders: Fear
Cultural Borders: Lifestyle
Political Borders: Respect
 
Ah forgot to mention that, Political borders would be A: Chosen by the player claiming uncontrolled land within his cultural border. of course there would need to be a direct connection without any other civs in the way to claim uncontrolled territory. Now your political borders early on would be completely dependent upon cultural expansion. If you poured everything into culture you could potential develop a fairly large actual border early on, however that would be very difficult. Now later on you would be able to claim other civs territory but with the risk of war, it would depend on how feared you are by those civs that you are claiming. With that it would need to be impossible to claim territory that was actually used by an enemy civs city. Now du ring war you would claim territory by having a claim button for offensive units. Also the claimed territory would have to be within your cultural border otherwise you would only claim that territory directly used by conquered cities. Lastly it would need to be a direct connection with your territory, you can't just have random sections of land in enemy territory.

That sounds reasonable, although I still think it would be problematic sorting out and fixing all of your political borders, without too much tedious micromanagement, having to be readjusted every few turns, or something.

As for border disputes, this fits perfectly into the concept of border wars, often proposed.

I found this thread, and although I haven't fully read it yet, it seems highly applicable.

I think however there will need to be some sort of cost for claiming land so the ai doesn't go crazy until it hits another civ. Perhaps a gold cost for claiming land until it is utilized, would need to create improvements for outside your city radius. Perhaps building a town improvement that would just enhance culture, not to mention regular improvements to claim resources.

Or perhaps replace city maintenance with and maintenance, paying for every controlled tile, instead of every controlled city. This would seem to be the best way of solving the problem, and is probably a better way of apportioning maintenance costs anyway.

Now for Colonies their political border would count as part of yours, so you could create forts, airbases, ports, and enter\exit it without any worry. Vassal states would be their own but obviously you would have open borders with a vassal.

I'm not fully aware as to how colonies work (Mac = no BtS), but I think they should also have separate political borders, and act like a vassal in every way, although with greater economic advantages, and friendlier relations.

Slightly OT, but I think there should be some sort of mandatory military occupation of vassals, say, one unit per vassal city. If you don't, then separatist movements may start, or something.

And, to stray even further on the theme of separatism, I think there should be separatist colonies and groups of cities, that fight civil wars, potentially, to earn their freedom. This could be determined by a mix of military power in the separatist cities, happiness in those cities, and distance from the capital, or core of the empire. Unless, of course, this already happens.

As to political frontiers, they should be established either by the BFC of your cities, like in Civ2, or by your scout discovering new lands. As your scouts progress, the political frontier expands. That would be the political frontier that would be displayed in normal map, just as the culture one is in Civ4 and Civ3. When there is a contestation of political frontier, there is war.

A border war, but not a full scale war, unless the dispute is seemingly more important than about one tile.

Culture should also go with techs. In real life you do't suddenly get a blueprint for a factory and understand it to give someone else blue-prints for other stuff, they come in, live for a few years and direct yourguys to understand the stuff.

So, you could, for a fee, send a technological specialist unit, or something, to another Civilization, settle him, and allow him to show the ways of a certain technology, over a few turns.

Absorbed cultures can attempt to revolt. RAWR!

Finally, I still have my post of the Three Borders and how are they governed...

Military Borders: Fear
Cultural Borders: Lifestyle
Political Borders: Respect

How would military borders differ from political borders, and how would respect be determined? And is lifestyle just a mix of happiness and health?
 
A border war does not make sense. A lot of countries goes to war only for some border disagree. Example: France and Germany.

If you are referring to the Franco-Prussian War, that was about asserting Prussian dominance in Europe.

If you are referring to the First World War, that was about preventing the successful enactment of the Entente agreement between Russia and France.

If you are referring to the Second World War, that was about many things. You could single it down to the invasion of Poland, but that was full scale invasion, not a border skirmish.

I'm thinking more Thailand-Cambodia. They commonly have border skirmishes over disputed regions. And this has been reasonably common throughout history. So why not bring it into Civ? It may be hard stopping it from boiling over into a full scale war, but if the two civs are reasonably balanced, and perhaps economic penalties for war are increased, then neither will find it advantageous to go to war. So how doesn't it make sense?
 
It does not make sense because war is war. I don't remember the exact war between France and Germany, but it was about Alsace. Alsace switched off sides many time in France/Germnay history, i don't remember the names of the wars, though.

It may be hard stopping it from boiling over into a full scale war, but if the two civs are reasonably balanced, and perhaps economic penalties for war are increased, then neither will find it advantageous to go to war.

I don't know about Thailand and Cambodia, but they rather have equal forces than anything else. And increasing the war weariness is not a good thing as it is already much penalting.
 
I'm talking about undeclared war. When a small conflict, not worthy of a declaration of war, breaks out over a small area. This type of war is clear evidence that war is not just war. There would be, in Civ, declared (full scale) war, and undeclared (border) war. I don't really know how you would work it without actually causing a full scale war every time, but the real life basis for it is there.

As for Alsace and Lorraine, whilst they were factors in the aforementioned wars, they were not the object of the war.
 
I'm talking about undeclared war. When a small conflict, not worthy of a declaration of war, breaks out over a small area. This type of war is clear evidence that war is not just war. There would be, in Civ, declared (full scale) war, and undeclared (border) war. I don't really know how you would work it without actually causing a full scale war every time, but the real life basis for it is there.

I probably lack information on this, but the concept of undeclared war but still war shocks me: what prevents the two opposing forces to engage the maximum of their forces in such wars? Just like in Civ5: what would prevent any player to engage his full forces to "a non war"?

As for Alsace and Lorraine, whilst they were factors in the aforementioned wars, they were not the object of the war.

I think it was far anterior to the aforementioned wars.
 
Border wars are simple.

Each unit makes local people want them for safety. Fear of other units. They have a military border: or area of contro.

Maybe another cive sttled nearby and culture-bombed. Their way of life is entering your political borders. Some inside started to act like those across, but its power is dimmed because they are still reminded of the units.

An attempted turnover failed. The 2nd civ decided to add fear into the mix. He moves his units to the border.

There are more units there than in the 1st Civ city, so with increasing fear and way of life changes to the 2nd Civ, the turnover by the 2nd civ spy succeeds. The 2nd civ successfuly used military units to change the border.
 
I probably lack information on this, but the concept of undeclared war but still war shocks me: what prevents the two opposing forces to engage the maximum of their forces in such wars? Just like in Civ5: what would prevent any player to engage his full forces to "a non war"?

Perhaps having an automatic declaration of full scale war, and all the problems that come with it, like war weariness and military upkeep costs, when more than, say, three of your units are involved, or if battle takes place on more than one tile.

And a situation in which it could be used is if there is a tile in one of your city's BFCs that is under a different civs control. You could enter that tile and declare sovereignty over it, and then the opposing civ could decide whether to either open up a full scale war with you, receiving all the disadvantages that come with it, or if they want to just take their chances with a border war in which they can only send in, say, three units. As already mentioned, if the opposing civ used more than three units, then a full scale war would be automatically declared by them. Oh, and you wouldn't incur any diplomatic penalties with third-party civs if you declared a full-scale war in response to an border war, and defensive pacts would be irrelevant in the situation.

I think it was far anterior to the aforementioned wars.

Alsace and Lorraine have been involved in many wars. But no wars were started for the purpose of gaining the territories, it was only a consequence of wars.
 
Yeah, yeah yeah. Just because I like reality. No, 3 units is just an arbitrary measurement that would seem to make most sense in this case. So, if you were attacking three longbowmen with three tanks, and one somehow lost, the blitz capability could resolve it for you without causing a full scale war.
 
Culture shouldn't even show a visible border. The visible borders should be political and drawn up by treaty agreements (or without the treaty agreements, as a split difference between bordering BFCs).

Culture as a matter of influence can continue to show in the details of a tile, e.g., "55% Babylonian". When foreign culture is > 50% within a civ's political boundaries, that should generate random rebellion-type events, from worker strikes, to partisan sabotage, to insurgency uprisings. Cities shouldn't automagically "flip" from intense culture attack, but they should generate a lot of problems in the general area of civilian resistance.
 
Yeah, yeah yeah. Just because I like reality.

I have nothing agaisnt being inspired by reality as long as it does not become ridiculous.

No, 3 units is just an arbitrary measurement that would seem to make most sense in this case.

So what limits "non declared wars" in reality?

So, if you were attacking three longbowmen with three tanks, and one somehow lost, the blitz capability could resolve it for you without causing a full scale war.

Hmm, I guess.

Culture shouldn't even show a visible border. The visible borders should be political

A big YES! And scrap the BFC appearing after a while with culture, in Civ2 it was not a pain to begin with the BFC.

and drawn up by treaty agreements (or without the treaty agreements, as a split difference between bordering BFCs).

What do you mean by "split difference between bordering BFCs"? I would not see any bad move in political frontier managed like in Civ2.

Culture as a matter of influence can continue to show in the details of a tile, e.g., "55% Babylonian".

Exactly. Except that culture would now spread deeper through roads/railroads nets, plains, river, seas, air (with flight and radio).

When foreign culture is > 50% within a civ's political boundaries, that should generate random rebellion-type events, from worker strikes, to partisan sabotage, to insurgency uprisings. Cities shouldn't automagically "flip" from intense culture attack, but they should generate a lot of problems in the general area of civilian resistance.

Personnally i lack realist examples of culture flips, what brings me to think that they are stupid. How in Earth could a single city flip pacifically to an opponent? I rather prefer a lot more wars than cultural flip.
 
Culture shouldn't even show a visible border. The visible borders should be political and drawn up by treaty agreements (or without the treaty agreements, as a split difference between bordering BFCs).

This is a good idea, although it could lead to not having borders somewhere that is obviously within your territory. I guess that could just be resolved, though, by making the borders a split difference of the BFC + 1 ring of tiles, or something.

Culture as a matter of influence can continue to show in the details of a tile, e.g., "55% Babylonian". When foreign culture is > 50% within a civ's political boundaries, that should generate random rebellion-type events, from worker strikes, to partisan sabotage, to insurgency uprisings. Cities shouldn't automagically "flip" from intense culture attack, but they should generate a lot of problems in the general area of civilian resistance.

I almost agree with all of this. It's just that I think cities still should be able to 'flip', but this should be able to be stopped more by the civ whose city it is, and it shouldn't be a peaceful transition. Perhaps it could create a border war situation?

I have nothing agaisnt being inspired by reality as long as it does not become ridiculous.

Ah, yes, but border wars aren't ridiculous.

So what limits "non declared wars" in reality?

That's the thing. There is no actual number, so we have to make one up. Pull it out of thin air. And 3 makes more sense than 2 (which would skew the odds too much) or 4 (which is too many for a war that isn't declared).
 
I found out that when you have two or more units at a tile, their nationality helps change the culture.

50 stack of Workers in city FTW!
 
This is a good idea, although it could lead to not having borders somewhere that is obviously within your territory. I guess that could just be resolved, though, by making the borders a split difference of the BFC + 1 ring of tiles, or something.

Really, the little feeling of frustration players had in Civ2 when an AI was planting "inside our territory" do not justificate the add of a culture system determining borders. I think it is ridiculous. Borders should be determined by BFCs. If you're not happy thaht a civ X is implanting a city in the middle of your territory, just place your cities so that there is no holes in your terrotory, or declare war to the implicated civ. That is what i was doing, and it worked pretty well. Having a ridiculous "borders determined by culture" is a very bad move to solve this.

I almost agree with all of this. It's just that I think cities still should be able to 'flip', but this should be able to be stopped more by the civ whose city it is, and it shouldn't be a peaceful transition. Perhaps it could create a border war situation?

It should create rebellions and uprisings. But not out of nowhere. In reality, cities search to bring other cities with them, to have a chance against the national army. So cities should search allies among their neighbour cities. A rebellion could happen only if the rebel forces would be strong enough, and if some other cities are allied with them. Additionnally, a rebellions could accur only with military commandement. Soldiers and/or generals should be implicated in them. That implies a good reason to rebel. Religious, political (independance -cultural), or pragmatic (the mastering of a river for crops).

Ah, yes, but border wars aren't ridiculous.

I didn't say that, but you seemed to complain agaisnt something.

That's the thing. There is no actual number, so we have to make one up. Pull it out of thin air. And 3 makes more sense than 2 (which would skew the odds too much) or 4 (which is too many for a war that isn't declared).

You didn't get me there: what in reality makes "border wars" possible, without entering in a full scale war? (we have to inspire from reality here)
 
Back
Top Bottom