kryat
King
- Joined
- Dec 12, 2017
- Messages
- 921
Mods, feel free to merge this if there’s a more appropriate thread.
While everyone here is debating about policy cards, AI, 1UPT, I’m here instead wondering about how the humble border system could be overhauled, and maybe some diplomacy overhaul thrown in.
Let’s recap what the border mechanics in 6 are: Your borders are the fundamental limit on what area you can affect. Tiles in your borders you may work and improve, tiles outside are forbidden. Everyone starts with open borders, but they are closed to most units after early empire. You can renegotiate open borders through trade, for exactly 30 turns, that stay open unless there’s war. Alliances force open borders. Traders and religious units are immune to borders, and rock bands are mostly immune unless a policy card is played. Moving into a closed border forces war. Open borders affects a tourism multiplier. Borders openness mostly work the same for city states, but there is a late game policy card to force them to be open. Borders grow for major civs by culture (or money) and for city states by envoys. Oh, and something something archeologists and terra cotta army and culture bombs. I think that’s everything?
I generally like the border system, but I find it has untapped potential.
First, there should be a bette me way to pass through a city state’s territory than being its suzerain, especially since that’s limited to one single player (and sometimes zero players in the case of a tie for envoys!) A cheap option to pay a toll to pass through would save many unnecessary war declarations.
Likewise, when you attempt to move a unit into closed territory of a major Civ, I’d appreciate a popup to negotiate open borders instead of assuming I want war.
I like the way borders grow and the way loyalty has made borders ebb and flow, but I think there’s room for something new here. Would it make sense to make per city borders ebb with loyalty? Or maybe you could sell a tile to a neighbor to raise some desperate cash? Or maybe with population? I recently had a game where I had an incredible rainforest city that grew to 20+ pop and had 100+ culture per turn. It had massive borders, beyond the 3 tile range, but then the rainforest burned in a giant conflagration and reduced the city to 2 people. Who exactly is left to administer or enforce those distant tiles? Likewise, in the event a city is pummeled in war, would it make sense to reduce its territorial claims?
I think allowing borders to change per tile could lead to some interesting effects like nabbing wonders from another Civ without stealing the city. Or having multiple copies of a district in your city. Not normally allowed, but allowing shenanigans can often increase the fun factor in a game.
I’d also like to see the military play more of a role in increasing border size. Historically, this is the most important factor in laying territorial claim. What if this gave a reason for peaceful players to build an army? Not just for deterrence, but for making larger surveying claims?
In the late game, I want to see the concept of borders evolve. I think sending workers/builders to help repair damaged improvements or districts would add an interesting diplomatic component. But getting them there must be easy, so opening up airspace should be allowed. Let us move civilian and religious units between friendly airports, and allow another level of open borders to let military units do so. In general flight should affect mobility way more than it currently does with rapid deployment. And bring back gifting units. It’s a more satisfying way to clean up my junk drawer of unneeded units than delete.
I appreciate the abstracting of “send aid” or “give gift”, but i think there’s something tangible that’s lost here. I’d love to see alliances and friendships make the borders fuzzier, where we can help improve each other. It would be a lovely gift if suddenly a neighbor’s worker improved that oil tile for me.
On that note, asking for permission should be expanded. I don’t like how reactionary everything in Civ 6 is. If someone settles too close or converts one of your cities, you may ask for a promise not to do that again. What if instead they must first ask for permission for things like that, but then could ignore your opinion. This would then give the player the screen informing you they have violated your trust and might require war, (or less severe options, like closing borders or cancelling trade suddenly!).
Likewise, what if you could negotiate your way out of a denouncement? Or war early? I’d love to play the coward on receiving a declaration and bow before my new overlord and sell them territory or luxuries at a steep discount. Or give them money. Whatever they want, just don’t end the game for me.
Lastly, and maybe most controversial, allow for a contested state of borders in some instances. Growing up in the US’s Pacific Northwest, I was fascinated with how Oregon was contested between Russia, Britain, and the US and needed a treaty to resolve ownership. I think this is begging to have a mirror in Civ to up its diplomacy game. There’s a quote about successful diplomacy leaving both parties feeling like they got the lesser end of the deal that I think is missing in Civ, but having non-violent options to negotiate is a clear opening. Maybe I give up the claim of that region of tiles in exchange for their release of tiles in another region? Or for their openness of trade borders? Or a promise to stop sending missionaries?
While everyone here is debating about policy cards, AI, 1UPT, I’m here instead wondering about how the humble border system could be overhauled, and maybe some diplomacy overhaul thrown in.
Let’s recap what the border mechanics in 6 are: Your borders are the fundamental limit on what area you can affect. Tiles in your borders you may work and improve, tiles outside are forbidden. Everyone starts with open borders, but they are closed to most units after early empire. You can renegotiate open borders through trade, for exactly 30 turns, that stay open unless there’s war. Alliances force open borders. Traders and religious units are immune to borders, and rock bands are mostly immune unless a policy card is played. Moving into a closed border forces war. Open borders affects a tourism multiplier. Borders openness mostly work the same for city states, but there is a late game policy card to force them to be open. Borders grow for major civs by culture (or money) and for city states by envoys. Oh, and something something archeologists and terra cotta army and culture bombs. I think that’s everything?
I generally like the border system, but I find it has untapped potential.
First, there should be a bette me way to pass through a city state’s territory than being its suzerain, especially since that’s limited to one single player (and sometimes zero players in the case of a tie for envoys!) A cheap option to pay a toll to pass through would save many unnecessary war declarations.
Likewise, when you attempt to move a unit into closed territory of a major Civ, I’d appreciate a popup to negotiate open borders instead of assuming I want war.
I like the way borders grow and the way loyalty has made borders ebb and flow, but I think there’s room for something new here. Would it make sense to make per city borders ebb with loyalty? Or maybe you could sell a tile to a neighbor to raise some desperate cash? Or maybe with population? I recently had a game where I had an incredible rainforest city that grew to 20+ pop and had 100+ culture per turn. It had massive borders, beyond the 3 tile range, but then the rainforest burned in a giant conflagration and reduced the city to 2 people. Who exactly is left to administer or enforce those distant tiles? Likewise, in the event a city is pummeled in war, would it make sense to reduce its territorial claims?
I think allowing borders to change per tile could lead to some interesting effects like nabbing wonders from another Civ without stealing the city. Or having multiple copies of a district in your city. Not normally allowed, but allowing shenanigans can often increase the fun factor in a game.
I’d also like to see the military play more of a role in increasing border size. Historically, this is the most important factor in laying territorial claim. What if this gave a reason for peaceful players to build an army? Not just for deterrence, but for making larger surveying claims?
In the late game, I want to see the concept of borders evolve. I think sending workers/builders to help repair damaged improvements or districts would add an interesting diplomatic component. But getting them there must be easy, so opening up airspace should be allowed. Let us move civilian and religious units between friendly airports, and allow another level of open borders to let military units do so. In general flight should affect mobility way more than it currently does with rapid deployment. And bring back gifting units. It’s a more satisfying way to clean up my junk drawer of unneeded units than delete.
I appreciate the abstracting of “send aid” or “give gift”, but i think there’s something tangible that’s lost here. I’d love to see alliances and friendships make the borders fuzzier, where we can help improve each other. It would be a lovely gift if suddenly a neighbor’s worker improved that oil tile for me.
On that note, asking for permission should be expanded. I don’t like how reactionary everything in Civ 6 is. If someone settles too close or converts one of your cities, you may ask for a promise not to do that again. What if instead they must first ask for permission for things like that, but then could ignore your opinion. This would then give the player the screen informing you they have violated your trust and might require war, (or less severe options, like closing borders or cancelling trade suddenly!).
Likewise, what if you could negotiate your way out of a denouncement? Or war early? I’d love to play the coward on receiving a declaration and bow before my new overlord and sell them territory or luxuries at a steep discount. Or give them money. Whatever they want, just don’t end the game for me.
Lastly, and maybe most controversial, allow for a contested state of borders in some instances. Growing up in the US’s Pacific Northwest, I was fascinated with how Oregon was contested between Russia, Britain, and the US and needed a treaty to resolve ownership. I think this is begging to have a mirror in Civ to up its diplomacy game. There’s a quote about successful diplomacy leaving both parties feeling like they got the lesser end of the deal that I think is missing in Civ, but having non-violent options to negotiate is a clear opening. Maybe I give up the claim of that region of tiles in exchange for their release of tiles in another region? Or for their openness of trade borders? Or a promise to stop sending missionaries?
