Open Borders: Why should units be pushed out after a DoW?

[MerchantCo]

It simply makes no sense. There should be an element of risk with open borders - it makes you more susceptible to sudden betrayal!

 

[Browd]

Were your suggestion implemented, it would represent reason #493 why you should not sell open borders to the AI. And this mechanic would be condemned as yet another way for the human player to exploit the stupid AI, who will blithely sell open borders at the drop of a hat (particularly in BNW, where friendships and good relations are actively sought by the AI).

 

[Sequm]

I forgot that you get pushed out in an immortal G&K game hahaha. I was like "damn I forgot!" Still, super unfair to AI.

 

[MerchantCo]

Or perhaps open borders treaties would only allow three units to be in another civilization at a time.

 

[Heerlo]

They could use the same restriction for open borders that they used for lump-sum trading. Make it so civs have to have a DOF to have open borders, and then they will get a penalty if they DOW their friend.

 

[GreenThings]

Did you play Civ V Vanilla? I recall having Persia to my left and another civ to my right. I was friends with Persia but not on good terms with the other civ. Persia asked me for open borders, which I allowed because Persia had just denounced the other civ. As they are moving through my territory he declared war on me and took my capital in one turn.

That's why you get kicked out of open borders when war is declared.

Sent from my SPH-L710 using Tapatalk 2

 

[joncnunn]

In Civ III it was allowed (probably in Civ I as well)

And it was called what would now be consider an additional four letter word.
(It was considered a banned exploit for competitive games.)

 

[bobbo008]

I think it's made even more unfair due to the one unit per tile policy. Especially since the AI seems to dynamically change it's opinion of you depending on relative troop strength in an area, the moving of an army past any city would encourage it to try and take said city, and since you can only have one unit per tile, you'd be quite unable to defend it in the initial turns after the DOW.

 

[pilot00]

Because the AI is incapable of making any rational appraising of the current situation in this game and you would buy open borders, surround its capital and conquer it on the next turn

 

[MrCynical]

We had this option back in Civ 3 and it was just a very easy exploit for the human over the AI. Position troops next to their core cities, wait for the right moment and you could essentially gut the civ in a single turn. Plenty of people ended up with a sort of house rule not to do this, and Civ 4 enforced it by kicking troops out of a civ's territory.

It's the same basic reason that peace treaties are enforced. In Civ 3 you could get a large payoff from a civ for peace, and then immediately redeclare war. Again, regarded as an AI exploit and prevented in Civ 4. It's just to protect the AI from behaviour that it isn't really smart enough to cope with.

 

[pilot00]

They could have avoided that by splitting open borders to two distinct actions:
Open borders as is now (excluding military), and military access (obvious) and setting a counter to the number of turns mutually agreed for the later (or both if you are like me and want options).

But this requires half a brain cell I guess

 

[GrandAdmiral]

It simply makes no sense. There should be an element of risk with open borders - it makes you more susceptible to sudden betrayal!

It does make sense. A real treaty usually wouldn't give a foreign military unfettered access to your territory in the first place even if you allowed foreign bases in your country. If a nation made a treaty to travel through your territory to attack another nation, they would have to agree to a certain route, procedures, escort, etc. And as soon as they broke the agreement, the host nation would be in a better position to respond. They wouldn't be allow to fully mobilize, make a u-turn, surround your capital, and hangout.

 

[MerchantCo]

@GrandAdmiral:

Let's say that the escorted units suddenly declared war. Would they be automatically pushed out? Nuh uh!

 

[bobbo008]

@MerchantCo:

His point still stands. Civ doesn't allow for the complexities of real world diplomacy, particularly in these circumstances (for obvious reasons).

The fact that German fighter jets occasionally perform drills in the Arizona desert doesn't mean the Germans have a right to move 250,000 soldiers around New York. Even if they ostensibly had permission to transport troops, the movement of such a large number of soldiers to a particular area would warrant inquiry and response long before they would be able to sneak attack and take the city...

 

[MerchantCo]

@bobbo008: 250,000 soldiers wouldn't be able to get that far in the first place IRL. However, in Civilization 5, 250k soldiers can do that with open borders. My point is, being pushed out seems completely ridiculous. What is pushing them out? A deity? The troops moving out and then coming in again just to make it fair?

I think that there should be a certain limit to how many troops can enter with open borders. That would be balanced and make sense.

 

[Falconiano]

Balance. Else players could easily mass cats/trebs near an enemy city, DoW, oneshot the city.

 

[Horizons]

In Civ3 you could sign ceasefires as well, which was basically a peace treaty with no turn limit that kept your units in enemy territory. You could use it to get a couple of turn's breathing space then continue capturing the AI's cities.

 

[Callonia]

The way it was in civ 3.. U could conquer entire civs in a single turn. Just because open borders didn't eject troops at the moment war declared.

After doing it few times to the AI, I felt bad and didn't do it anymore.

 

[bobbo008]

The difference is, IRL you don't simply wait until all of the enemy can't move anymore, then you take "your turn."

That is, unless you're Denmark 70 years ago...

 

[Optional]

In Civ III it was allowed (probably in Civ I as well)

The way it was in civ 3.. U could conquer entire civs in a single turn. Just because open borders didn't eject troops at the moment war declared.

In Civ III borders were always open, but if you entered another civ's territory with some military force you would be kicked out if you didn't have a Right of Passage (as an Open Borders treaty was called there). A non-military unit like a scout could normally move freely.
Abusing a Right of Passage to perform a sneak attack on a civ you didn't do lightly, because you blew your trade reputation with it; no-one would want to sign a per turn agreement with you anymore, unless in specific circumstances. Only towards the end of the game you didn't need care anymore, because you wouldn't be signing many deals anymore anyway.
The trade reputation mechanic did a very good job of protecting the integrity of agreements in Civ III. Diplomacy in Civ III was very refined, Civ 5 diplomacy still looks very crude and incomplete compared to Civ III's, at least so is my opinion.