[Vote] (1-01) Open Borders Needed For Trade Routes Once Unlocked

[ilteroi]

Currently you can trade with other players without their consent.

Proposal: Once a player has researched the technology for open borders, trade routes are only possible if you actually have an open border agreement with them.

So no change in the early game. Late game having open borders becomes much important.

Edit / clarification: This is about caravans and cargo ships. Not about resource trades!

 

[CppMaster]

IDK about this. That changes balance of TR a lot. Currently open border matter mostly for army, but also missionaries, archeologists and tourism. What's the rationale of this change? I don't like that it behavies differently before and after the tech. It'd be a bit confusing.

 

[Stalker0]

If I was going to change anything on open borders, it might be that you can only get open borders by offering open borders. I do think its abusive that I can buy open borders from the AI with some GPT and go ham with missionaries and stuff and then deny it to them for the same. It should be always open or neither open. but this one feels a bit much to me.

 

[balparmak]

I was thinking about this, how hard would it be to add a new deal type called "trade agreement" instead of expanding the scope of open borders?

 

[ilteroi]

I was thinking about this, how hard would it be to add a new deal type called "trade agreement" instead of expanding the scope of open borders?

quite a bit of new code for a new type of trade item. tying it to an existing item is much easier.

IDK about this. That changes balance of TR a lot. Currently open border matter mostly for army, but also missionaries, archeologists and tourism. What's the rationale of this change? I don't like that it behavies differently before and after the tech. It'd be a bit confusing.

the question is, changes TR balance in a good way or not. i would like to have more control over who gets to trade with me. and making open borders more valuable is also a good thing imho, right now you can play without ever needing them.

also, if you're arguing that new tech should not change behavoir then let's scrap ocean crossing and freeze tile yields. you can't be serious about that.

 

[CppMaster]

You can't be serious about that proposal, lol.

I would like to have more control over who gets to trade with me.

You have a great control over who gets to trade with you. You can always refuse to trade with a civ if you want to.

Also, it just make sense to be able to trade with a civ without giving them permission to move their soldiers to your lands.

 

[ilteroi]

maybe there is a misunderstanding here between resource trades (part of diplo deals) and trade routes (caravans and ships)? i'm talking only about the latter ...

 

[CppMaster]

Oh, you meant TR. Ok, my bad. I admit, now it makes sense, but I don't know if it'd make the game better.

 

[pineappledan]

Oh I do not like this… if anything I would make it the other way around, that TRs unlock open borders, but I still don’t like that.

 

[Tekamthi]

I agree with spirit of OP that open borders & TRs could be more contextual, though not sure the specifics here are the right direction.

As alternative, consider denounced civ cannot send new TR to denouncer's cities until denouncement expires.

if anything I would make it the other way around, that TRs unlock open borders

This has a certain appeal -- though I'd make it TR or shared border required for open borders. A little further afield, I'd love to see variants of the OB agreement available per city maybe, or only on tiles with roads etc.

 

[nekokon]

I would say it's better to add a new trade agreement in diplomacy options to allow establishing trade route between civ. Pooling them all into open border is too hard to balance given it involves a lot of gain/lose (economic/militaristic/religion/influence...)

 

[Rekk]

Well, this is a way of making CV difficult.

 

[pineappledan]

We have separate tourism modifiers for trade routes and Open Borders, and separate policies that augment each. Making 1 require the other is redundant

 

[DeAnno]

I don't like the idea of Open Borders being any more difficult (slow to reach) than it already is just due to the annoyance of scouts getting trapped.

 

[Revolutionist_8]

While I kinda like the idea, I also understand the balancing and other concerns. If trade agreement is hard to implement, what about the other way around - embargo.

It can be done easily with Lua, I've - sort of - done it in my modmod, the hard part would be placing a button and teaching the AI (but to be honest, it being only a human interaction would be fine as well I think).

Or, a very simple middle-ground solution: everything remains as it is, except that TR yields are heavily nerfed, and the bonus from Open borders is greatly increased.

 

[ilteroi]

so obviously i would sponsor this change, meaning the precondition for trade routes and the extended deal AI evaluation for open borders. any further balance changes would need to be discussed later.

Or, a very simple middle-ground solution: everything remains as it is, except that TR yields are heavily nerfed, and the bonus from Open borders is greatly increased.

actually i like this one too. do you feel like making a counterproposal?

Well, this is a way of making CV difficult.

it's too easy anyhow right

 

[Revolutionist_8]

actually i like this one too. do you feel like making a counterproposal?

Sure thing!

Edit: done
https://forums.civfanatics.com/thre...needed-for-trade-routes-once-unlocked.679932/

Edit edit:
got vetoed - we are no longer in proposal phase

 

[nekokon]

If you're going to nerf TR yields to increase open border bonus, can you limit that to only TR to another civs pls ? Not gonna be fun if TR yield to CS are also reduced as collateral.

 

[Recursive]

Proposal Sponsors: ilteroi.

(Sponsors have indicated that they are able and willing to perform the code changes required for this proposal if the community votes Aye on it. Other coders are free to sponsor this as well. A proposal without a sponsor will not advance to the Voting Phase.)

 

[Revolutionist_8]

I've made a less radical proposal, which @ilteroi liked and asked me to do a counterproposal. However, it got vetoed as it was no longer proposal-phase.

@Recursive : does this mean that I have to wait for the next session and make a regular proposal? What happens if this proposal passes, is ilteroi obliged to make the change, even if he liked my idea better? (I do not want to speak instead of him, just a theoretical question)