While building my border wall , just one thing annoying me . When a neighbouring state expands their border, its crossing my border wall therefore owning some of my mines and farms etc . This should be classed as a bug , where in reality , the opposing state should be declaring war on me as there is no border crossing agreement between us .
Border wall annoyance
- Thread starter Merebimur
- Start date
The Great Apple
Big Cheese
It's a core game mechanic. The opposing player has more culture on that plot then you do, so they get the plot. It's how it works.
What do you mean "building my border wall". What sort of wall?
What do you mean "building my border wall". What sort of wall?
Hehe, sticky please! This is a legendary thread!
To be honest it happens to me as well. In fact in my current game with 2 interlocking nations [Americans + Carthagians] I Captured 5 American cities and 2 flipped to the carthagians. I learn to live with it tough.
I also had some of my tiles on the egyptian border lost which was really annoying as even they couldn't use it themselves. But after a LOT of cultural effort, it got to the point where I was caputing THEIR squares with culture [the same cities].
To be honest it happens to me as well. In fact in my current game with 2 interlocking nations [Americans + Carthagians] I Captured 5 American cities and 2 flipped to the carthagians. I learn to live with it tough.
I also had some of my tiles on the egyptian border lost which was really annoying as even they couldn't use it themselves. But after a LOT of cultural effort, it got to the point where I was caputing THEIR squares with culture [the same cities].
potatokiosk
Deity
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2005
- Messages
- 2,292
Unfortunately, the only way to establish your borders militarily is to capture every city whose cultural borders infringe upon what you see as your land.
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I see the whole world as my land 
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
Might be best not to be playing with fire right now, though
Tristan daCunha
Pacifist Aggressive
- Joined
- Jun 23, 2006
- Messages
- 274
Merebimur said:
If this happens, then you didn't build a strong enough border wall. A strong cultural border depends on lots of culture in your cities closest to the border. So you need to build temples, libraries, wonders, etc.
And as you have noticed, its entirely possible to take someone's land (or even their cities) without declaring war. Strong culture is the peaceful way of being aggressive.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
Although I too find it funny that the OP is describing a long-known core-game feature as a 'BUG', I still think it raises the point of-should culture be the sole means of determining your border, or should there be direct military and diplomatic means to FIX your borders in place. I mean, how hard would it be to have a 'Fixed Border' diplomacy option, which does just that. If either side wishes to expand their territory, they must either annul their former agreement, or go to war and take the land militarily. Another possibility might be an ability to surrender all 'contested land'-plots with a mixed culture on it. Lastly, why can't fortresses be used to secure the land in their IMMEDIATE vicinity-hell, then at least they might be USEFUL 
.
Aussie_Lurker.
.Aussie_Lurker.
I assume you're talking about the Great Wall. Your border changes over time due to the effects of culture. The Great Wall just outlines your border at the time it's built, but your borders can still change. This is not a bug.Merebimur said:
Forts for borders might be good. You could end up with hugely fortified borders, and it would act as an alternative to placing dodgy tundra cities for that beaver in the north.
Willowmound
Wordbug
I too like the idea of forts securing borders. Interesting.
The Lardossen
Warlord
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2005
- Messages
- 238
I can see where this is coming from. In the real world borders are more or less set since a few hundred years. Even if there are people that have cultural ties with other states inside those borders. Those people can revolt, but the border doesn't 'just shift'.
It would be nice if a tech like Nationalism or something similar sets borders permanentley, and borders can only be shifted as part of a diplomatic deal. Trade land, sell land, buy land, attack and demand land. This is what the story of the US are for example.
You won't have something like "Detroit likes Canadian pr0n too much, so now all the land around Detroit has joined Canada" nowadays. Even if they would want it
Most of the time borders only change through war.
It would be nice if a tech like Nationalism or something similar sets borders permanentley, and borders can only be shifted as part of a diplomatic deal. Trade land, sell land, buy land, attack and demand land. This is what the story of the US are for example.
You won't have something like "Detroit likes Canadian pr0n too much, so now all the land around Detroit has joined Canada" nowadays. Even if they would want it
Most of the time borders only change through war.
The Lardossen said:I can see where this is coming from. In the real world borders are more or less set since a few hundred years. Even if there are people that have cultural ties with other states inside those borders. Those people can revolt, but the border doesn't 'just shift'.
It would be nice if a tech like Nationalism or something similar sets borders permanentley, and borders can only be shifted as part of a diplomatic deal. Trade land, sell land, buy land, attack and demand land. This is what the story of the US are for example.
You won't have something like "Detroit likes Canadian pr0n too much, so now all the land around Detroit has joined Canada" nowadays. Even if they would want it
Most of the time borders only change through war.
That also sounds like a good idea. Each city would then control a certain area, which would flip in its entirity to you if you invade. That would limit tird party culture stealing in war aswell.
kristopherb
Protective/Charismatic
should there be a stable borders optoin
cf_nz
Prince
Aussie_Lurker said:
Whilst I have no problem with the current way of culture determining borders (it suits my game style), though I agree that they should be another way.
Mostly to stop other civs putting single cities on an area of land (usually a poor city location) far from their own main land, just because another civs cultural borders haven't expanded that far yet.
I've been thinking along the lines of being able to claim land in the name of your Civ early in the game by exploring it. The amount of land you can claim is determined be the size of your Civ and/or the distance from you nearest city or some other means.
Not sure what happens on a busy continent with lots of other civs, maybe natural land features could have an influence eg. rivers, mountain ranges.
Thoughts?
SpriteSODA
Musketeer
- Joined
- Dec 9, 2005
- Messages
- 639
You are tempted to say nonsence... We want no steankin' lands of anyone we have to conquer it so they wont ruin our cities. All the news channels around the world cover the damage at Lebanon but those people are too stupid to understand that if the Hizballa's rockets could have make the damage of our missiles, they would've killed thousands of Israelis. We want no conflicts and wars, they just force it on us by kidnapping our soilders and bombarding our cities.homan1983 said:
Aussie_Lurker said:Although I too find it funny that the OP is describing a long-known core-game feature as a 'BUG', I still think it raises the point of-should culture be the sole means of determining your border, or should there be direct military and diplomatic means to FIX your borders in place. I mean, how hard would it be to have a 'Fixed Border' diplomacy option, which does just that. If either side wishes to expand their territory, they must either annul their former agreement, or go to war and take the land militarily. Another possibility might be an ability to surrender all 'contested land'-plots with a mixed culture on it. Lastly, why can't fortresses be used to secure the land in their IMMEDIATE vicinity-hell, then at least they might be USEFUL
Aussie_Lurker.
The problem with what you're suggesting is that people who decide to go for cultural domination tend to have a weaker military than a "militaristic" person.
By even having this option then the "cultural wars" of this game would pretty much become obsolete and it would revert back to who has the strongest military and can hence bully the other into giving back their borders.
Even in real life culture is something that converts people outside the control of the military.
Basically there are many levels which do NOT interact directly. Such as religion, culture, military, trade, diplomacy off the top of my head. As it is military is already dominant by having an effect on itself, along with trade and diplomacy.
In Civ4 having a large number of units in a city reduces the chance of revolt even upto nil so it has been half implemented.
Similar threads
