borders

[chris200x9]

I hope civ5 lets me enforce my borders, I'm playing civ4 right now and this dude is in my borders without open borders! Right now I can just go to war with him if I don't like it but I hope civ5 lets you destroy units in your borders and say GTFO to the leader.

 

[Terrance888]

Uh... I think he might be either a barbarian, at war with you, or belongs to someone you actuallty have ob with.

I agree: you can cross borders, but face penalty if they notice and tell you to scram.

 

[techathon]

People do that in civ3. The AI will trespass and you can tell them to get out of the borders, and they do nothing. Then you can threaten war, and the dumb AI seems to DoW you every thim after that.

I agree, you should be able to trespass, but at the risk of getting the unit destroied or war.

 

[o1derfull1]

to me Open Borders should only generate more commerce/trade rather than affecting actual units in the game.

The standing rule on troops in a rival territory should be

1) units are allowed to enter and move about a rival's territory until said rival asks them to leave.
2) You can agree to the request whereupon your troops wll be auto-moved to the nearest non rival territory, or
3) you can disagree whereupon your troops lose the abilty to use the rival's roads, and suffer a 10% hp loss per turn until they leave the rival's territory, and the rival can use this as a pretext for war.
4) If you agree to leave and have your units automoved out, you are forbidden from reentering that territory for X number of turns
5) The better diplo standing you have with a rival the less likely you will be asked to leave
6) You declaring war while your troops are in that rival's territory will automove your troops out.

 

[Terrance888]

Automoving usually means, imho, armed envoys telling them to get out or civilians refusing passage.

So if you declare war, shouldn't units just stay there?

 

[o1derfull1]

ideally yes. and in the real world almost definetly. However, for game balance giant SODs will full movement points shouldn't be able to stay directly adjacent to rival cities once a DoW is made because thats a ridiculous advantage and could easily lead to one turn wars when you take out all your rival's cities in one go before they even have a chance to respond. Its not like we need yet another ginormous strategic advantage over the AI.

 

[Ramesses]

How about this:

When you sign an Open Borders agreement, you may set a turn limit on how long units can stay in each others' borders (Minimum 5). When an AI unit enters your borders, a counter will appear over their heads, tracking the number of turns left. The counter resets upon exiting. If the counter hits zero, you have the right to request tribute. Acceptance resets the counter. Refusal is an automatic DoW.

If Open Borders is canceled, any units that are still inside keep their turn counter, and can stay for as long as the counter allows, but failure to exit in time is an instant DoW.

A DoW does not push enemy units out of your territory.

 

[o1derfull1]

How about this:

When you sign an Open Borders agreement, you may set a turn limit on how long units can stay in each others' borders (Minimum 5). When an AI unit enters your borders, a counter will appear over their heads, tracking the number of turns left. The counter resets upon exiting. If the counter hits zero, you have the right to request tribute. Acceptance resets the counter. Refusal is an automatic DoW.

If Open Borders is canceled, any units that are still inside keep their turn counter, and can stay for as long as the counter allows, but failure to exit in time is an instant DoW.

A DoW does not push enemy units out of your territory.

Better

Two things, one I think refusal should result in expulsion rather than a DoW. Just because I don't want to pay to keep my troops in your territory doesnt mean I think they're worth going to war over.
And two A DoW needs to move units at LEAST out of any rival city's BFC, if not out of their territory entirely. As I explained my reasoning in my last post, allowing units to stay inside a rival's borders after a DoW would provide a game breaking advantage to the point of being an exploit.

 

[Jarlaxe Baenre]

Perhaps, if the unit doesn't pay the tribute it is moved to the last square it was at that was not in your culture. Then you can't walk over to the edge of the continent in neutral territory and be transported, or get back a mountain barrier, or simply get to the other side of a choke point.

 

[Ramesses]

Okay, how about this instead: When you set open borders, you can dictate how far units must remain from your cities at all times. Units can cross through forbidden tiles, but they can't stop there without triggering a DoW. The default is 2 tiles, but you can set this between 0-5.

 

[Suho1004]

I don't think open borders should apply to military units. That is, open borders should be a civilian agreement, and if you want to move troops through your neighbor's territory, you should have a military agreement. I never liked the fact that you sign an open borders agreement and suddenly your lands are swarming with foreign troops.

 

[Souron]

to me Open Borders should only generate more commerce/trade rather than affecting actual units in the game.

There are two other purposes for open borders besides trade: exploring each others territory, and moving an army through to attack another rival. These two things should be allowed. Possibly it could require a different agreement (perhaps free trade and open borders), but it is needed.

And complex open border deals would just trip the AI up.

 

[Gamemaster77]

I've always thought that:
1) Any unit should be able to go in a rival's territory until rival asks you to leave.
2) Rivals roads should not be usable unless you have a right of passage as in civ3.
2a) If a right of passage is signed rival may not ask you to leave without ending the RoP which givs a diplomatic penalty, unless time is RoP expired.
3) If a rival asks you to leave, you can tell them yes or no, but you may stay or go independent of what you said.
4a) If you start to go, no diplomatic penalty is given under normal conditions.
4b) If you don't go, you get a diplomatic penalty.
5) At this point the rival may ask you to leave again and you get a diplomatic penalty. Extra diplomatic penalty given if you enter rivals territory again in x number of turns and they ask you to go once.
6a) If you say yes, your unit(s) are automoved.
6b) If you say no, the rival may choose to go to war without penalty.
7) If rival chooses no, they may attack your unit without diplomatic penalty.
8) If you declare war on them when they attack you get a diplomatic penalty.
**A diplomatic penalty is given against you on all civs if you declare war with troops in that particular civ.

I hope this makes sense.

 

[o1derfull1]

There are two other purposes for open borders besides trade: exploring each others territory, and moving an army through to attack another rival. These two things should be allowed. Possibly it could require a different agreement (perhaps free trade and open borders), but it is needed.

And complex open border deals would just trip the AI up.

If you read the rest of my post where I said that, you'd see I made allowance for both of those.


To reiterate. Whether there is an open borders agreement or not, the following rules shall always apply:

1) units are allowed to enter and move about a rival's territory until said rival asks them to leave.
2) You can agree to the request whereupon your troops wll be auto-moved to the nearest non rival territory, or
3) you can disagree whereupon your troops lose the abilty to use the rival's roads, and suffer a 10% hp loss per turn until they leave the rival's territory, and the rival can use this as a pretext for war.
4) If you agree to leave and have your units automoved out, you are forbidden from reentering that territory for X number of turns
5) The better diplo standing you have with a rival the less likely you will be asked to leave
6) You declaring war while your troops are in that rival's territory will automove your troops out.

Thus an open borders agrement would have no affect on any of that, and "Open Borders' agreements in the future would only affect the generation of trade and commerce.