Claiming territory

[douche_bag]

You shouldn't have to build cities gain more territory.Each territory could be a large or small chunk of land that you have to explore to claim as yours or auction it off to other civs.The map could divide certian territories depending on size and land.Cities could still have cultural border infulence so the territories you find have to be adjecent to a city.That way you can't own half the map from the beginning.

 

[Colonel]

No and Yes, I like the idea but I would say you need an Idea to limit amount you can claim. Here

1. You could only claim terroitory that is close to your Empire.

2. You could not claim land that is in no way touching you land with cities.

3.You must not only explore an area but also have permant or semi permant settlement (ie City, Colony, Fortress, Airbase, Radar Tower, so on)

4.You must put atleast have 5 or more troops constantly stationed there no less.

cant think of anymore right now

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, I have said this elsewhere, but will repeat it here.
In order to claim territory outside your borders you should have to do the following:

1) Build an outpost, fort or airfield outside your borders.

2) You must man it with units.

3) The more units you place in these terrain improvements, the greater the radius around the improvement that you can claim.

4) The other limiting factor is your culture. The greater your culture, the greater the maximum radius of the 'border' can be.

5) Culture also determines the maximum distance from your own national border that you can 'annex' territory.

6) Terrain improvements and units outside your borders should also carry a slightly higher maintainance cost-tying the ability to annex territory to both your cultural, economic AND military strength.

7) If another nations cultural border overlaps the land you annex, the territory becomes 'contested'. Contested territory can be given up or regained in diplomatic agreements, or by eliminating one of the causes of the conflict (the city or the tile improvement).

8) Once a city's culture reaches a certain threshold, though, it should be able to overcome a tiles 'contested' status-thus giving final primacy to culture over military superiority.

Hmmm, whilst on the subject of forts, etc, does anyone else think it a bit strange the number of units which can fit in a single city? I mean, Adelaide is probably the equivalent of a size 3-4 city in Civ3 terms, yet I'd be lucky to find the equivalent of even a UNITS worth of infantry here-and we even have a BARRACKS!! I understand that realism doesn't have to be absolute-but I do feel that there should be a much greater relationship between a city's size (population) and the number of units it can have fortified there-more if you have barracks or other similar improvements. In addition, the TYPE of unit should have an impact on a city's happiness if it is fortified there-so that militia or reservists (National Guard) might have much LESS impact than tanks and nuclear missiles. Other units needed for the defense of the city would either have to be raised as needed from the civilian population and/or stored in forts and other structures within range of the city. Although it might sound like this gives an advantage to the attacker, I am Praying that an
'all move' ---> 'simultaneous attack' system will be implemented which would allow you to bring in units from nearby forts, in order to protect a city which is about to come under attack, without the need to fortify them there long-term! The up-side of this is that we would see more wars fought on 'battlefields', rather than inside cities which, lets face it, is a mostly 'MODERN' phenomenon!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[douche_bag]

OK, I have said this elsewhere, but will repeat it here.
In order to claim territory outside your borders you should have to do the following:

1) Build an outpost, fort or airfield outside your borders.

2) You must man it with units.

3) The more units you place in these terrain improvements, the greater the radius around the improvement that you can claim.

4) The other limiting factor is your culture. The greater your culture, the greater the maximum radius of the 'border' can be.

5) Culture also determines the maximum distance from your own national border that you can 'annex' territory.

6) Terrain improvements and units outside your borders should also carry a slightly higher maintainance cost-tying the ability to annex territory to both your cultural, economic AND military strength.

7) If another nations cultural border overlaps the land you annex, the territory becomes 'contested'. Contested territory can be given up or regained in diplomatic agreements, or by eliminating one of the causes of the conflict (the city or the tile improvement).

8) Once a city's culture reaches a certain threshold, though, it should be able to overcome a tiles 'contested' status-thus giving final primacy to culture over military superiority.

Hmmm, whilst on the subject of forts, etc, does anyone else think it a bit strange the number of units which can fit in a single city? I mean, Adelaide is probably the equivalent of a size 3-4 city in Civ3 terms, yet I'd be lucky to find the equivalent of even a UNITS worth of infantry here-and we even have a BARRACKS!! I understand that realism doesn't have to be absolute-but I do feel that there should be a much greater relationship between a city's size (population) and the number of units it can have fortified there-more if you have barracks or other similar improvements. In addition, the TYPE of unit should have an impact on a city's happiness if it is fortified there-so that militia or reservists (National Guard) might have much LESS impact than tanks and nuclear missiles. Other units needed for the defense of the city would either have to be raised as needed from the civilian population and/or stored in forts and other structures within range of the city. Although it might sound like this gives an advantage to the attacker, I am Praying that an
'all move' ---> 'simultaneous attack' system will be implemented which would allow you to bring in units from nearby forts, in order to protect a city which is about to come under attack, without the need to fortify them there long-term! The up-side of this is that we would see more wars fought on 'battlefields', rather than inside cities which, lets face it, is a mostly 'MODERN' phenomenon!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

1.How about instead of outposts and airfeilds,fortresses would be required to build.I would also like to see the amount of time it takes to build a fortress greatly decreased.This would make forts alot more important than they are now.Also, barricades should increase territory borders.

3.so what you are saying is the more units you have in a stack on improvment,the greater the border size?That would get too large after 20 units or so.

and I agree with the forts beside cities.I actually metions that exact thing in another thread but nobody responded . Maybe the number of units allowed in a city should be decided by how much military support you get with a government,so with facism,you would be able to stack as many as 10 units in a metropolis.This way all you're attack forces could be stacked in forts outside the city.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

@Douche_Bag. Actually no it won't get too big, Douche_Bag, as the ultimate arbiter would be your national culture. Although an actual radius would depend on gameplay issues, I would suggest that culture would limit 'fort radius' to no more than 4 hexes. So, placing more than 4 units in a fort, for annexation purposes, would be fairly pointless-except to ensure that no other civ could take it from you!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Tantor]

I like the idea to make outposts, fortresses etc more important when claiming territory. Remote outposts and military bases have often been very important in history. They have often evoleved into colonies, trade centers or cities. Just think of Gibraltar, Malta, Suez, Aden, Singapore etc. They were very important to England.

 

[douche_bag]

@Douche_Bag. Actually no it won't get too big, Douche_Bag, as the ultimate arbiter would be your national culture. Although an actual radius would depend on gameplay issues, I would suggest that culture would limit 'fort radius' to no more than 4 hexes. So, placing more than 4 units in a fort, for annexation purposes, would be fairly pointless-except to ensure that no other civ could take it from you!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

well when you put it that way, not a bad idea!

 

[Goosbar]

well wat about the colonization of the "New World" in the 1600's? the French, English, and Britian colonies and territories were nowhere near their countries. and the French territory was huge.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Ummm, because those weren't 'colonies' in the civ 3 sense-they were actual CITIES which just happened to be on a seperate continent. However, said cities COULD build civ3 colonies in much the way I have described!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[searcheagle]

they started out that way.

The Louisiana Purchase, one of the best land deals in history, was "claimed" landed by the Spainish, then the French, which then sold it to the US. In the this territory, was one city, New Orleans, and probably hold more land area then most of europe. THis area was held for the most part by not forts, colonies, etc only mountain men and "foreign" Native Americans.

France, Spain, England, etc all did made claims to the United States, all without having much force in the area to take care of it.

With reguards to claiming territory in the game, I say you can claim as much as you want. But if you don't have the force to guard it, its worthless.

 

[Spatula]

All this having to build stuff to get territory - won't it favour industrial civs? Just imagine what an expansionist/industrious civ would do!

 

[douche_bag]

they started out that way.

The Louisiana Purchase, one of the best land deals in history, was "claimed" landed by the Spainish, then the French, which then sold it to the US. In the this territory, was one city, New Orleans, and probably hold more land area then most of europe. THis area was held for the most part by not forts, colonies, etc only mountain men and "foreign" Native Americans.

France, Spain, England, etc all did made claims to the United States, all without having much force in the area to take care of it.

With reguards to claiming territory in the game, I say you can claim as much as you want. But if you don't have the force to guard it, its worthless.

Well in the game it would just be a city with ALOT of culture.On another note,i don't think outposts would be required to have territory,if you put all your military in the fortesses, you've got nothing to defend cities with.I think when a civ finds a territory,it has to be dealt with the other civs first to see who wants it the most so that way territories cannot be claimed until at least 1 other civ is discoverd.

 

[Jake5555555]

I agree with this simply because it makes it more realistic to have actual borders instead of culture. After all, it's not like when you build a new city right on the border you suddenly gain land.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

No Spatula, as in my model the structures will need both the military presence and the backing of high culture for them to have any real significant effect (which are the areas in which militaristic and religious civs perform best). In addition, though, these terrain improvements would also have a cost attached to them, meaning you would need a hefty treasury in order to sustain any such land grabs for an extended period (the speciality of commercial civs). So, as you can see, no specific civ benefits over another when it comes to this model!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Spatula]

Sigh.....

OK, I have said this elsewhere, but will repeat it here.
In order to claim territory outside your borders you should have to do the following:

1) Build an outpost, fort or airfield outside your borders.

Ok so here's the part where it's just plain building. So far it favours industrious civs.

6) Terrain improvements and units outside your borders should also carry a slightly higher maintainance cost-tying the ability to annex territory to both your cultural, economic AND military strength.

They carry high maintenance costs, so that would mean you need a lot of money. But you still have to build them first - which favours industrious civs. Think about an archipelago map: everyone has just discovered map making, and have decent econonmies. They rush to claim land. Two civs land on the same island, and start building outposts. One civ is industrious, so takes less time. The island is so small that the outposts takes over the whole island and the other civ has missed out. Both civs are able to pay for the maintenance costs, but one civ will build it quicker.

Now if they were solely tied to money and not a worker action, then there'd be no favouring of industrious civs. But how could you claim territory in the early days, when you have very little money (this also applies to he idea of building them and having maintenance costs)? You would be forced to sacrifice tech for money, and with the outrageous bonuses civs get on higher levels, you'd soon be trailing.

So what I say is this: when a new city is built, it can't control any territory. Then, over a few turns, it gets one tile around it in all directions. This simulates people claiming farm land outside of the city. After that, the city expands as it usually does.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, Spatula, the first thing I am trying to say is that forts and outposts are merely an ADJUNCT to the current culture system-NOT a replacement for it. The maximum size of the border said structures can produce, and the distance these structures can be placed from your nation, will be tied heavily to your nations culture-as I have already said. So, unless the industrious civ also has a great culture, he will NOT benefit from the building of lots and lots of forts in virgin or enemy territory-just be paying their exhorbitant cost and wasting valuable 'infrastructure work'!!!

Secondly, these structures also don't mean JACK unless you have units in them-the more units you have in them, the greater the border they produce (up to the limits imposed by culture). Until that time they are nothing more than standard forts and outposts. Therefore, without a decent military (and the finances to support them outside your national boundaries), a civ is truly wasting his/her time building these structures in order to claim territory!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Spatula]

Still, civs with similar cultures and similar militaries will mean one will overule the other if one is industrious. It isn't rare to have two civs at a similar state in culture and military, so the industrious trait still acts as a counter-balance.

And if the civ already has more culture, military, and money, the industrious trait further increases the snowball produced from this system.