Close the border at will?

[SirTristan]

You can have open borders with another civilization, but can you close the borders at will if a civilization does something to upset you?

I wouldn't be too keen on passing the Free Trade act if that means that the effect is open borders for all civilizations. I'd like to retain the right to shut down my borders

 

[TheDervish]

I'd like to have my borders constantly opening and closing, like a set of wind-up novelty chattering teeth.

 

[maartena]

According to the reviews I have read, other civilizations now have to respect your borders. But what does "opening" and "closing" borders mean?''

If opening borders means other countries get to run their troops all over my soil while my units cant move on the square they occupy, my borders shall remain closed!

 

[SirTristan]

From what I understand, open borders just means that you can trade. It doesn't give them the right to tresspass on your land, unless you sign the relevant treaty.

 

[apatheist]

"Open Borders" is an agreement. "Closed Borders" sounds like the absence of an agreement. So if you switch to "Closed Borders" while you have an existing "Open Borders" agreement, I'm guessing that constitutes breaking a treaty.

 

[cashmoney]

in civ 4 units of opposite civs can occupy the same squares if you have open borders with them. U can even go into their town and help defend it from a mutual enemy!

 

[ltcoljt]

in civ 4 units of opposite civs can occupy the same squares if you have open borders with them. U can even go into their town and help defend it from a mutual enemy!

That reminds me of Smac. And I wonder if we'll have bugs, like being at war with CivA, but CivB has a unit in a CivA city which, if we attack, triggers a war with CivB, or prevents an attack altogether.

 

[Mewtarthio]

That reminds me of Smac. And I wonder if we'll have bugs, like being at war with CivA, but CivB has a unit in a CivA city which, if we attack, triggers a war with CivB, or prevents an attack altogether.

Why not? It would really be, in real life terms, CivB's units forming a blockade in front of CivA's city and declaring that any action against CivA will be regarded as an act of war against CivB. Unlike MPPs, a cowardly ally can't renege on that kind of promise.

 

[periculum69]

From what I've heard, open borders allows trade and allows their units to travel freely in your land. closed borders denie either from happening. I believe that they are treated as treaties with other nations (I've seen the options listed in screenshots of diplomacy). crossing a closed border is a declaration of war, I'm not sure if there is a penalty for cancelling an open borders agreement though.

I havent heard of being able to send your troops into an allied city, but I love the idea. I agree that it should be if you attack civB's troops in CivA's city, you will have to be at war with both. If civB wants to help defend civA, they have to be ready to fight for them and thus war with you.

 

[ltcoljt]

From what I've heard, open borders allows trade and allows their units to travel freely in your land. closed borders denie either from happening. I believe that they are treated as treaties with other nations (I've seen the options listed in screenshots of diplomacy). crossing a closed border is a declaration of war, I'm not sure if there is a penalty for cancelling an open borders agreement though.

I havent heard of being able to send your troops into an allied city, but I love the idea. I agree that it should be if you attack civB's troops in CivA's city, you will have to be at war with both. If civB wants to help defend civA, they have to be ready to fight for them and thus war with you.

In Smac, you'd have the ability to move freely in another's cities when you have a pact, if you broke it, your units would be transported out, magically, which isn't so realistic.

 

[esdawg01]

Could there be a way though to have free trade with other countries but not let them trespess in your territory? Or does one automatically come with the other?