Closed borders == More wars?

[Serutan]

As Aussie_lurker said, Firaxis has made it sound like
AI combat units can't cross your borders without
declaring war. Hope that's right. If it isn't, and this
rule is moddable, the mod likely will be one of the first Civ 4 downloads posted...

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Hopefully there are three settings

1. Closed borders: No trade and No units pass
2. Open Borders: Trade and Non Combat units (ie Missionaries, Workers, Settlers may pass...it seems like cities will be easier to "culture flip" even if doing so requires the owner's permission, so Settlers should be OK)
3. ROP/Alliance, etc: Trade and Combat units may pass

 

[ThERat]

Problem in this variant is the following. Let's say you are squeezed between 2 AI's and they start to send units towards each other using your land to trespass. You do NOT want it and close borders with both. Ergo, here goes your trade as well, but that might really affect your game, since one of them has luxes you need for happiness and the other has some good resource (oh, I forgot they are all evenly spread, so no resource needed, )
Amyway, this is not a concept I like.

And I do hope that closed borders with another nation does not cut into trade routes with a 3rd party. had too many of broken reps due to this silly feature in Civ3

 

[ThERat]

1. Closed borders: No trade and No units pass
2. Open Borders: Trade and Non Combat units (ie Missionaries, Workers, Settlers may pass...it seems like cities will be easier to "culture flip" even if doing so requires the owner's permission, so Settlers should be OK)
3. ROP/Alliance, etc: Trade and Combat units may pass

Now, if you read carefully, Barbs are a danger and they explicitely said not to send settlers alone. Besides, I have rarely seen the AI sending settlers out alone, so your option 2 is out already, not ever used by the AI.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Well, why not simply ask them to cease their war-as you can now do in Civ4 diplomacy.
The problem you have, ThERat, is that you only ever consider these things in isolation, rather than considering how these things will contribute to the greater whole. If AI combat units can be kept at bay simply by not being at war-then that has got to be an improvement over the old Civ3 system. i.e, to use your example, the two AI civs can have their units kept out of your territory w/o having to resort to Closed Borders. Unless they are prepared to ally with you-or go to war with you-I doubt they will be able to send their combat units into your territory-period . Instead, these nations will have to find other ways to get into each other's territories-or at least thats how I read this. Admitedly, barbarian and certain non-combat units (I'm assuming 'Invisible' units will be immune to closed or open borders) will be the exception, but these represent reality and-lets face it-if you couldn't send your spies into another nation without being at war with them, I bet that would tick you off. I know it would me!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[ThERat]

well, I have been playing Civ ever since it came out many years back and I really had my fair share fo the game. All 3 editions so far had pros and cons. I really liked all of them overall.
Since I joined and lurked civfanatics, my skills have really improved and also the knowledge what the AI does in those games.

I admit we all are fog gazing, trying to guess how new concepts will turn out. I am putting a lot of faith in the play testers, that's why I agree the release should later rather than sooner.

About the annoyances to borders in Civ3. What we all didn't like was the fact that the AI completely disrespected your borders. This resulted in sending settler pairs to any empty corner of the island/continent, streams of military units in case a war with another nation or trying to sneak attack.
It was unfair since the AI would in turn boot you out, if you dared to do something similar like sending a settler pair yourself.
However, by the sound of it, the closed border option has this pretty bad side effect of cutting trade. I agree there should be some sort of option.
Of course, Barbs must disrespect anything, what else are they in for. Spies are spies and should not be able to be detected by the enemy (I do NOT like unit based operations such as spies and missionaries, juts as I did not like the Civ2 concpet of spies and caravans)

my 2cents

 

[I am the Future]

I think that you guys are makeing a big deal out of something that we dont have all of the info on. If you really think this might affect your game wait a while longer and see if more info comes out. It would seem after all that people who get payed to do this would relize the problem befor any of us.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

However, by the sound of it, the closed border option has this pretty bad side effect of cutting trade. I agree there should be some sort of option.
Of course, Barbs must disrespect anything, what else are they in for. Spies are spies and should not be able to be detected by the enemy (I do NOT like unit based operations such as spies and missionaries, just as I did not like the Civ2 concept of spies and caravans)

As I have said above, though, I get the feeling that closing ones borders is the most extreme action you can take against unit incursions-and even then only against these non-military variety like missionaries and spies. Just so you know, I am also dead-set against having unit based Espionage and Proselytizing but, as we are stuck with it for the time being, I am trying to apply the Closed Border rule to the currently known system.

So, my theory is:
At war? All bets are off, military and non-military units alike can enter you territory.
Not at war, not allied? Military units can not enter your territory, but non-military units can (though I assume-nay hope-that they can be expelled like diplomats in civ2 could).
Not at war, but allied? Can move both military and non-military units through your territory-though again, hopefully, with an option to ask for units to be removed or-at the extreme-to expel them.
Closed Borders? No units-of any kind-can enter your territory, though this will prevent you from conducting trade with that nation (I assume that closed borders will be on a civ by civ basis).

Even if spies and missionaries are taken from the game, I would still have a Closed Border system-as it would reflect the increased difficulty of conducting Abstract Espionage and Proselytizing missions on those nations with closed-versus open-borders.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

I'll admit I'm going off of hunch and tone of the original article as much as anything, but this is how I suspect it works:

1. War - same as Civ3
2. ROP - same as Civ3
3. No particular agreements or border settings - same as Civ3
4. Closed borders - you give up trade, but an AI CIV can't do his usual tricks.

Note this is only adding option 4 onto the current features. If correct, it means that the AIs will still feel free to violate your borders with settler/spear pairs, if they think necessary. But, instead of having to post a wall of units, you can stop this at the expense of trade.

Also note that this is a much nicer option than it first appears, depending on how trade agreements tend to work. During that first, wild expansion phase, you probably don't have much trade. So it pays to have closed borders in a lot of cases, if only to force the AI to go around the long way. Then you hit a period where only a few areas are left to settle, but trade starts to really matter. So you have a strategic decision. Then later in the game, there aren't many unsettled areas and trade is really important. So you might temporarily close borders after a bunch of cities got razed, but you wouldn't normally do so.

I think that programming an aggressive settling AI that truly respects borders is probably difficult. Given the player an out, but one with a cost, is not a bad compromise.

 

[ThERat]

During that first, wild expansion phase, you probably don't have much trade. So it pays to have closed borders in a lot of cases, if only to force the AI to go around the long way

shall I be a hairsplitter? During the initial expansion phase your borders won't be that huge, remember every city starts as 1 tile influence radius, not 9. Makes some difference.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Two things:

1) This is exactly why I feel that my range of options, in regards to borders, is probably the more accurate one .

2) Remember that you can boost your borders via the direct investment of money into culture-even at the start of the game, meaning that borders will probably grow differently from the way they did in civ3.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

You have to take into account that the developers already stated that a big reason why the Civ3 AI doesn't respect borders better is that it was difficult to code that without making the AI a wimp on expansion. I got the impression that this was inherently difficult, and not simply reflecting a lack of time.

Aussie, I think your idea is probably closer to what many people will want, especially you. Whether you'll get it or not is another thing. We'll see.

 

[IroquoisPlisken]

About the 2 Civs on opposite sides of you at war in Civ4, I can see a possible strategy with that. Make open borders with the weaker civ, closed with the stronger. The weaker will be able to send all his units to the other guy, giving him an advantage.

 

[ThERat]

About the 2 Civs on opposite sides of you at war in Civ4, I can see a possible strategy with that. Make open borders with the weaker civ, closed with the stronger. The weaker will be able to send all his units to the other guy, giving him an advantage.

and in the end the stronger Civ gets fed up and attacks you instead

 

[Crazy Eskimo]

Perhaps, I'm misunderstanding you guys, but I feel like you aren't looking at all the options implied

1) War - All units can pass because the civ doesn't care what you think. No Trade.
2) Peace with permanent alliance (they've hinted at this) - All units can pass due to player permission. Presumably AI and player units can occupy the same tiles. AI can use your harbors/airports/etc.
3) Peace with ROP - All units can pass because you've given the civ permission to enter. Trade occurs.
4) Peace without ROP but still open borders - Non military units can enter. Workers, missionaries, invisible units, maybe even settlers if Firaxis tweaks the AI. Trade occurs.
5) Peace with closed borders - No units can enter. No trade.

It seems to me that 4 is the default option, so the AI isn't going to go marching through your territory willy-nilly, but you can still have trade. The other options are available to use as your strategy demands.

 

[searcheagle]

I hate to really split hairs but the wording that was used in the piece Aussie Quoted may reveal an additional diplomatic function.

What the Aussie Post said:

In Civ IV, borders can be closed, which means that foreign units cannot enter your territory unless a A STATE OF WAR exists between your two factions.

Notice: The piece didnt not say war. It said a STATE of war. Any think this could make a difference as far as Diplomatic Stances go? Something like:

Most Violent:
War
State of War-Extremely hostile relations but no one has actually gone to war yet. Other possible symtoms.
Cease Fire
Peace
Non-Aggression-I wont attack you
Alliance-We will work closely with each when it suits us
MPP-An attack against one is an attack against all

Anyone think this is possible or did i read too much into it.

 

[Darwin420]

If one exists in a "state of war" then one is "at war" ... however, it is possible to be "at war" but not be in a declared "state of war" (think USA during Vietnam - the war was never formally declared - it was actually a "conflict")