searcheagle
Emperor
This would elimate the problem of enemy units sneaking into the hear of your territory and building a city in the square or two where culture has not yet reached. I'm 100% for this.
diplomacy and territory
- Thread starter MaisseArsouye
- Start date
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Here is what I would like to see, and its obvious conclusions.
1) You can claim any land you want to.
1a) If someone else is using that land, you can decide to ignore them, negotiate, threaten, or declare war.
2) National and cultural borders are seperate entities
2a) Cultural borders can be defended without war weariness, or attacked without war weariness
2b) Culture overlaps and does not push other cultures back
3) Forts can build fort-versions of some improvements.
3a) They are manned by workers you assign to them.
3b) New workers can be grown by local food collected by workers assigned to the fort.
3c) Forts must have two workers assigned and build a 40 shield 'City' to become a city.
1) You can claim any land you want to.
1a) If someone else is using that land, you can decide to ignore them, negotiate, threaten, or declare war.
2) National and cultural borders are seperate entities
2a) Cultural borders can be defended without war weariness, or attacked without war weariness
2b) Culture overlaps and does not push other cultures back
3) Forts can build fort-versions of some improvements.
3a) They are manned by workers you assign to them.
3b) New workers can be grown by local food collected by workers assigned to the fort.
3c) Forts must have two workers assigned and build a 40 shield 'City' to become a city.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
I was thinking about this thread some more, and I think the problem is to re-examine what the current CIV concepts are....
The cultural dominance ('colored territory') you get isn't literally your national border, but it represents the cultural allegiance of the 'country folk' there (since you can't have a culture of rocks). Although the City represents your economy, you still get some benefits from just having the allegiance of the 'country folk'---luxury connections and free unit healing.
In turn, the city claims some 'country folk', and the city improvements let your city draw a wider geographical area of 'folk' as a matter of history.
And then the 'culture war'/flipping' isn't really about military territory, but about the local peoples's allegiance.
This seems true to be because of the parallel of the Barbarians. You can remove them, but they always reappear in an 'uncultured' territory as soon as you move units away. So there had to be some kind of people, at least marginally, living in those squares.
So that then leaves the area that your units can claim and defend as your true territory, not just the cultural dominance that the game shows you.
SO rather than allow for diplomatic negotiating for areas that are already cultured (which would be fundamentally hard because it'd go against the local peoples wishes), allow for negotiating tiles of 'uncultured' land
That could probably work with the AI, with it putting high value on certain tiles (known resources) and a corridor needed to connect those tiles to it's current territory.
The diplomatic adviser screen could then have the option to 'claim' uncultured territory in a map screen, with that info being automatically communicated by embassy. The AI would do the same, and if there was overlap of claims, it probably work out like the way minor diplomatic violations (e.g. when you walk thru AI territory without a RoP).
Building a city where the AI claimed would be allowable, but would be a possible act of war---doing it would get the Diplomatic screen (something like 'Abandon your city/colony or declare war'). Alternately, you or the AI might notice an overlap of claims and simply renogitiate the area between you; It could be simplified with a simple averaging formula where you divide the claimed, uncultured territory, between your two Civs, with like a "Share" button. But it'd also be good to claim a territory, and refuse to give it up except for some trade---which would be risky. If the other civ doesn't respect you, they might just prefer war.
Multi-party claims, which would arise as you meet your first neighbors would have to be resolved iteratively, one relationship at a time until your Civ didn't have a conflict.
Territory agreements wouldn't be an automatic pretext for war though, but failing to accept an agreement would surely upset relationships, just like repeatedly walking thru their territory without RoP, or refusing any other demand.
The cultural dominance ('colored territory') you get isn't literally your national border, but it represents the cultural allegiance of the 'country folk' there (since you can't have a culture of rocks). Although the City represents your economy, you still get some benefits from just having the allegiance of the 'country folk'---luxury connections and free unit healing.
In turn, the city claims some 'country folk', and the city improvements let your city draw a wider geographical area of 'folk' as a matter of history.
And then the 'culture war'/flipping' isn't really about military territory, but about the local peoples's allegiance.
This seems true to be because of the parallel of the Barbarians. You can remove them, but they always reappear in an 'uncultured' territory as soon as you move units away. So there had to be some kind of people, at least marginally, living in those squares.
So that then leaves the area that your units can claim and defend as your true territory, not just the cultural dominance that the game shows you.
SO rather than allow for diplomatic negotiating for areas that are already cultured (which would be fundamentally hard because it'd go against the local peoples wishes), allow for negotiating tiles of 'uncultured' land
That could probably work with the AI, with it putting high value on certain tiles (known resources) and a corridor needed to connect those tiles to it's current territory.
The diplomatic adviser screen could then have the option to 'claim' uncultured territory in a map screen, with that info being automatically communicated by embassy. The AI would do the same, and if there was overlap of claims, it probably work out like the way minor diplomatic violations (e.g. when you walk thru AI territory without a RoP).
Building a city where the AI claimed would be allowable, but would be a possible act of war---doing it would get the Diplomatic screen (something like 'Abandon your city/colony or declare war'). Alternately, you or the AI might notice an overlap of claims and simply renogitiate the area between you; It could be simplified with a simple averaging formula where you divide the claimed, uncultured territory, between your two Civs, with like a "Share" button. But it'd also be good to claim a territory, and refuse to give it up except for some trade---which would be risky. If the other civ doesn't respect you, they might just prefer war.
Multi-party claims, which would arise as you meet your first neighbors would have to be resolved iteratively, one relationship at a time until your Civ didn't have a conflict.
Territory agreements wouldn't be an automatic pretext for war though, but failing to accept an agreement would surely upset relationships, just like repeatedly walking thru their territory without RoP, or refusing any other demand.
GoodGame
Red, White, & Blue, baby!
- Joined
- Dec 17, 2004
- Messages
- 13,725
Forts and Units as culture sources
I kind of like this idea now, since it gives a another reason to build forts. I also like how this could tweak the 'borders' with either limited warfare (no city conquest), and to claim culture without building cities.
1. Units claiming culture tiles
Units can optionally wage war on the local 'country folk' of a tile to either 'pillage' their culture, or to claim their allegiance (each would be a separate act). This would be as an actual battle, with a chance of losing the unit or hitpoints, but no chance of being promoted, and it would potentially be 'disreputable'. An already cultured territory could be pillaged by one tile, as long as it wasn't actually within the economic zone of some city, and wasn't a 'swiss-cheese' hole (meaning you can't pillage holes into the territory----you can only pillage from edges).
An 'uncultured' territory could separately be attacked and claimed, but the addition would have to be contiguous to one of that Civ's existing cultural territory(ies), and within the economic zone of a city. This would be like 'warrior-rushing' culture.
By allowing units interact with culture, way, the national borders then interact with the Civs cultural projection more finely, since the military units can shape the borders in war, without dealing with klunky cities. It'd also better the game since city-abuse (building cities to claim cultural territory) wouldn't be as necessary, at least if war is an option, and the overall city count could be lower (speeding up the turns).
2. Forts claiming culture tiles
Once manned, Forts 'domesticate' uncultured land, generating allegiance when no cities are present. Forts can't really compete versus a city with real culture (i.e. city improvements), but they'd be about equal in cultural strength, to a city with no improvements for culture purposes, except they would't project culture as far---perhaps only into the tile they're in.
Alternatively,
a string of forts could also be used to claim the culture of a string of road or river tiles (rivers will supposedly double as road in CIV4). The length of a road/river between two forts could automatically be claimed, for some length (I dunno, maybe 5 tiles). A stipulation would probably be that the forts be held by units of the same culture, and the cultural control would be lost as soon as that was no longer true. Also, the culture generated this way would be weaker than that generate by cities/current cultural projection.
With this, colonies/cities wouldn't be necessary in some cases to import resources, and it'd simulate a Great Wall/Hadrian's wall better than that Wonder.
Alternatively, using the units-claiming-cultural-tiles idea above, then if you had fort, it'd be grounds for a unit to culturally subjugate the adjacent tiles (in the manner of the first idea), to some diameter, maybe that equal to a city. That subjugation would still be challengeable, though, by like means by other Civs (Cultural tiles within a city's zone would be impervious to culture pillaging, but not so if the tiles were claimed by virtue of a fort).
AND Alternatively, using the units-claiming-cultural areas (or in addition to it) and the string of forts, the string of forts could delineate an area that your civ claims, but hasn't settled. Once you've used a string of forts to enclose an area of 'uncultured' tiles contiguous to your civ's normal city/cultural projection, then units could be used to culturally attack the tiles (as above) in your favor.
Thoughts?
With the combination of those ideas it'd be possible to civ a civ that was very hegemonious (like the real Romans), using forts and violence, without settling cities. This would be great for a Domination victory scenario
But then there needs to be the possibility that cultured tiles far from cities can spontaneously revolt without being flipped by another civ, and also possibly some kind of happiness calc for those tiles to determine revolt possibiliities. Putting down such a revolt would simply be a matter of re-conquering tiles.
Such a tile happiness calc would be the natural limit on the ability to project culture with war, but without cities. It would actually probably be quite limited, being dependent upon distance to the nearest city, and probably require a road path to said city.
Also, the idea that ALL 'uncultured' tiles are always populated, though they produce barbarians, is probably false. The first idea of conquering 'uncultured' tiles by unit would probably have to be limited to river valleys, bonus food tiles, and the areas within a cities hypothetical economic zone, since some 'uncultured' tiles probably are just rocks.
I kind of like this idea now, since it gives a another reason to build forts. I also like how this could tweak the 'borders' with either limited warfare (no city conquest), and to claim culture without building cities.
1. Units claiming culture tiles
Units can optionally wage war on the local 'country folk' of a tile to either 'pillage' their culture, or to claim their allegiance (each would be a separate act). This would be as an actual battle, with a chance of losing the unit or hitpoints, but no chance of being promoted, and it would potentially be 'disreputable'. An already cultured territory could be pillaged by one tile, as long as it wasn't actually within the economic zone of some city, and wasn't a 'swiss-cheese' hole (meaning you can't pillage holes into the territory----you can only pillage from edges).
An 'uncultured' territory could separately be attacked and claimed, but the addition would have to be contiguous to one of that Civ's existing cultural territory(ies), and within the economic zone of a city. This would be like 'warrior-rushing' culture.
By allowing units interact with culture, way, the national borders then interact with the Civs cultural projection more finely, since the military units can shape the borders in war, without dealing with klunky cities. It'd also better the game since city-abuse (building cities to claim cultural territory) wouldn't be as necessary, at least if war is an option, and the overall city count could be lower (speeding up the turns).
2. Forts claiming culture tiles
Once manned, Forts 'domesticate' uncultured land, generating allegiance when no cities are present. Forts can't really compete versus a city with real culture (i.e. city improvements), but they'd be about equal in cultural strength, to a city with no improvements for culture purposes, except they would't project culture as far---perhaps only into the tile they're in.
Alternatively,
a string of forts could also be used to claim the culture of a string of road or river tiles (rivers will supposedly double as road in CIV4). The length of a road/river between two forts could automatically be claimed, for some length (I dunno, maybe 5 tiles). A stipulation would probably be that the forts be held by units of the same culture, and the cultural control would be lost as soon as that was no longer true. Also, the culture generated this way would be weaker than that generate by cities/current cultural projection.
With this, colonies/cities wouldn't be necessary in some cases to import resources, and it'd simulate a Great Wall/Hadrian's wall better than that Wonder.
Alternatively, using the units-claiming-cultural-tiles idea above, then if you had fort, it'd be grounds for a unit to culturally subjugate the adjacent tiles (in the manner of the first idea), to some diameter, maybe that equal to a city. That subjugation would still be challengeable, though, by like means by other Civs (Cultural tiles within a city's zone would be impervious to culture pillaging, but not so if the tiles were claimed by virtue of a fort).
AND Alternatively, using the units-claiming-cultural areas (or in addition to it) and the string of forts, the string of forts could delineate an area that your civ claims, but hasn't settled. Once you've used a string of forts to enclose an area of 'uncultured' tiles contiguous to your civ's normal city/cultural projection, then units could be used to culturally attack the tiles (as above) in your favor.
Thoughts?
With the combination of those ideas it'd be possible to civ a civ that was very hegemonious (like the real Romans), using forts and violence, without settling cities. This would be great for a Domination victory scenario
But then there needs to be the possibility that cultured tiles far from cities can spontaneously revolt without being flipped by another civ, and also possibly some kind of happiness calc for those tiles to determine revolt possibiliities. Putting down such a revolt would simply be a matter of re-conquering tiles.
Such a tile happiness calc would be the natural limit on the ability to project culture with war, but without cities. It would actually probably be quite limited, being dependent upon distance to the nearest city, and probably require a road path to said city.
Also, the idea that ALL 'uncultured' tiles are always populated, though they produce barbarians, is probably false. The first idea of conquering 'uncultured' tiles by unit would probably have to be limited to river valleys, bonus food tiles, and the areas within a cities hypothetical economic zone, since some 'uncultured' tiles probably are just rocks.
Something needs to be done about this border concept. I was playing a multiplayer game only a short time ago and due to culture i actually isolated one of my alies cities from the rest of there Empire. Worst still it was there capital (well worse for them anyway) I would of willingly just given the land back to them but you cant. Well we had a ROP & MPP anyway so no real harm done except some of the resources the capital had they didt have elsewere in there empire.
WilliamOfOrange
Emperor
Interesting stuff here. Perhaps this could be combined with an idea I had posted (two years ago tomorrow) earlier about Explorers and how they can be more useful.
The only thing I would add is what has been mentioned here about having the ability to defend the claim. Perhaps if you wait to long to settle the cliamed territory, you lose it.
Here is another related thread regarding Civ4 and what we are saying here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=84774
1.) The names of sections of the map, whether it be a lake, a river, a peninsula, an island, and strait, etc. These named regions could gain culture based on historic events taking place there, or could be traded as a specific property. You can only get the AI to trade cities if you are absolutely crushing them, and then it's small cities on the outskirts, nothing larger than pop 3. One could rush a settler over to the new land given in the settlement....this would be great to simulate and recreate things like the Louisiana Purchase and creating borders after WWII. Areas could have great culture depending on the magnitude of the war fought there, after a war you could name the sea, or desert, for example and it could collect some culture.
2. Have explorers (not scouts I don't think) become useful by letting them get promoted from regular to veteran and elite as well, by having them discover resources or other civs/barbarians. The more experience, the more lucrative/friendly the barbarians encouter. Depending on the reputation of your civ, or the ever increasing negotiation skills of your explorer, diplomacy with that new civ could be improved and they would like you more and be more willing to trade, or more hostile. Factors that could affect the reception of the explorer could be if your civ or the other civ is militaristic or commercial, the education/literacy level of your civ (ei. building the explorer in a city with a library/university would make a difference), the previous enconters with that scout/explorer. The more landforms named in honour of one civ could bring culture to the civ and promote the explorer, naming would be the first-come-first-serve mentality. Leaving an area named for one's civ with culture collecting colonies for several turns might give enough culture to flip a newly settled city. Does that seem feasable?
I think it should be required that a scout or explorer go near another civ's land in order to contact them diplomatically, especially on different continents (while we're at it, maybe embassies should only be availble after nationalism? Maybe bring back the Marco Polo's embassy, but make it so you wouldn't need a scout/explorer in there vicinity
The point I wanted to make is that the experience of the explorer would increase the more land or sea lifted from the fog of war. I would like to see them as GL's as well, giving them the ultimate ability to built a colony with harbour capabilities from trade, getting the luxuries back home or perhaps just an extra movement point when on a ship or on land. Have the ADM increase like I have read about the units in the Japan Scenario for Conquests. The expansionist trait could benefit from somethign like this. (maybe commercial too) The improved ability for relations could result in trading for tech, resources, map, etc.
Maybe a bonus for being the first to make contact with all the civs on a map or just a new continent, like a promotion or something else, but that would be depandent on level of play, size of map, # of civs, etc.
Perhaps a special diplomacy screen for first contact with another civ, your chioces would get more advanced as the unit gets promoted (expansionist's explorers could be more likely to be promoted, much like units w/ militaristic civs) and with new techs.
You would have the choice of being peaceful or aggressive with them, thereby affecting the development of the explorer and the relations with the new civs.
The only thing I would add is what has been mentioned here about having the ability to defend the claim. Perhaps if you wait to long to settle the cliamed territory, you lose it.
Here is another related thread regarding Civ4 and what we are saying here:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=84774
Ramalhão
Warlord
If you're talking about selling virgin squares (no improvements) inside your cultural borders, ok, it will good for someone build a fortress and garrison units there, or even an airfield later in the game. Claiming squares that aren't in any cultural border is a bad idea and will allow people to abuse it.MaisseArsouye said:
Good idea, but I think the fort must keep only the square where it's located and - as you wrote - it must be garrisoned. When you remove your units from a fort, it will suffer cultural dominance and can go to another civ. Maybe colonies will become useless after it, because your garrisoned fortress will make it become your territory. So, building a fortress over a resource will do the job better.Commander Bello said:
Well, and if this fort become surrounded by other civilization territory? If it's still garrisoned, it's still yours. But if there's a resource there, the territory owner can decide to remove all roads around your fortress, to avoid you getting this resource. But if this fort tile has a river and this river goes to any of your cities, it's still connected.
Later in the game, a fortress can be "upgraded" to an airfield, so you can send a lot of bombers there and then make bombardments from this airfield. Obviously, the airfield shoud be garrisoned too and won't have a defensive bonus as the old fortress had.
1) As I wrote above, I don't like the idea of claiming territories.sir_schwick said:
2) I don't think it's a good idea. Creating another border will make the game too complex.
3) If you want to improve a fort to a city, you can simply bring a settler and found a new city, don't you think? Maybe you want fortress being a nameless and small city with only one in population and wasting a worker to build it (as well several turns) and then another worker cames to "upgrade" the fortress to a city (maybe after feudalism is discovered). In this case, the fortress should only build units, not improvements (as it isn't a city yet) and maybe conscript units instead of regulars. These units will take a lot of time to build, because the fortress will use only hammers (not shields
) from the square where it is located. Maybe it could take double time to build, to avoid people building lots of fortress to build new units, even if they are conscripts.I think when you build a city where there's a fortress it should have a wall, as fortress is a defensive building and transforming it to a city without receiving a defensive bonus isn't a wise idea.
Tunch Khan
King
Are any of these ideas in Civ4?
sir_schwick
Archbishop of Towels
Wow this thread is old(shameless bump).
Mewtarthio
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,930
Tunch Khan said:
The problem with a Settler running into a single hole in your empire has apparently been fixed: You can no longer move units into foreign territory without a Right of Passage agreement (unless, of course, you're at war). Missionaries seem to be the exception here, and I'd wager that giving a unit Invisibility and/or Hidden Nationality in the Editor will do the trick as well.
Mewtarthio
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,930
K-HAN said:
Are you saying that if a Civ moves a unit into an area, it gains control of the territory and cannot lose that control unless someone else builds a city nearby? That raises the problem, though, of sending troops halfway across the world during the initial expansion phase and claiming tiles across a thousand miles of ocean by virtue of having once sent a lone Warrior over there.
I think that we ought to have two separate borders: national borders and cultural influence.
Terrain should have different susceptibility to cultural influence, with culture spreading fast along rivers, roads and open land.
Cultural influence can overlap and national borders form within this overlap.
Land can be traded and negotiated as one-off items, just like lump sums of gold.
Forts only have cultural influence on their own tile, but extend national borders depending on tech. or perhaps number of units stationed: one unit allows a one square claim radius etc., with larger radii allowed by tech advances.
National borders prevent anyone founding cities, but cultural influence does not. However, a city founded in someone else's cultural area will be liable to flip with greater probability than one which was founded in neutral territory and subsequently experiences cultural pressure. Perhaps a newly founded city has a large percentage of population already from the other culture, and when founded they may choose immediately to convert to the other civ.
All units, including barbarians, decrease cultural influence from other civs in that tile. Fortifying could take percentage influence off, as well as adding defensive bonus. Thus each unit takes off only 5% on its own, but 3 fortified units take away 90% of influence.
National borders give you line of sight, so that barabarians can still spawn in culturally influenced areas. Cultural influence reveals the map, but doesn't give you line of sight of the revealed tiles.
National borders can expand with city radius but without terrain influence, so that at the beginning national borders might extend over ocean and mountain where no cultural influence has gone, but cultural influence has spread up the river and you need to build forts or a city to claim the land as your own.
Terrain should have different susceptibility to cultural influence, with culture spreading fast along rivers, roads and open land.
Cultural influence can overlap and national borders form within this overlap.
Land can be traded and negotiated as one-off items, just like lump sums of gold.
Forts only have cultural influence on their own tile, but extend national borders depending on tech. or perhaps number of units stationed: one unit allows a one square claim radius etc., with larger radii allowed by tech advances.
National borders prevent anyone founding cities, but cultural influence does not. However, a city founded in someone else's cultural area will be liable to flip with greater probability than one which was founded in neutral territory and subsequently experiences cultural pressure. Perhaps a newly founded city has a large percentage of population already from the other culture, and when founded they may choose immediately to convert to the other civ.
All units, including barbarians, decrease cultural influence from other civs in that tile. Fortifying could take percentage influence off, as well as adding defensive bonus. Thus each unit takes off only 5% on its own, but 3 fortified units take away 90% of influence.
National borders give you line of sight, so that barabarians can still spawn in culturally influenced areas. Cultural influence reveals the map, but doesn't give you line of sight of the revealed tiles.
National borders can expand with city radius but without terrain influence, so that at the beginning national borders might extend over ocean and mountain where no cultural influence has gone, but cultural influence has spread up the river and you need to build forts or a city to claim the land as your own.
Thalassicus
Bytes and Nibblers
What if units garrisoned in forts provide a cultural radius without any actual culture generation? Just 1 culture point per tile for your nationality -- easily surpassed by any cities should they crop up nearby.
I can't think of any negative gameplay impacts fort-based border claims would produce off the top of my head. It requires Mathematics and an initial investment of diverting workers, building forts, and sending units to garrison. In addition, you have the ongoing cost of keeping the units there, which reduces the number of fundable units available elsewhere.
The AI could easily be instructed to build forts in desirable city locations if they can't affort any more actual cities. They've always got extra workers and military units hanging around, this would put them to good use. It would also encourage early border conflicts since distant forts are generally easier to take than central cities.
I also think conquered territory should be reworked. Rather than given back completely to neutral, territory previously dominated by a conquered city should be converted to Contested, identical to Neutral but unsettlable. Simple solution to the military problem...and disappears once any culture is generated by the conquered city.
I can't think of any negative gameplay impacts fort-based border claims would produce off the top of my head. It requires Mathematics and an initial investment of diverting workers, building forts, and sending units to garrison. In addition, you have the ongoing cost of keeping the units there, which reduces the number of fundable units available elsewhere.
The AI could easily be instructed to build forts in desirable city locations if they can't affort any more actual cities. They've always got extra workers and military units hanging around, this would put them to good use. It would also encourage early border conflicts since distant forts are generally easier to take than central cities.
I also think conquered territory should be reworked. Rather than given back completely to neutral, territory previously dominated by a conquered city should be converted to Contested, identical to Neutral but unsettlable. Simple solution to the military problem...and disappears once any culture is generated by the conquered city.
Similar threads
