Do you ever NOT accept open border requests?

[charon2112]

I always seem to accept these without giving it much thought. But is there ever a reason to not accept them?

 

[Redcoat Captain]

If i start in an area where my cultural borders have effectively "closed off" an area of land i would like to expand into, i say no to open borders so they cant march thier settlers through my land.

If my early cities are relatively poorly defender because i've got other things pre-occupying me, and another CIV's borders are very close, i sometimes say no to open borders to ensure they dont see the weakness and exploit it. You can always offer them open borders when you're ready and capable to repell any attacks. Chances are they will pester you for open borders on a regular basis anyway

 

[eris]

If I have been pressured by a strong AI into ending trade with a given civ, then I will strongly consider, when asked by the given civ to re-open borders, whether or not the benefit of going into their territory outweighs the disadvantage of diplomacy negatives with the strong civ for "You are trading with our worst enemy". The other concern would be whether the given civ has been flooding my cities with missionaries for some heretical foreign religion.

 

[Codeman]

i'll also decline if i'm trying to keep a civ isolated; having a neighbor for a punching bag etc.

 

[aday]

If i start in an area where my cultural borders have effectively "closed off" an area of land i would like to expand into, i say no to open borders so they cant march thier settlers through my land.

If my early cities are relatively poorly defender because i've got other things pre-occupying me, and another CIV's borders are very close, i sometimes say no to open borders to ensure they dont see the weakness and exploit it. You can always offer them open borders when you're ready and capable to repell any attacks. Chances are they will pester you for open borders on a regular basis anyway

I will sometimes refuse to open borders, but I don't think that either of these reasons are legitimate. In BTS, I'm pretty sure the AI is extremely hesitant—if not entirely unwilling—to march settler groups through rival territory, even with open borders. And I don't think the AI's need to "see" your poorly defended cities in order to "know" that you are militarily weak. They can just tell, presumably through the power rating.

If I refuse open borders, it's either because I don't want the diplo hit of having to cancel the agreement, or denying them the trade routes, or occasionally something more obscure, like denying their army movement through my territory.

 

[Codeman]

i play island games on huge maps. AI does send settlers through to found new cities. with closed borders they can be pinned in a corner which can mean they don't expand until they have galleons.

 

[civvver]

A lot of the ais are opportunistic and will attack you if they see you are under protected, even if you have good relations with them. Montezuma is a good example of this. Early game I usually refuse open borders with the warmongers.

I actually refuse with everyone until someone has a religion or I need the trade. There's little benefit to having open borders if you can't trade and don't need to explore the land.

 

[Birdman6]

I'm still learning the lower difficulty levels where diplomacy isn't such a hugely sensitive aspect of the game, so I almost always decline open borders so I can block enemy settlers. I like cutting off territory with my cities.

 

[Askthepizzaguy]

I would accept open borders to scout their territory only, and then close the borders.

What else do you need open borders for? Except perhaps to march across neutral land to conquer someone, which I wouldn't do unless the land in between was allied or at the very least also at war with them. Seems to me you'd want to conquer whatever was closest to you.

Open borders allows settlers to pass through and also, it allows for the headaches of (you have traded with our worst enemies!!!)

 

[omnimutant]

I almost never accept open border requests unless I'm personally going to benefit from it, which is very rare. I really never have a need too, and it keeps Civs from over expanding and taking over land I might be taking over at some point. After all 90% of my Games are set for Conquest/Domination as the only victory condition, so I'll be wiping the requester out at some point anyway. No need to let them get bigger and stronger, that would just result in a waste of Nukes at the end game.

 

[charon2112]

well after reading these, I believe I will stop being so quick to accept open border requests. thanks guys

 

[phungus420]

I almost never accept open border requests unless I'm personally going to benefit from it, which is very rare.

10chars

 

[Matthew5117]

I always seem to accept these without giving it much thought. But is there ever a reason to not accept them?

I never accept open border requests, I don't trust the AI.

Granted this might be crowned stupid by some players.

 

[Yamps]

Lot's of bad advice here...

A lot of the ais are opportunistic and will attack you if they see you are under protected, even if you have good relations with them. Montezuma is a good example of this. Early game I usually refuse open borders with the warmongers.

I actually refuse with everyone until someone has a religion or I need the trade. There's little benefit to having open borders if you can't trade and don't need to explore the land.

Closing the borders won't help you at all against anybody to prevent war. They know how weak you are and they know where your cities are, they just need a path to reach you...

Open borders give attitude bonuses with time, up to a maximum of +2 and that's valuable. Foreign trade routes are another reason to open borders.

BtS AI will not send settlers aggressively through your borders to claim land like Vanilla AI. It can happen later on, but then you can close borders when you see settlers coming.

Keeping borders open with a world's villain could be an issue, more civs might demand that you stop trading.

 

[hexem3117]

Lot's of bad advice here...



Closing the borders won't help you at all against anybody to prevent war. They know how weak you are and they know where your cities are, they just need a path to reach you...

Open borders give attitude bonuses with time, up to a maximum of +2 and that's valuable. Foreign trade routes are another reason to open borders.

BtS AI will not send settlers aggressively through your borders to claim land like Vanilla AI. It can happen later on, but then you can close borders when you see settlers coming.

Keeping borders open with a world's villain could be an issue, more civs might demand that you stop trading.

Yeah, I thought that open borders allowed your cities to trade with other civs; I find that very important throughout most of the game. With Great Lighthouse I tend to open a lot of borders except to those most hated by everyone else. Trade routes are pretty great, not as good as tons of cottages, but still important.

To answer OP's question, yes I do not accept border requests of people with other religions, a hated religion (if I have none), or warmongers, though there are exceptions.

 

[Tarkhan]

If you manage to block off an AI in bad terrain you will force them to war you eventually. If they don't, they end up stagnant, zero growth and miles behind in the tech race, because by the time they can escape by ship, everyone has advanced and claimed more land.

Also, with closed borders, they cannot spread religion around your civ with missionaries, though it can spread on it's own.

 

[Jedi_Otis]

Open borders means foreign trade routes and foreign trade routes can be much more lucrative than TRs between your own cities. Building improvements and wonders that modify yield can be extremely profitable coupled with foreign TRs. Researching currency alone grants each city one extra trade route. That can be very important in funding early game expansion, conquest and research.

Yes, who you trade with and don't trade with can have diplomatic ramifications. I generally try to use some sort of Triangle Diplomacy to decide whos who.

http://www.civfanatics.com/civ4/strategy/triangle_diplomacy.php

This brief article may help a little.

 

[thadian]

i refuse all the time, the question is - do i have a REASON to want open borders?

if my neighbor is "pinched in" on a peninsula and their only way out of isolation is open borders with me - forget it.

if an AI is on negative terms with my allied friends - forget it.


I always ask myself a few questions ahead of time: outside of the diplo bonus and trade route, what is REALLY in it for each of us? sometimes its not a good idea to let an AI have open borders. sometimes, they just want to walk a few settlers past your territory and "box" you.

other times, they want easier access through your borders for a war they are in.

sometimes, they want to move their boats through your territory for exploration/or can't explore without doing so. you can deny them.


in many ways, keeping closed borders is a VERY good thing - it takes consideration to think about each situation.

Also, with closed borders, they cannot spread religion around your civ with missionaries, though it can spread on it's own. - same with corporations, and preventing religion spread in your kingdom is a great way to avoid being asked to convert by every member of said religion every 8 turns or so.

Its also ok to wait to open borders until enough civs are known of that you can build a diplo triangle. no need to start relations with monty right now - he might be everyones enemy later, and guess who is on his boat?


Lastly: Sometimes its even ok to close borders with a country you have open borders with for many strategic reasons. each game will produce its own reasons but once i have enough of a hold to prepare for a war, i prefer the AI to declare. so i close borders with them, make demands for the penalty and talk a few people into not trading with them.

if the country to your left is your ally, and the country to your right is an enemy - and the ONLY way they can hit each other is through your territory, you can choose who you let pass.

 

[Ghpstage]

Foreign trade routes can be very profitable especially overseas, they're a good enough reason to open borders with at least a few people. I open borders with as many as I can without screwing diplo up or giving them a significant advantage (meeting new AIs for instance).

Also, with closed borders, they cannot spread religion around your civ with missionaries

Whats with the aversion to having AIs send missionaries?
They benefit you! More temples, monasteries, cathedrals, a new religion you can viably swap to for diplo purposes or screw up world relations with, more happiness in Free Religion and the AI wastes its on missionaries . The only things that you need to watch for are the holy Shrine and the AP, and even then its giving you more votes (and ) and a future city! I like the AI spreading its religion to me

If you really have a problem with it, just adopt Theocracy.

though it can spread on it's own.

It can only spread to a city with no religions on its own, and it becomes much less likely the further the city is from the Holy City.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

OB is good for the diplo with that AI, and trade routes. It hurts in that anybody who dislikes that AI as a worst enemy will request you close borders...accepting this request hurts diplo with the OB AI, and refusing angers the person demanding it. You can avoid hassle by not opening borders with worst enemies (unless you don't care about the people who hate them).

Also, don't open borders if the AI gets the trade route and you don't (they have astro and are overseas...you do not).

Usually, OB is preferable to not doing so.