Dynamic Borders

[paradigmx]

During peacetime I would hope borders become more permanent and not likely to change between 2 nations, especially the longer the peace becomes, to the point of even having multiple levels of peacetime border(ie. unstable, stable, permanent) based on how long the 2 nations have been at peace for and how long it has been since a border shift, once borders hit permanent the chances of a border shift are pretty well non existent.

During wartime though, borders need to shift with the military, occupation of a hex changes the owner of the land, un-occupied hex's retain the most recent unit's civ ownership. If you want that nice iron deposit that's just a hex or 2 away, you shouldn't have to siege and capture a city to get it, send some units over to capture the land and hope your opponent isn't capable of taking it back.

Also, Dynamic borders would play very well with a very simple supply concept, let me explain. Cities generate supply(we'll assume unlimited amounts for simplicity sake), any hex that can trace a route back to a city through accessible borders(through open borders or national borders) is a supplied hex, during wartime you now have the ability to close supply lines by claiming a some land between the units and their cities, thus reducing the strength of those units. supply lines over water would require shore hex ownership or possibly supply ships, I'm not sure how that would work 100%.

 

[paradigmx]

So nobody thinks this might be an interesting idea? Or is everybody just so caught up in the anti-steam, anti-DLC sentiments that actual game discussion is ignored now

 

[Ahriman]

Or maybe there's another thread on similar topics on the front page already?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=362658

The problem with all of these suggestions is that they make culture weak or useless. If culture stops being useful for expanding borders, you lose any incentive to invest in culture or us cultural specialists.

And supply system threads have been discussed many times.

Like here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=356875
Also on the front page.

 

[paradigmx]

That thread is about Permanent borders, a different concept entirely imo.

As for the culture issue, it doesn't sound like Civ V will use culture for expanding borders to begin with, it sounds like they have a whole new system in play, people need to stop thinking in Civ IV styles, the game will be different.

 

[plasmacannon]

The first part, I am curious just how these borders would suddenly shift, when they are not permanent? What would cause it? (unstable, stable, permanent) examples you gave.

The 2nd part, I like all of it.
good suggestion.

3rd part, sounds like you could surround a city, with 1 unit in each on the 6 hexes, and cut off it's supply of iron, for example, thereby, preventing it from building more swordsman units.
This makes perfect sence. I hope, they do something like that.

I also, hope they stop AIs from building on resourses, so, we can't stop them from building that unit.
Doesn't make alot of structural sence either, building a city on top of an Iron mine, instead of next to that river closeby.
What, do they dig under the city to get access to the iron?

 

[Cthorssen]

The first part, I am curious just how these borders would suddenly shift, when they are not permanent? What would cause it? (unstable, stable, permanent) examples you gave.

The 2nd part, I like all of it.
good suggestion.

3rd part, sounds like you could surround a city, with 1 unit in each on the 6 hexes, and cut off it's supply of iron, for example, thereby, preventing it from building more swordsman units.
This makes perfect sence. I hope, they do something like that.

I also, hope they stop AIs from building on resourses, so, we can't stop them from building that unit.
Doesn't make alot of structural sence either, building a city on top of an Iron mine, instead of next to that river closeby.
What, do they dig under the city to get access to the iron?

I am just wondering about your response to the third part of his statement. While I agree with your point of cutting off the opponents supply of iron, could you not do that is Civ 4? You could place your units on top of it to dissallow them from working on it, and you could destroy the mine improvement to make it so they could not use the resource itself. I apologize if I did not correctly comprehend your opinion.

 

[Dragonxander PR]

I also, hope they stop AIs from building on resourses, so, we can't stop them from building that unit.
Doesn't make alot of structural sence either, building a city on top of an Iron mine, instead of next to that river closeby.
What, do they dig under the city to get access to the iron?

Kinda--there's a RL example: Paris's tunnel network actually was started with the construction of limestone quarries UNDERNEATH the city, stone that was used to build Notre Dame. It may not be iron, but it is pretty much using a resource located under a city tile.

 

[joe80x86]

Or maybe there's another thread on similar topics on the front page already?

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=362658

The problem with all of these suggestions is that they make culture weak or useless. If culture stops being useful for expanding borders, you lose any incentive to invest in culture or us cultural specialists.

And supply system threads have been discussed many times.

Like here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=356875
Also on the front page.

No the real problem is the game comes out in September so it is probably very close to being finalized. Threads like this serve no real purpose unless you are planning on making a mod. And by the way I am not trying to sound like an a$$ about it, its just the cold hard reality.

 

[paradigmx]

No the real problem is the game comes out in September so it is probably very close to being finalized. Threads like this serve no real purpose unless you are planning on making a mod. And by the way I am not trying to sound like an a$$ about it, its just the cold hard reality.

So complaining about steam and DLC is more important then, and we should disregard all speculative talk about the game?

OK, see you guys when the game comes out, I'm not wasting my time with that crap, I have better things to do.