Idea for next patch: 'Split open-border rights'

[Regul]

Howdy from Europe,


well, who doesn't know the situation that you are quite friendly with your surrounding neighbours, all things and cities grow well and ...PENG... you get a decleration of war from a 'neighbour of your friendly neighbour'.

Normally they won't be able to attack you directly, but...there is the 'open-border right' that is granted from your nighbour to your enemy. Therefore your once believed friendly border is used by your enemy to attack you.

This is untakable and without any historical reason or any other game-issue regarding war and other. In most cases this points toward your defeat as you didn't backup for this case.

My idea now is to split open-border-rights!

Why not split open-border rights into 2 seperate objects?

# 1 = open border for trade = trade agreement

Getting in touch with a neighbour you normally try to get better known to each other and keep peacefull so both could prosper. So you sign a trade-agreement and allow open-border crossing for passive units like scouts, workers, special persons. Besides, you should otherwise not be allowed to have trade with them for gameplay...

# 2 = open border for attack = march throu right

Well, most of you might know the WWI request from Germany to Belgium/Netherlands to grant march throu right against France.
This is the background of this second open-border treaty that allows a civilization to cross 'neutral' civilization's area with offensive units to attack a third civilization you might not have direct borders to. Besides...your enemy should get a notice about this request so he could prepare!

Well...what you think about this idea?

 

[countzero]

yeah, I think it sounds very reasonable, this is how it should have been implemented in the first place.

 

[Anima Croatorum]

I was wondering about another thing tied to this. Friends dont go stealing each others territory. Signing an open-border treaty should cement cultural border line and prevent culture flipping of tiles.

 

[dh_epic]

The way they have it implemented, it's more strategic.

If you untie the economic benefit from the right of passage agreement, it's pretty much guaranteed that 99% of the time you'll go for the first and hold off on the second.

This is one place I think they've improved on Civ 3.

 

[Regul]

@dh_epic - Well, the problem is, that if you dissagree open-border, your neighbour will go to war earlier or later...as soon you are looking weak or have a fall-back in research.

Thanks for comments, especially the combination with fixed cultural borders makes sense to me.

 

[jeremiahrounds]

I think getting permission to fly air attacks out of a country should come with its own agreement and it should come with a negative value with the country that is being bombed from your country(or the AIs country).

It would be:
"Open Air Basing"

And if someone was running bombing missions from a base in your country it would be something like:
"-2 we are being bombed from planes based in your country!"

And you would have the option:
"Cancel your Open Air Basing agreement with:"

 

[Reveilled]

The way they have it implemented, it's more strategic.

If you untie the economic benefit from the right of passage agreement, it's pretty much guaranteed that 99% of the time you'll go for the first and hold off on the second.

This is one place I think they've improved on Civ 3.

Well, isn't this waht actually happens 99% of the time? Military access isn't exactly a common occurence pre-Cold War except between actual allies, as I understand it. And when it did happen, it was a matter of "let us move through peacefully, or we'll declare war and move through anyway."

I like the idea of keeping them seperate, though I'd like settlers to be included in the military agreement rather than the economic one. The only time I ever really find myself refusing open borders is when there's a gap in my cultural borders that I intend to fill with a city myself and don't want some other nation sneaking a settler in.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I don't think that seperating out border agreements necessarily has to lead to a 'no-brainer' choice. For instance, lets say that a closed border keeps out everyone but invisible units (spies, great people etc). It also prevents you from getting ANY trade from other nations (resources or trade routes). The next step up might be a limited Open Border agreement. Now you can send Settlers, Missionaries and Workers through-but no military units. Only problem is that, though you now get foreign trade, it is NEVER really worth much more than domestic trade (in fact, it may be possible that domestic trade is more lucrative here, to simulate the 'tarrifs' imposed in such a situation).
The next and final level up is the Fully Open Border. This is probably only an agreement you would want to forge with a very close friend/ally, as it allows units of all kinds to pour through your border. The upside, though, is that now you get the full benefits of foreign trade with that civ.
So, each level of border agreement has what I would call its upsides and downsides, and also gives players something to 'aim' for later in the game, as you try and encourage that long-time friend of yours to completely open his borders to you.
Thats how I see it, at any rate.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[KingAl]

I was wondering about another thing tied to this. Friends dont go stealing each others territory. Signing an open-border treaty should cement cultural border line and prevent culture flipping of tiles.

I'm not sure I agree with this. You can't control the spread of influence - perhaps it could slow the process because the cultures are not in direct opposition. However, the division of culture in a city is represented as a percentage of citizens (e.g. on mouseover you are informed that a city is 47% Indian), and you'd think that open borders would encourage immigration. So I don't personally agree. It creates further strategy as well; if you want to maintain Open Borders in order to to, say, colonise land on the other side of a foreign country, then you have to lay off on cultural expansion unless you want to risk them revoking the agreement due to 'close borders sparking tensions'. Also, in many cases people use Open Borders as a means the the end of cultural expansion - so that they can send missionaries to convert cities to their own religion and encourage revolt: it wouldn't make sense to disallow these sorts of situations without the cancellation of Open Borders.

EDIT: Perhaps this could be an option in the pregame or even diplomacy screen, though. Also, perhaps this idea could be true of 'Permanent Alliances' (if that's what they're called), as in those cases people can't/won't change their allegiances or work behind their ally's back.

 

[Luhh]

Yeah, because open borders for foreign military has only happened a select few times historically.

Open borders should only be for trade, explorers, missionaries realistically.

Though the reason they did it the way they did is because it could otherwise hamper empire growth and spread to much, being blocked by culture and stuck on a small part of a continent.

Not sure which way is the right way to go about it.