jma22tb
Prince
Idea is simple:
Open Borders recipients
* Growth +5% (maximum of 20)
* Crime Threshold increased 5% (maximum of 20)
* Tourism received increase
* Foreign missionaries do not suffer attrition
* Increase bargaining value
Open Borders senders
* Growth -5% (maximum of 20)
* Crime Threshold decreased 5% (maximum of 20)
* Tourism sent increase
* Your missionaries do no suffer attrition
* Decrease bargaining value
The idea being to reflect what we've been seeing in history for the last 100 years or so of lax immigration policies and the effects of free movement across borders.
It can be argued, especially most recently, that one way immigration into a country comes with an increase in crime and obviously an increase in population, as observed in Western countries.
In the reverse, if you open borders up in another country you could effectively dump your criminals to the other country instead of jailing them, losing some of your population to emigration. This is what happens in the "third world" although they have not particularly improved their own crime situations due to a number of other reasons.
The point being that one-way border agreements can be even more potent and reflect history and current events. It would take a fairly big number of these types of one-way agreements to reach the biggest effect and it comes with a catch.
The changes to the value of these agreements should make it so you want 1-to-1, but for opening up someone else's or your borders to be valued higher than current levels, because if you have more people over time and higher crime it's going to potentially create serious problems, while sending people to another country comes with considerably less problems and more benefits.
Curious what you guys think
Open Borders recipients
* Growth +5% (maximum of 20)
* Crime Threshold increased 5% (maximum of 20)
* Tourism received increase
* Foreign missionaries do not suffer attrition
* Increase bargaining value
Open Borders senders
* Growth -5% (maximum of 20)
* Crime Threshold decreased 5% (maximum of 20)
* Tourism sent increase
* Your missionaries do no suffer attrition
* Decrease bargaining value
The idea being to reflect what we've been seeing in history for the last 100 years or so of lax immigration policies and the effects of free movement across borders.
It can be argued, especially most recently, that one way immigration into a country comes with an increase in crime and obviously an increase in population, as observed in Western countries.
In the reverse, if you open borders up in another country you could effectively dump your criminals to the other country instead of jailing them, losing some of your population to emigration. This is what happens in the "third world" although they have not particularly improved their own crime situations due to a number of other reasons.
The point being that one-way border agreements can be even more potent and reflect history and current events. It would take a fairly big number of these types of one-way agreements to reach the biggest effect and it comes with a catch.
The changes to the value of these agreements should make it so you want 1-to-1, but for opening up someone else's or your borders to be valued higher than current levels, because if you have more people over time and higher crime it's going to potentially create serious problems, while sending people to another country comes with considerably less problems and more benefits.
Curious what you guys think
