Invisible or Non-existent Civ Borders?

[lankypeter]

The more I think about borders in Civ the more that I think they should not be "visible" to other civs, at least not in the early game. Borders for cities, squares to be worked, would obviously have to be visible via the city menu, but I would like to have actual borders for a civ be invisible or non-existent to other civs.

Throughout most of civilization, the idea of borders was flimsy at best, determined by each side and then argued about or fought over when their was a disagreement. I don't see why that shouldn't be represented in Civ V. I mean, how cool would it be if your borders weren't revealed or delineated to others until a civ at least had literature or map making. That would make it more of a free-for-all at the beginning of the game, much like history.

Does anyone else think that this idea makes sense or have I just been at work too long today?

 

[Zomgmeister]

Makes sense, but could be bad for gameplay. I would like it as an option, definitely.

 

[Ahriman]

If borders are invisible, how do you determine whether or not a move declares war? And what are the point of borders?

The main purposes of borders is to determine where you can go without starting a war; in early versions of Civ that didn't have borders, you could just march right up to an enemy city without starting a war, and trigger the war by taknig the city. That wasn't good design.

Yes, borders weren't precise in ancient times except around natural barriers ("this side of the river is mine"), but if enemy soldiers are marching through your towns and farms, then its pretty clear that they're in your territory, and that's war. They shouldn't be able to march through your settled lands

We already have enough of what you're trying to model; in the early game culture is low, and so your genuine "territory" defined by your borders is small.

 

[Dbob]

Speaking of borders, I've never liked that culture extends the borders. I feel that military projection was more important than how many years it had been since you built a temple or cathedral. Even if they just renamed "culture" and called it "influence" i think that would solve my problems with it, but i guess I'm just that superficial.

I also like the idea of invisible borders at first, but after you've made contact with someone, or reached writing or map making, you would exchange where your borders are and tell the other to stay the heck out!!!!

 

[Ahriman]

We want the game to simulate cultural accomplishments, and we need culture to have some kind of tangible strategic benefit in order to do this.
Territorial control is about the best that we can come up with.

 

[Willem]

Does anyone else think that this idea makes sense or have I just been at work too long today?

It doesn't make sense at all. Suppose you sent out a Worker do something but found that he couldn't for some unknown reason. Borders need to be visible in order to determine what your limits are.

 

[lankypeter]

I was thinking more along the lines of there were no borders in the early game. Workers can work city tiles that are accessible to the city. But the actual border of a country is as of yet unknown. Other civs could walk through your land without declaring war or having open borders. This is how it used to work - if you saw them and didn't like it, then fight them, otherwise they move about as they please without declaring war.

 

[Ahriman]

This is how it used to work

Yes, this is how it used to work in Civ1 and 2.

And then we got Borders. And Lo, the People did see the Borders, and they were Much Impressed. They said: "This is an Excellent Mechanic, How ever did we manage without the Borders?". And the Borders became part of the Standard Improvements that the People expected the series to retain.

Why should a foriegn army be able to wander through your villages without that being an act of war? Yes, its historically unclear exactly where your borders are; but you can be damn sure that your towns adjacent to your cities and providing commerce income are within them. The uncertainty of borders is something like "yeah, the border is up in those mountains there somewhere", not "well anything outside the city walls themself is fair game for the enemy to go marching through".

 

[Thyrwyn]

Everyone (to whom they mattered) knew where real world ancient borders were. whether they were rigorously enforced or acknowledged is another matter.

 

[Camikaze]

If you had this, you would need to have some way of resolving disputes other than war. I can see this working as having self-determined 'borders' instead of actual borders, whereby you could arbitrarily decide where your borders are, by how close you let other civs. They stray too close to your cities, they in effect infringe on your borders, and you must demand they leave.

 

[Rowain deWolf]

Yes, this is how it used to work in Civ1 and 2.

Yes but truth be told you made your borders then with your Units(+ZoC) which did stop foreign movement quite effectivly.