Is it time to rethink how border expansion works?

[Phrozen]

Makes me wish we had the terraforming tools that Alpha Centauri had or at least be able to make some improvements not overwrite others ie forts shouldn't replace farms etc. Would make forts more useful as right now they are really only substandard for defending bottlenecks and encampments do a better job of it.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Makes me wish we had the terraforming tools that Alpha Centauri had or at least be able to make some improvements not overwrite others ie forts shouldn't replace farms etc. Would make forts more useful as right now they are really only substandard for defending bottlenecks and encampments do a better job of it.

Digression on 'Forts':
1. The stand-alone Fort for most of history was a place where defending forces were housed as well as where they defended - like Roman Legionary Forts, Medieval Castles, or 'strategic' post-Renaissance fortifications like Schweidnitz built by Frederick of Prussia.
2. Forts defended something. - And in many cases, provided refuge for the civilians farming or working the land around them, as in the Celtic Oppida (at least in southern Britannia) or the Medieval castle.

Therefore, Forts should be like Roads, an overlay on other Improvements already in the tile, but in addition to their Defensive Function, they also make it impossible for an enemy to Raze or Pillage anything in the Tile. Forts should also come about two Eras earlier, possibly at Engineering along with Ancient Walls. Then, with Tech: Castles you could build the Castle - improved Fort, with possibly a +6 instead of +4 Defense and, in connection with Civic: Fuedalism, each Castle becomes a Fief. A Fief automatically creates a Free Knight whenever your Civ enters a war with another Civ. This Knight requires no maintenance, BUT each Fief reduces Loyalty in the local area, because the locals are transferring their Loyalty from the Central Government to the local Lord/Knight. The Fief also removes all the yields from the tile that includes the Castle - the knight is, basically, paying for himself by 'levying' the local peasants. Build too many Castles, and you will more or less strangle your own cities! With the Renaissance Technology of Metal Casting (Bombards) the Castle becomes obsolete as a fortification and 'seat' of a Knight, but it can be 'refurbished' as one of several things:
1. a Renaissance 'Fort', or Fortress in the classic rampart and ravelin Star Fort design, which provides +10 Defense to an occupying unit. This will require 2 Builder Charges if built on a bare tile, or 1 if converting a Castle.
2. a Chateau for France - many of the Renaissance Chateaus, like the Rezidences in Germany or the 'Manor Houses' in England, where converted from older castles.
3. Leave them alone, and along about Civic: Natural History they become Romantic Ruins, tourist attractions that provide Tourism, Culture, and some Gold.

If the game had a more dynamic Settlement mechanic, any Fort would also provide a 'nucleus' for a civilian hamlet, village, town, and eventually City to grow up around it: as in, for example, Mainz, Germany around the huge (2 Legions) Roman Fort there.

 

[acluewithout]

I’d like border expansion to be based on both culture and loyalty (although, it sort of is already if you consider the monument). Perhaps government tier should also have an impact.

Borders should also grow exponentially once you reach , say, the industrial era, just so the map fills up more.

 

[TahamiTsunami]

Just to add my own 2 cents to this, I mentioned in one of the other threads that it would be great for diplomacy if options could be included for selling your tiles or buying tiles from another civ and being able to reach an agreement about which neutral tiles you want that don't want another civ to claim. Definitely liking a lot of the ideas here!

 

[playshogi]

If you build your cities close together and keep your culture high, your borders fill in quite nicely. It's annoying to have that one hex completely surrounded by your territory that refuses to be absorbed, but chances are you don't NEED that tile anyway. It's just a visual annoyance, your true borders can be seen with the settler lens. The new loyalty system even extends this further, if someone builds a city to close to your core, it will flip to you. You may not be able to work all the tiles, but no one can build a city among your cities. I think the game represents borders quite well in the early eras of the game.

 

[cinattra]

Border growth should be based on population. A stagnant population should not have border growth at all or should have very slow border growth. Historically borders needed to expand because of the needs of a burgeoning population.

Never understood why they just didn't let us choose our own piece of land to annex. Less micromanagement I guess.