Is there a way to renew Open Borders before it lapses?

[Stalker0]

Just had one annoyance come up in a game. I had a lot of missionaries in Brazil's land, doing some heavy conversion. My open borders expired (and I tried to renew it beforehand). As soon as it expired, I got the -250 pressure hit on all of the missionaries. I immediately got the open borders back, but it was pretty annoying.

Is there a way to renew it so that doesn't happen?

 

[ryanmusante]

Just had one annoyance come up in a game. I had a lot of missionaries in Brazil's land, doing some heavy conversion. My open borders expired (and I tried to renew it beforehand). As soon as it expired, I got the -250 pressure hit on all of the missionaries. I immediately got the open borders back, but it was pretty annoying.

Is there a way to renew it so that doesn't happen?

If there was the ability to renew that diplomatic agreement, than having it only on that and not everything else seems like imbalance?

 

[Surfal]

If there was the ability to renew that diplomatic agreement, than having it only on that and not everything else seems like imbalance?

OTOH, do any other diplo agreements have this sharp builtin consequence that's unavoidable? That seems more imbalanced, imnsho.

 

[tommytoxen]

yes! thank you!

one of my pet peeves is i'm in a war and relying on an ally for open borders and it suddenly lapses throwing all of my units every which way across the continent.

seems an oversight on firaxis's part not to add in a renew option, i could swear i remember there being one in previous civ games?

 

[LifeOfBrian]

IIRC, Gazebo said the code doesn't allow for renewal before expiring.

 

[Gazebo]

Long story short, the vanilla diplo AI renewal code sucks, and it's buggy as heck.

G

 

[Stalker0]

Long story short, the vanilla diplo AI renewal code sucks, and it's buggy as heck.

G

Short story shorter....um, nope

 

[Kim Dong Un]

This affects archeologists as well when they get booted mid-dig, and speaking of, can we please finally rid of the mechanic that requires there to be open borders both ways for you to dig up antiquity sites? The AI will almost never accept your open borders if you're making any progress on a CV, completely negating a fun chunk of playing tourism games. If you've paid up to gain entrance into their lands, it makes no sense as to why you aren't allowed to dig because opposing civs don't want free passage into yours... After playing several recent tourism games, it's really apparent how frustratingly silly this has always been.

Also, for @Recursive , the AI will ask you to stop digging in their lands after all you've done is create a landmark for them. Is it possible to fix this by having them wait until you actually take artifacts from them? It kind of defeats the purpose of getting the positive diplo modifier if they end up getting pissed about you doing them a favour.

 

[Recursive]

Also, for @Recursive , the AI will ask you to stop digging in their lands after all you've done is create a landmark for them. Is it possible to fix this by having them wait until you actually take artifacts from them? It kind of defeats the purpose of getting the positive diplo modifier if they end up getting pissed about you doing them a favour.

That isn't supposed to happen, I'll take a look.

Edit: Not sure what's causing that, I looked at the code and it shouldn't happen. If you encounter it again, please open an issue on Github.

 

[azum4roll]

Why does the AI still allow you to pass through their borders but doesn't want your open borders when you're winning CV anyway?

 

[Stalker0]

Why does the AI still allow you to pass through their borders but doesn't want your open borders when you're winning CV anyway?

If Archeology is out, the AI is hyper against open borders (because it will let you steal artifacts).

When this tech comes out, AIs become very belligerent, and often will close one open borders or the other.

 

[Gazebo]

One thing I might look into is a grace period for OBs. Not saying I'm 100% going to, but I might be able to.

G

 

[Kim Dong Un]

If Archeology is out, the AI is hyper against open borders (because it will let you steal artifacts).

No, other diplo factors aside, they are only hyper against your open borders specifically, to prevent the tourism bonus% you get towards them if en route to a CV. I've seen enough of this behaviour over the years to know it has little to do with them not wanting you to excavate their sites (they'll simply ask you to stop when this is the case). I can usually pay up to get into their lands just fine (which wouldn't be the case if they're trying to prevent me from excavating their sites), but my archs can't dig in their lands strictly because they don't want access into mine. It makes no sense.

If they've allowed me into their territory, I should be able to dig, regardless if they don't want passage into my lands.

 

[Stalker0]

If they've allowed me into their territory, I should be able to dig, regardless if they don't want passage into my lands.

In order to dig, you have to have open borders both ways.

 

[Kim Dong Un]

In order to dig, you have to have open borders both ways.

Yes, and that's the problem. It's a silly mechanic that makes no sense for the reasons I stated above.

If they've allowed me into their territory, I should be able to dig, regardless if they don't want passage into my lands.

 

[Omen of Peace]

If you were allowed to dig with just one-way Open Borders... then it would make sense for the AI to be changed to be reluctant to give that around Archeology/as soon as they spot foreign Archeologists. So you might end up frustrated still.

 

[Recursive]

Can confirm the AI gets a massive reluctance to take OB under certain circumstances.

The big two are if they don't like you (WAR/HOSTILE/GUARDED), because they think it's a trap and you'll DoW them at an opportune moment...

And as the Glorious Leader said, if you're influential on half of the total civs and they've decided to contest your CV chances.

 

[Kim Dong Un]

If you were allowed to dig with just one-way Open Borders... then it would make sense for the AI to be changed to be reluctant to give that around Archeology/as soon as they spot foreign Archeologists. So you might end up frustrated still.

Yeah, but why should they be programmed to automatically not allow OB in that time frame when they would have no initial clue what my intentions are? Maybe I want to send an arch to create a landmark to their benefit? Why would they decline that possibility or any of my assets in trade (if we're on relatively good terms diplomatically), when I could simply be wanting passage for a neighboring war or any other reason that excludes digging their land? They don't know I'm a thief (yet)... If they deny me their OB after I've already had access to their lands and took advantage of it to dig up sites, then I understand them not providing further entrance.

It sucks pouring significant hammers into arch play, something that's promoted as a crucially incentivized aspect of winning a CV, yet its potential can never be maximized because the AI unknowingly nullifies it en masse once you start excelling with influence. It takes away some fun, and I just don't agree with how it's always functioned. If the AI needs to be programmed to slow my CV chances by refusing my OB so I don't get more tourism bonus%, then of course I've no issue with that, but the current implementation of this has the side effect of stunting arch play, which I believe needs adjustment in order to bring out the best experience possible. VP is too good to let something like this slide, as these are the kinds of smaller things that need refinement when the community talks of "going for gold".

I rest my case, and hopefully others will come to understand the reason for my dispute.

 

[Recursive]

Yeah, but why should they be programmed to automatically not allow OB in that time frame when they would have no initial clue what my intentions are? Maybe I want to send an arch to create a landmark to their benefit? Why would they decline that possibility or any of my assets in trade (if we're on relatively good terms diplomatically), when I could simply be wanting passage for a neighboring war or any other reason that excludes digging their land? They don't know I'm a thief (yet)... If they deny me their OB after I've already had access to their lands and took advantage of it to dig up sites, then I understand them not providing further entrance.

It sucks pouring significant hammers into arch play, something that's promoted as a crucially incentivized aspect of winning a CV, yet its potential can never be maximized because the AI unknowingly nullifies it en masse once you start excelling with influence. It takes away some fun, and I just don't agree with how it's always functioned. If the AI needs to be programmed to slow my CV chances by refusing my OB so I don't get more tourism bonus%, then of course I've no issue with that, but the current implementation of this has the side effect of stunting arch play, which I believe needs adjustment in order to bring out the best experience possible. VP is too good to let something like this slide, as these are the kinds of smaller things that need refinement when the community talks of "going for gold".

I rest my case, and hopefully others will come to understand the reason for my dispute.

I agree with you on this - the mechanic makes no sense to me.

Edit: Also, I'm going to add a check so the AI doesn't give you OB if you've stolen their artifacts - and there are still artifacts in their land to be stolen.

Edit #2: Actually the entire opinion mechanic for artifacts is exploitable, so I'm gonna fix that.

 

[civplayer33]

Yeah, but why should they be programmed to automatically not allow OB in that time frame when they would have no initial clue what my intentions are? Maybe I want to send an arch to create a landmark to their benefit? Why would they decline that possibility or any of my assets in trade (if we're on relatively good terms diplomatically), when I could simply be wanting passage for a neighboring war or any other reason that excludes digging their land? They don't know I'm a thief (yet)... If they deny me their OB after I've already had access to their lands and took advantage of it to dig up sites, then I understand them not providing further entrance.

It sucks pouring significant hammers into arch play, something that's promoted as a crucially incentivized aspect of winning a CV, yet its potential can never be maximized because the AI unknowingly nullifies it en masse once you start excelling with influence. It takes away some fun, and I just don't agree with how it's always functioned. If the AI needs to be programmed to slow my CV chances by refusing my OB so I don't get more tourism bonus%, then of course I've no issue with that, but the current implementation of this has the side effect of stunting arch play, which I believe needs adjustment in order to bring out the best experience possible. VP is too good to let something like this slide, as these are the kinds of smaller things that need refinement when the community talks of "going for gold".

I rest my case, and hopefully others will come to understand the reason for my dispute.

One of the problems with the current mechanics, however, is that OB deals last quite long and can't be cancelled with a denouncement AFAIK, and there are many downsides to declaring war, so even after a player steals one artifact they may very well have enough time to steal another within the remaining period of the OB deal; furthermore, the "victim" civ may wish to create an artifact from a particular dig site, especially if it's late game and the dig site isn't within the working radius of a city which happens to me frequently as I like to settle "thinly", so the "intruder" creating a landmark for them may not benefit them at all, save the small happiness boost.
Personally, I would always prefer to dig all sites in my vicinity myself, because I can never know what the intention of foreign archeologists is; this means that I would try to prevent foreign archeologists from civs that seem to be going for CV from entering, and, because I can't easily cancel a given open borders deal, rather err on the side of caution and refuse OB or, even better with the current mechanics, refuse to take OB from them.

So maybe a good approach to this issue, especially if the arch mechanics are changed such that archeologists can dig without mutual OB, would be to enable cancellation of OB deals on denouncement, as is done for embassies.