Monroe Doctrine

[frekk]

The problem with this idea is that it grants even more of an advantage to civs who start on a landmass alone or with only a single neighbour. This is already a pretty large advantage in contrast to someone who starts out on a large continent with 4 or 5 competitors. To make it work something similar would have to be on offer for the latter situation.

What I've really dreamed about for a long time in civ is the idea of regions. I don't mean to do away with tiles, rather just to have the computer generate a map in pieces, which it would recognize as regions. They could even be named and they would be delineated by natural boundaries like coasts, mountains, rivers, or vast changes in terrain (eg a huge plain might be one region and a great forest next to it another, even without a natural boundary). If the computer could recognize regions within continents, and even regions consisting of groups of small islands, and if the regions had names, then it would be very easy to implement some sort of diplomatic agreements regarding regions (and I think it would really add alot of personality to the map, as well).

 

[apatheist]

I think it should be international and you don't need to negociate it (its only limited by you having complete (map) knowledge of the landmass and there being no other cities on it).

This way you could demand foreign settlers leave (threaten with war in the same way as a 'something for nothing or else' deal) and ask any cities founded there to be turned over.

...

My only concern would be that it might creates ridiculous situations where people claim everything in sight. Perhaps people would have to own 75% OS of a large landmass before they can claim.

Which is exactly why it should be subject to negotiation. It makes it meaningful without making it too powerful or having arbitrary restrictions on who can claim what. The Spanish/Portuguese Treaty of Tordesillas established claims to the Americas that only applied to those two powers and was made long before they occupied even 5% of the land. England, the Netherlands, and France paid no attention to that treaty, though they did enter into (and break) other treaties.

or prehaps a small wonder like thing, that you can build to claim the island... that would partialy solve the "player claims everything" exploit you hinted at

At the risk of being unrealistic. A claim to land has significance only for diplomacy, so it should be established diplomatically. It also folds in nicely with partitioning an existing nation to be eaten up by you and an ally.

Also consider the scope of these claims. How long do they last? How much area do they pertain to? In what parts of the game are the relevant? How much do you end up using them? My goal is that you should have 0-5 of these agreements in a game. Each would last on the order of 20-40 turns and would encompass a territory large enough for 2-4 cities. Those aren't constraints, but rather the expected usage frequency. The mechanisms should be appropriate to that. Doing it diplomatically works because you'll rarely have a situation where 4 civs will want to claim the same area, assuming what we're told about culture and maintenance and the AIs giving up expensive cities is true. Usually, these will be bi-lateral agreements.

The problem with this idea is that it grants even more of an advantage to civs who start on a landmass alone or with only a single neighbour. This is already a pretty large advantage in contrast to someone who starts out on a large continent with 4 or 5 competitors. To make it work something similar would have to be on offer for the latter situation.

I don't understand.

There are disadvantages to starting alone. You have less trade. You have to do your own research. You're more vulnerable to barbarians. If those aren't enough, then they should strengthen trade and barbarians while increasing the research necessary for techs. If the other civs are close enough to trade with you, then they're close enough to settle as well. This is also where I say the naval aspect of the game needs work.

If the computer could recognize regions within continents, and even regions consisting of groups of small islands, and if the regions had names, then it would be very easy to implement some sort of diplomatic agreements regarding regions (and I think it would really add alot of personality to the map, as well).

The cheaper and more flexible way is to allow the user to designate the regions. It's just a matter of clicking a bunch of tiles, so it should be pretty easy.

 

[mokeysonice]

[quote = apatheist] The cheaper and more flexible way is to allow the user to designate the regions. It's just a matter of clicking a bunch of tiles, so it should be pretty easy. [/quote]

There should be rules governing how regions can be defined. I would think a general concept would be they have to be one land type or that landtype with forest on top to count. So for example, if u had, god forbid, 30 squares of deep desert by you u could name that "The Endless Desert", while if you had 4 squares of grassland, one of which has forest, you could name that "Grassy Grove"

Another issue would be with hills and mountains, i think large sets of either should be able to be regionised as such, but just one or two should be allowed in the sorrounding region

I think another way to implement the artificial claiming could be a treaty between two countrys where you could say "Dont Settle South of Memphis" somehow or trade something to the comp for that.

Also as a side note, that treaty between portugal and spain wasnt so much a land claim it was an attempt by the vatican to prevent a war between the two nations. Both ofthem were on the brink of war, than the pope at the time was like "you can have this area portugal, and you can have this spain"

However, things like Louisiana territory could be considered different from that because it was a more widely accepted territory, both the french and the spanish had had that territory in possesion at some time.

Sorry, one more note- should you be able to "Trade" region claims if you lose a war or something?

 

[apatheist]

There should be rules governing how regions can be defined.

Why?

Also as a side note, that treaty between portugal and spain wasnt so much a land claim it was an attempt by the vatican to prevent a war between the two nations.

6 of one, half a dozen of the other. That's what a lot of treaties come down to.

 

[frekk]

I don't understand.

There are disadvantages to starting alone. You have less trade. You have to do your own research. You're more vulnerable to barbarians. If those aren't enough, then they should strengthen trade and barbarians while increasing the research necessary for techs. If the other civs are close enough to trade with you, then they're close enough to settle as well. This is also where I say the naval aspect of the game needs work.

I don't usually have much difficulty to keep them from settling, or ejecting them once I get around to colonizing that area. In fact it's kinda nice when they build 3 or 4 cities, they are cutoff from the main civilization and pretty easy to wipe out in the ancient era, and then you can demand a few dozens of gold for peace. Sometimes even a tech. If you are so far away that they can't be contacted to trade for tech, then the issue of settlement rights is irrelevant as well.

The cheaper and more flexible way is to allow the user to designate the regions. It's just a matter of clicking a bunch of tiles, so it should be pretty easy.

Because regions should be defined geographically by natural boundaries. Also it sounds like a big hassle to highlight all these tiles all the time. One of the big advantages to named regions on the map is also as points of reference especially on pangaea maps ... and I wouldn't want to have to go around highlighting all the tiles on the map ahead of time. Much nicer just to have it already pre-arranged. Also how would this work in multiplayer or during negotiations with an AI player requesting settlement rights to a territory it has just drawn (and with which you're not familiar yet?) And if each player can draw their own regions, might not the map get cluttered and confusing? Especially when defining territories starts to get abused for advantage and smaller "regions" of only a few tiles get negotiated.

Better I think just to have a number of objective regions of moderate size which are the same for everyone, don't have to be manually defined, correspond to natural boundaries, and exist from the start of the game so one can become familiar with them. It's much simpler in practice.

 

[bkwrm79]

I think it makes more sense in terms of a one-way version of the Mutual Protection treaty. Instead, you would go to a small and vulnerable civ on your continent, and agree to protect them (preventing a real enemy from establishing a foothold), without asking them to protect you (since they'd be no help anyway).

I hope Civ IV allows one-way protection agreements, and one-way rights of passage as well. Perhaps even one in exchange for the other.

In one of my early vanilla C3 games I was able to organize an alliance of all the civs on my continent versus the Romans, who controlled the other continent. It worked quite well that time, and let me hang in for a spaceship win.

 

[apatheist]

Because regions should be defined geographically by natural boundaries.

Why?

Also it sounds like a big hassle to highlight all these tiles all the time.

Seriously? It'd be just like using Photoshop. You click, drag, release. Tweak the edges if you care enough, otherwise you're done.

One of the big advantages to named regions on the map is also as points of reference especially on pangaea maps ... and I wouldn't want to have to go around highlighting all the tiles on the map ahead of time.

I don't understand why this is so hard to do.

Much nicer just to have it already pre-arranged.

Except they wouldn't be drawn the way you want. You'd want to somehow negotiate to cover the western third of Alsace, the southern half of the Netherlands, and all of Belgium.

Also how would this work in multiplayer or during negotiations with an AI player requesting settlement rights to a territory it has just drawn (and with which you're not familiar yet?)

Neither players nor AIs care about the region as an entity unto itself. They care about the region only insofar as it describes a collection of land tiles. So you would have something like:

"The French wish to discuss the claim to the area they call 'Louisiana'"

And the game engine would highlight whatever tiles constitute Louisiana. The AI wouldn't pay attention the name; the AI would only care that it constitutes tiles 52,12; 52,13; 52,14;53,12;53,13; etc., as they should, since the region has no other significance.

And if each player can draw their own regions, might not the map get cluttered and confusing?

No. Just turn off the display of other players' regions.

Especially when defining territories starts to get abused for advantage and smaller "regions" of only a few tiles get negotiated.

How could that get abused unless you design the abuse into it? The means I advocate cannot be abused.

Better I think just to have a number of objective regions of moderate size which are the same for everyone, don't have to be manually defined, correspond to natural boundaries, and exist from the start of the game so one can become familiar with them. It's much simpler in practice.

Simpler in theory. Regions in this sense are entirely a convenience with no game significance of their own. Why would you then make regions inflexible and not player defined? That destroys whatever is convenient about them.

 

[wolf_brother]

i used the name monroe doctrine because it gives a pretty close description to what im suggisting from what i read about it

Actually what we're discussing is a sphere of influence.

 

[mokeysonice]

[Quote = Apathiest] No. Just turn off the display of other players' regions. [/Quote]

Regions and there names should be universal- regardless of how realistic that is. The reason regions shouldnt be defined based on each person is because than one player or comp could be say expansionistic and have a greater knowledge of the world than you than treaty allow you to settle one region uve never seen and them one uve never seen and the one u just allowed them being much bigger than the one you also just got.
I also think it would add too much complications to multiplayer games because than if u saw a pretitled region ud kno someone was near, ud hunt them down and be able to have a large advantage they had been there.
I dont however feel the way to implement preselected regions is to pre cut them out than to sew them together to make a map. I think a great idea would be a bunch of preselected names say "The Great Desert" and than have values like "Desert Squars < 10"

 

[Atrebates]

Being conned is part of international negociations. And anyway I think you have to have map knowledge of an area before you gain rights to it?

The knowledge of there being a tribe in the area is a good point, but it's offset (IMO) by being able to claim the land. Only lay claim to an area if you reckon you're strong enough to hold it - tactics would evolve around this if it made it into the game.

BTW <10 means "less than 10" I guess you mean >10

 

[Dale]

There we go. Thank you. Knew it was T-something...Still, the treaty was only between Spain and Portugal. Meaning that Britain and France did whatever the hell they pleased.

Actually, it was a Papal Decree. It came from the Pope and all Christian nations had to follow it. But as they turned Protastant they felt it no longer applied to them, and hence the mass colonisation that occured in the late stages of the Treaty.

Actually, the Treaty was one of the main points listed by nations for turning away from the Pope. There are still a number of instances where a nation colonised an area and Spain came along later and reclaimed the settlement and occupied it. This caused the original nation to protest to the Pope who ignored them. Eventually the Pope had to withdraw the Treaty on the risk of losing all nations from Catholicism.

Dale

 

[wooga]

I like the idea of convincing other civs not to settle in "your backyard". I think the easiest way to accomplish this would be to have explorer's have a sort of "build outpost" ability where they plant a flag (doesn't destroy explorer, so he could plant hundreds). You could then negotiate with other civs to not move settlers across your 'flagged' squares.

I'm not sure if there is a way for the AI to properly name regions. If that could be accomplished, it would be relatively easy to set up a "sphere of influence" treaty where you negotiate who gets dibs on which region.

 

[apatheist]

I like the idea of convincing other civs not to settle in "your backyard". I think the easiest way to accomplish this would be to have explorer's have a sort of "build outpost" ability where they plant a flag (doesn't destroy explorer, so he could plant hundreds). You could then negotiate with other civs to not move settlers across your 'flagged' squares.

Er... what's to keep this explorer from claiming every single tile it passes?

This whole discussion has convinced me that the way it was in Civ3 is the best way to do it. You claim land by building a city and expanding its culture and that's that.

 

[SmartJock2112]

I think you may be right in that the best way for claiming territory, in gameplay terms, is the way that Civ III did it. However, I would say that historically, claims were made just by explorers, like wooga suggests. Sometimes not even just where they were. For example, La Salle claimed Louisiana for France, and defined it as the area that drained into the Mississippi and it's tributaries. That's a lot of land! And La Salle didn't explore the fast majority of it. It was not until Lewis & Clark some 150 years later that it was explored. But in game terms I don't see how that could be implemented without grossly unbalencing the game.

 

[Texan General]

You could, perhaps, give flags a ZoC. Meaning that when an explorer plants a flag he lays claim to the surrounding areas. This concept could extend to landmarks such as rivers, mountains, lakes, deserts, etc. A few examples for illustration:

EXAMPLE 1 - My explorer plants a flag in a grassland thereby claiming that tile and the surrounding 8 tiles.
EXAMPLE 2 - My explorer plants a flag in a set of mountains thereby claiming the entire mountain range.
EXAMPLE 3 - My explorer plants a flag in a river delta thereby claiming all tiles touching the river.

This could give rise to claim disputes as countries might be able to see the entire area they are claiming. While some objection has been raised regarding such "problems" I find this very realistic. There are countless historical examples where countries would lay conflicting claims on land. Many of these claims were worked out but several also created international incidents and in some cases wars. I do agree that some check must be put on this in order to ensure it isn't abused by the computer or player. Perhaps a fee or limit could be put on claims. A system in which you can only make 1 claim every 5 turns (a number able to be enhanced by technology or improvements?) might be desirable.

 

[evirus]

i like your idea texan, but i think the amount a squares be limited to the units movement, scouts would in this case be able to calm more squares( say two in each direction) then a warrior(one in each direction) for example.... also i think there should be some limit on being able to claim land passed "difficult terrain" like rivers and mountains

 

[Slyk]

I would say you give the Explorer unit or something like it the ability to either plant flags or 'outpost' themselves and give them at least a 21 tile 'claim'. If workers can build a colony on a resource, why couldn't an Explorer essentially do the same thing and create a ZoC of 21 tiles or more. That way you could rush out a series of these units and 'claim' your lands. That would be the closest thing to real-world history and probably the most AI and game mechanic potential for implementation.

 

[jwijn]

Protect their independence so that the United States could exert their influence, yes. We didn't want the European imperialists back in Latin America after they had been kicked out.

But, the gist of the doctrine is that the United States will go to war should any European power try to colonize the Americas again. The existing colonies were exempt, however.

The real enforcer of the Monroe Doctrine was the UK, not the US. At the time of the Monroe Doctrine, the US was a little upstart nation that had very little bargaining power. The UK, realizing that it had no chance of colonizing the New World, agreed to enforce the Monroe Doctrine to reduce the power of the European nations.

 

[Texan General]

I would say you give the Explorer unit or something like it the ability to either plant flags or 'outpost' themselves and give them at least a 21 tile 'claim'. If workers can build a colony on a resource, why couldn't an Explorer essentially do the same thing and create a ZoC of 21 tiles or more. That way you could rush out a series of these units and 'claim' your lands. That would be the closest thing to real-world history and probably the most AI and game mechanic potential for implementation.

The reasoning I put against this involves the number of men that each unit represents. While I agree that an explorer could realistically claim large tracks of land I deemed it bad for gameplay if these explorers could claim anything larger than thier immediate areas except in cases involveing rivers or mountain ranges (or deserts?). Explorers, as represented in the game, represent 1 man with at most a few assistants. Workers by contrast represent hundreds to thousands of people all working as a unit. When put in this light it makes sense that a worker can found a colony while an explorer cannot. This is not to say that the resources would not be taken advantage anyway using the explorer. Afterall, the only requirements for a connection to a resource are 1) road from resource to capitol 2) resource within your territory. The explorer solution I presented above allows for both requirements to be fulfilled. This means it is unnecessary to have colonies within my new system as the new land claims system will cover those needs in game.