Nation Borders - How Good Are They?

[Valdy]

As a Civ 2 player I've always looked forward to the time when I can play Civ 3 and enjoy the nation borders which were inevitably going to be put in.

I'm still a Civ 2 player (I will be buying Civ 3 later this year I don't doubt. Pressing matters prevent me at present - I KNOW that buying Civ 3 would do me more harm than good right now. )

However, I'm just curious as to how the borders function, what use people have for them - are they really the holy grail I've been hoping for? - and any other general stories you have regarding them.

Go ahead and whet my appetite for Civ 3!

 

[Hellpig]

My 5 cents...
I don't know what you've been hoping for and I really don't remember how civ2 worked. But in Civ3 the border are pushed further out from your cities as your cultural value increase. Push enough and you get cities from other nations, too little pushing and it might be your cities that flips to another nation. I think it's a fine implementation and if you use it well you'll get some "free cities".

 

[Sodak]

Aside from the city flipping, there are also diplomacy and movement effects. You do not get the road movement bonus on foreign roads, unless you have a right-of-passage agreement with that civ. The AIs all seem to have them with each other. If somebody walks a bad guy into your territory, you can ask them to leave. You end up with the option to demand departure or a war declaration. If they declare war, your reputation is unharmed. The flip side is that you must leave when asked, or be reminded by every AI for eons that you are a treaty breaker who cannot be trusted. (Of course, this just means your backstab plans will be less surprizing... )

Usually, the AI will march thru your territory in three situations:
1. A settler and escort are marching to unsettled turf. They will ignore most requests to back off.
2. AI civs at war feel free to use your land as a thruway to each other.
3. AI civs who are eyeing your lands will stroll thru as they see fit, too.

The amount of territory you control (within your culture borders) is also a factor in your score. It is used to calculate a domination win, as well.

 

[keitel]

The one thing that always annoyed me about Civ2 was the lack of borders. They sorta existed, but they were only the land that fell within your cities radiuses (or radii ) Remember when an AI civ would plant a city right in the middle of your empire because there were a few unclaimed tiles? The borders in Civ3 eliminate that (as far as I can tell since an AI civ hasn't founded a city within my borders). Plus having borders just makes it cooler! You know where your territory is, where your opponents is, and when they are breaching it.

BUY CIV3!!

 

[brody]

Originally posted by keitel
The one thing that always annoyed me about Civ2 was the lack of borders. They sorta existed, but they were only the land that fell within your cities radiuses (or radii ) Remember when an AI civ would plant a city right in the middle of your empire because there were a few unclaimed tiles? The borders in Civ3 eliminate that (as far as I can tell since an AI civ hasn't founded a city within my borders). Plus having borders just makes it cooler! You know where your territory is, where your opponents is, and when they are breaching it.

BUY CIV3!!

Borders rock! I totally agree. The enemy wouldn't dare put a city near your capital anymore, because it would probably flip in a matter of turns! And the AI can't cut your production of a tile in half just by building a city near yours and pilfering YOUR hard earned roads/irrigations/mines. You make your culture high and the enemy can't work your land, PERIOD.

 

[Zouave]

REAL "borders" are determined by warfare, diplomacy, and politics, primarily. This "culture" borders stuff is almost as big a crock as "culture flipping".

But we've gone over that before.

 

[Kryten]

Yes, we BOTH have, haven't we!

Valdy.com, if you think of culture flipping as representing all the non-violent political changes of control without warfare and revolution that happens in the real world, then it is definitely an improvement over what was possible in civ2. The features in the civ series are evolving with each new version, and this one adds to the game by giving it greater depth and challenge.

 

[Ren]

Just don't settle in your opponent's territory, unless you are mobilized for war

 

[BigBirdZ28]

They are great ! Dont forget the fact that you no longer anger a citie's population by deploying a unit 1 space outside the city it was built in.

 

[Kinniken]

culture is a good explanation for borders extending in unclaimed territory. However, the idea of a country loosing ground because the other side has a strong culture is nonsense. I would make two simple changes to rationalise the whole thing a bit:
-once a tile is inside your border, it remain there, even if the other civ's culture grow. ie, you can't loose land to the other civ's culture.
-accepting a culture-switch gives the other civ the right to declare war. I can accept that a city would want to join the dominant culture near it, but I can't accept that it's civ would just let it.

Both those changes would be simple to implement, but they would make the whole border thing much more realist.

 

[Mapache]

If I attack meandering enemy forces on my territory is the consequent war my fault? Will it hurt my opponent's reputation?
I didn't find an answer yet.

 

[Kinniken]

However, if you ask him to leave several time in the same turn, he will usualy either leave at once or declare war on you.
BTW, one thing I like in Civ3 is that other leaders will nearly alway agree to see you (the exception being the first turns of a war), while in Civ2 if you asked to see them to often they would just refuse.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Kinniken
However, the idea of a country loosing ground because the other side has a strong culture is nonsense.

Actually, national borders are a modern invention.

During the era of city states, the people farming outside the city walls defined the culture's borders. If the civilization thrived then its citizens would farm more and more land around the city. If there was another city nearby, then they would often negotiate the use of the land and water, or the citizens would fight over the land amongst themselves.

For instance, Abraham and Lot divided the land for grazing. There was no border, per se, just an agreement to go in generally different directions. Or a modern example would be the range wars in the American West.

As population density increased, formal agreements became necessary. But even in modern times, there are disputes over borders, some of which are indeed settled peacefully.

 

[Moulton]

If two opposing cities are within a few squares of each other, the one producing the most culture can subsume part of the other's land. Mines and other improvements at the edge of your cities area can be taken by putting a city in just the right place, sometimes.
Also, the national border does not automatically claim all land within the borders. The cities also have areas. So an AI nation can find enough land within your national border, not already taken by a city, and will send explorers and settlers there to take it.

 

[narmox]

Originally posted by Moulton
Also, the national border does not automatically claim all land within the borders. The cities also have areas. So an AI nation can find enough land within your national border, not already taken by a city, and will send explorers and settlers there to take it.

er, false, unless I misinterpreted. Founding a city within borders (cultural influence) WILL trigger a war, even it it's not in the city radius. As long as it is within the borders, the land is claimed.

 

[etj4Eagle]

Originally posted by narmox


er, false, unless I misinterpreted. Founding a city within borders (cultural influence) WILL trigger a war, even it it's not in the city radius. As long as it is within the borders, the land is claimed.

I believe what the previous poster was trying to say is that borders don't backfill, which can result in an expanse of unclaimed land in the middle of your territory. Going for that land will not cause war, since it is outside of territory borders, even though it is surrounded by your borders .

 

[Kefka]

He is talking about if you leave space open in what should be your land but is not actually in your borders.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Kefka
He is talking about if you leave space open in what should be your land but is not actually in your borders.

That would be like how European settlers would found a mining town right in the middle of the sacred Indian burial grounds.

 

[Moulton]

I guess I didnt say it right. There can be unclaimed land in the middle of what you considere your terricory. but, yes the borders back fill, over time, but you can have an exanse of land surrounded on all sides by your borders, but that land is still considered unclaimed, unless it is within your actual cultural borders. THey have to cross your land to get there, and if you dont have enough power, they will ignore a request to leave, and just go ahead and cross to colonize it. I do them the same way, except I have no desire to found a city in the middle of their cities. too easy to lose it.

Yep, funny how we did not recognize the importance of sacred burial grounds. Well--still don't in many cases. Good example of how having power can control actions. We certainly wouldnot let native Americans build something in the middle of , say, a CAtholic semetary....

 

[Kefka]

Originally posted by Moulton
I guess I didnt say it right. There can be unclaimed land in the middle of what you considere your terricory. but, yes the borders back fill, over time, but you can have an exanse of land surrounded on all sides by your borders, but that land is still considered unclaimed, unless it is within your actual cultural borders. THey have to cross your land to get there, and if you dont have enough power, they will ignore a request to leave, and just go ahead and cross to colonize it. I do them the same way, except I have no desire to found a city in the middle of their cities. too easy to lose it.

Yep, funny how we did not recognize the importance of sacred burial grounds. Well--still don't in many cases. Good example of how having power can control actions. We certainly wouldnot let native Americans build something in the middle of , say, a CAtholic semetary....

Well what I usually do is just move some of my extra units in front of them and try and block them if they refuse my request to leave usually I can hold them back untill I claim my land