1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Open Borders, Split in Two: Military and Civilian

Discussion in 'Civ4 - General Discussions' started by Sanotra, May 17, 2014.

  1. Sanotra

    Sanotra Wannabe Modder

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    668
    Location:
    Wa - USA
    Open Borders, Split in Two: Military and Civilian

    Hello Everyone,
    Has anyone else noticed the lack of realism when it comes to Open Borders? I don't know if it has ever been common for all countries to generally allow military passage through their lands by neighboring armies. Yet that is how it is in CIV4. Open borders is kind of the general agreement that most all civilizations share and it's good to have to build trust with the AI. The lack of realism bothers me, but furthermore the lack of strategic thinking this feature could provide also bothers me. I propose a split in the open borders feature to allow two different kinds of open borders agreements.

    1. Open Borders: Civilian (Workers, Settlers, Missionaries, Scouts, etc.)
    2. Open Borders: Military (Soldiers in general)

    A third option also comes to mind.
    3. Open Borders: Naval (All ships allowed to sail in your cultural coasts)
    This third option could be merged with the other two. 1. Civilian, would allow non combat vessels like work boats to pass through, and 2. Military would allow all military vessels to sail through.

    I think making Open Borders more versatile would make the game more interesting and open up some new strategic plans. What do you guys think?
     
  2. Sanotra

    Sanotra Wannabe Modder

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    668
    Location:
    Wa - USA
    Most civilizations would be less inclined to agree to open borders military and more inclined to agree to and ask for open borders civilian.
     
  3. Drakarska

    Drakarska Epic Dadness

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2010
    Messages:
    2,576
    Location:
    Twilight Zone
    The Advanced Diplo mod comp takes care of this issue. In it, you can agree to establish Embassies and Rite of Passage. ROP will limit other civs units to non-military, thereby preventing military class units from entering your borders. Note that scouts and caravels are not classified as military units.
     
  4. civfanchambers

    civfanchambers Prince

    Joined:
    Dec 18, 2013
    Messages:
    456
    Location:
    Houston Texas
    And what happens when you send an unescorted settler thru rival lands? Weak settlers not a military unit for protection.
     
  5. ZeekLTK

    ZeekLTK Warlord

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2002
    Messages:
    259
    Well, why are you trying to settle somewhere that your army can't access/defend? :mischief:
     
  6. Kid R

    Kid R Emperor

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2009
    Messages:
    1,487
    Wow this is spooky, you posted this thread yesterday and I was just thinking about the same subject (in the context of designing a stack/1UPT hybrid system, not Civ 4, but that's a whole different story! :D)

    So I don't think your suggestion would make that much difference in Civ 4, due to the way military is magically teleported out of a country if you DOW them. Really all the military are doing is scouting anyway - would there be much practical difference between your two cases? What *would* make a difference is splitting OB up into the economic part - trade routes - and rights-of-passage part for all units.

    But IMO it needs a bigger change, because of that silly magical teleport thing, I mean that makes no sense at all. Also what makes no sense is that a country would let fully armed soldiers of another country, however friendly, march through its land and even right past its king. Or let 2 other countries have fights on its land. I mean say I'm India in Civ 4 and Persia is at war with China. I'm at peace with both so is it really likely I'm going to stand for them both to send huge armies and to have a bloody battle and leave dead bodies and chemical poisons all over my rice fields. No!

    In real life troops are only allowed through friendly lands with no ammunition and logistically at the convenience of their host nation, and I think that makes more sense as a game system too. So with the appropriate OB agreement China and Persia could march their troops through my India but they couldn't fight. They can fight as much as they like when they get out the other side, that's their business! In terms of me as India worrying they might attack my capital on the way through, that's OK because they handed me their ammo with their passports on the way into the country. If they DOW me while they're here I can just kill their tanks and stuff with my spearmen.

    In that system, as in real life, :spear: would actually make complete sense :D
     
  7. nfw

    nfw King

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    733
    You could use explorers as escort, though there shouldn't be an issue as you are matching through friendly/neutral land.
     
  8. Lennier

    Lennier Emperor

    Joined:
    Mar 10, 2013
    Messages:
    1,325
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Orange County, NY
    I would think that IRL that if country A let country B march its troops through its territory to attack country C, C would consider that casus belli against A.

    I like the idea of separating combat and non-combat OBs.
     
  9. nfw

    nfw King

    Joined:
    Aug 31, 2010
    Messages:
    733
    Yep, they tried that in 1914, look where that got us.
     
  10. Sanotra

    Sanotra Wannabe Modder

    Joined:
    May 16, 2007
    Messages:
    668
    Location:
    Wa - USA
    It seems to me that countries seated between two warring factions commonly allow military access to at least one of the factions. It seems that many times country A allows country B access to country C, without formally declaring war on country C because of risks and diplomatic tensions. If I'm not mistaken, this type of thing is fairly common. It goes along with the idea of puppet states as well, where A is a puppet state (satellite state) of B.
     
  11. fed1943

    fed1943 Emperor

    Joined:
    Nov 28, 2005
    Messages:
    1,185
    Location:
    Lisbon
    It looks to me not a good idea.
    Because open boards is good from a civilian point, but bad from a military one.
    So, the only good option would be to open to civilians and not to open to military.
    And just one good line make the game more poor.
     
  12. Ambidexter

    Ambidexter Edjumacated Idjit

    Joined:
    May 22, 2007
    Messages:
    388
    Location:
    Connecticut
    You still end up with a weak military unit in a city until you can build a couple of real military units for garrison.
     
  13. Noble Zarkon

    Noble Zarkon Elite Quattromaster - Emperor (BTS) Moderator Hall of Fame Staff Supporter GOTM Staff

    Joined:
    Sep 6, 2012
    Messages:
    5,701
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Gibraltar
    Nice idea - perhaps under Theocracy foreign Missionaries are considered as non-civilian though?
     

Share This Page