Open borders

[Rhye]

Some of you were discussing this.

Please list here in your opinion pros and cons of raising the threshold of them to a friendlier AI attitude

 

[Blasphemous]

Raising the threshold makes sense, as long as you add all non-military units to the "can enter rival territory" list (like caravels). I don't think armies were routinely marched to an enemy through a loosely allied nation's territory, as the game now does. It takes a closer relationship than "you seem like an okay kind of leader" to let enemy troops into your lands. Also, testing by a few people here has shown that the less Open Borders you allow, the more historical borders you end up with (since Rome can't colonize Siberia that way). Open Borders should require a +4 relationship or better, but to balance the lost diplomatic bonus that you would normally have with easy Open Borders, some leaders need to be made a little nicer (or some specific bonuses between historically non-hostile civs should be coded in).

 

[Elhoim]

There was some talking about dividing them into open trade borders and open military borders. That would be nice, if the AI could use them well. I also think that the open trade bordes should include missionaries and workers.

 

[Rhye]

forget adding new agreements to the leaderhead screen, it's hardcoded afaik

 

[Blasphemous]

Then allow trade between civs with relations that are +2 or +3 (or whatever) and up both ways no matter what treaties are signed. And for missionaries, you can add a popup when trying to cross the border if relations are not good enough to let them in (and set a certain minimum diplomacy situation for them to be let in with no problem).

 

[Elhoim]

Then allow trade between civs with relations that are +2 or +3 (or whatever) and up both ways no matter what treaties are signed. And for missionaries, you can add a popup when trying to cross the border if relations are not good enough to let them in (and set a certain minimum diplomacy situation for them to be let in with no problem).

This can be a nice solution. Too bad the agreements are hardcoded...

 

[Winterfell]

Raise the treshold for open borders, and have settlers unable to cross borders by land. When possible, divide it to trade and military ob

 

[Gunner]

Then allow trade between civs with relations that are +2 or +3 (or whatever) and up both ways no matter what treaties are signed. And for missionaries, you can add a popup when trying to cross the border if relations are not good enough to let them in (and set a certain minimum diplomacy situation for them to be let in with no problem).

This is a good idea. Trade and military right of passage need to be somehow separated.

Will the ability to add new agreements be un-hardcoded with Warlords? Because having them as separate agreements would obviously be the best.

 

[NateDawgNY]

Will the ability to add new agreements be un-hardcoded with Warlords? Because having them as separate agreements would obviously be the best.

Would be nice...

 

[DSChapin]

I agree: Open Borders should be much rarer, but only if they can be separated from trade, as trade should be quite common. Indeed, trade ought to be MORE common than Open Borders is now: only very unfriendly nations embargo each other.

 

[dh_epic]

+1 for making Open Borders more rare.

But if you do that, it might be nice to have some lower level of agreement between less friendly nations. It could be as simple as an "Endorsement" treaty... something that sends a simple diplomatic signal.

It's nice to be able to have some kind of long term agreement with a civilization, to build up relations.

... maybe with an additional small benefit. (Opens up a single trade route between the two capitols.)

 

[Riker]

In my current game, China attacked me by land. Nothing strange, except that I'm playin Spain.... I agree with the division of trade/military for open borders, it makes sense. To make things more complicated, maybe we can add the difference between by sea and by land, if it's not too hard to implement

 

[Elhoim]

Personaly I think that making trade automatic once a relation threshold is reached is the perfect solution, and leaving open borders hard to obtein and military only.

 

[Gunner]

That is a good point about the naval movement. It would be bad if Greece, Egypt, and Rome all became permanently trapped in the Med if they couldn't get the newly hard-to-achieve open borders with Spain.

Maybe if you have +1 relations or more with a country then you get open naval borders and allow trade. The more difficult "Open Borders" treaty would allow land units to pass.

 

[DSChapin]

It would be bad if Greece, Egypt, and Rome all became permanently trapped in the Med if they couldn't get the newly hard-to-achieve open borders with Spain.

In what way would it be "bad"? This is basically what happened for the majority of European history.

 

[Gunner]

I think it would be exceedingly annoying if you were the player and weren't able to move your ships out at all.

 

[Elhoim]

That´s more reason to start a war, wouldn´t it? It would be nice if the AI understood that and ally you in your quest for open seas. Egypt many times build a Suez channel, so if you have a traty with them you could pass through there.

 

[dh_epic]

I wouldn't dare seperate "Right of Passage" from "Trade Between Cities". While it might be realistic, we're talking about something FUNDAMENTAL to the game balance of Civilization 4. When Open Borders means YES you get more trade revenue, but you also give them access to explore your lands -- it's a much harder decision. Seperate the two, and you're back to Civ 3 "no brainer" choices -- the trade component will always be good, and the military component will be avoided as much as possible.

 

[Prestidigitator]

IMO, it is more reasonable and realistic for open borders to be established ONLY when the other side is 'Friendly', why give the open border right to a country when your'e caution about them ?

 

[Elhoim]

I wouldn't dare seperate "Right of Passage" from "Trade Between Cities". While it might be realistic, we're talking about something FUNDAMENTAL to the game balance of Civilization 4. When Open Borders means YES you get more trade revenue, but you also give them access to explore your lands -- it's a much harder decision. Seperate the two, and you're back to Civ 3 "no brainer" choices -- the trade component will always be good, and the military component will be avoided as much as possible.

The idea was that the trade passage would also allow missionaries and non-military units like explorers and workers, so that the balance is manteined in that regard.