Open borders

[DSChapin]

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.

I would actually say that Trade shouldn't be a choice at all - just an automatic effect of relations. That gives you an incentive to keep your relations high (which does sometimes require complex choices) without actually introducing a direct "trade/no trade" decision.

 

[Gunner]

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.

I disagree. What would be so terribly aweful about changing something that "FUNDAMENTAL" to the game? Wouldn't you consider adding in World Congresses a pretty big change too? What about having all of the civs not start at the same time -- that's something which I would consider as much more fundamental to how Civ4 is played. Change isn't necessarily bad by itself, especially if its something relatively minor like this.

The current system of binding trade and military passage simply doesn't make sense. By changing it so that trade is automatic with +1 relations, it would add extra importance to diplomacy. In addition, going further granting of military passage rights would not be a "no brainer" decision. You would only grant those rights to a civ that you were actually friendly to or if it suited your strategical interests. The rights would obviously have to be reciprocating so there would be pros and cons to weigh.

 

[MrThing]

If it is possible to have trade "by default" once the appropriate tech is discovered, then that would be good.

Then if relations become horrible, trade could cease until such time that relations improve to whatever minimum you want to assign.

Then open boarders would require rather strong relations. I do not think anyone would allow an other nations' armies to cross unless they were friendly enough to welcome at least a defensive alliance (whatever the min relation is for that).

 

[Elhoim]

Hey, I have an idea! If agreements are hardcoded, why not change one the mod doesn´t use? I´m referring to Permanent Alliances! It is possible to use the Open Borders "slot" for trading only, and the Permanent Alliances "slot" for military passage? Of course the names and effects must be changed, or also these are hardcoded?

 

[Gunner]

Hey, I have an idea! If agreements are hardcoded, why not change one the mod doesn´t use? I´m referring to Permanent Alliances! It is possible to use the Open Borders "slot" for trading only, and the Permanent Alliances "slot" for military passage? Of course the names and effects must be changed, or also these are hardcoded?

Thats a good idea! I'm not sure if it works like that, but if it did it would be great.

 

[Arkaeyn]

Well, I'm the one who triggered the no-open-borders discussion, so here goes the history...

I decided to experiment with turning Open Borders off - completely! in order to increase AI tensions and cause more wars as my primary reason. "Our Open Borders Agreement Brings Us +1" seemed unnecessary. Also, the minor annoyances of seeing the Spanish attack me in China by land, or French and Roman cities in the Ukraine seemed to make it worth trying.

Not only did it work, it worked quite nicely. Europe looked more European. Germany and Russia were at each other's throats. The Mongols invaded India, which still might have been a complete fluke.

Then, when I started PLAYING instead of watching, as Rome, it added the strategic considerations of getting to the Atlantic much more pressing. Try to get Kopenhagen? Take out France? Northern Spain? Build a route through Africa?

I didn't even notice that I wasn't getting trade from cities that weren't my own, but then, I'm not much of a micromanager. So I came back and reported that not only was Open Borders kind of historically innaccurate, getting rid of it also helped the game.


I agree with the idea that trade should exist automatically when relations are high enough, however, some leaders (Izzy, Monty, Tokugawa, Genghis) always seem to be grumpy, and this might cripple them further.

I would save Open Borders (as an effect) for Defensive Pacts, Permanent Alliances, and maybe mutual wars with allies with high relations. I think what I would do is make Defensive Pacts appear slightly earlier, include Open Borders, and require a slightly higher friendship level to sign.


Just curious - has anyone else actually played with Open Borders switched off?

 

[dh_epic]

You know, it's a good point... this IS a new game, and a lot of things required for balance can fly out the window.

Still, it's important to be reward peaceful trading behavior... and to offer appropriate risks for every strategy, so they don't become 'no-brainer' decisions.

Something to keep in mind -- whether this gets tampered with or not.

 

[Arkaeyn]

An advantage to making trade tied to relationship is that it requires you to keep your relations happy. As it is, I tend to declare war on my nearest neighbor, regardless of relations with them. If I knew that this could cripple my trade with them in the future, I might instead turn my armies elsewhere.

 

[Rhye]

i'll try in the next build the effect, so everyone will see and judge.
Arkyaen, can you tell me now where did you change that setting so that I don't waste time looking for it?

 

[Elhoim]

If anyone else wishes to test this out, the process is simple enough. Go into the XML of CivilizationTechs, find WRITING, and change Openborders from 1 to 0. That's it!

Quoting him...

 

[MrThing]

I was thinking that it may be good to only have open boarders when allied in a war. So if I am Germany and France wants to to join her against Spain I will be able to move units through France as long as we are both at war with Spain. No netural nation even allows armies to move through their teritory.

Regarding naval acess, I think it may simply be best to let them all ignore borders (same with air unite).

 

[Elhoim]

Personally I didn´t notice open borders harder to get in 0.93...

 

[OzzyKP]

What are people's thoughts on using a system like this:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3879548#post3879548

To replace tech trading.

 

[Arkaeyn]

If it works. Tech trading is annoyingly set in stone. It's better than it used to be, where you click on every diplo screen after getting a new tech just to hit them up for money, but yeah, if it works.

Open Borders still seems to be pretty easy, but I am noticing a lot more AI wars - Egypt got involved! Rome into the Middle East!

 

[Rhye]

What are people's thoughts on using a system like this:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3879548#post3879548

To replace tech trading.

Interesting...has anyone tried how it works in a game?

 

[Eddiit]

What are people's thoughts on using a system like this:
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=3879548#post3879548

To replace tech trading.

What an interesting idea. Does it work?

 

[Blasphemous]

Back in Civ 3, a tech was cheaper the more known rivals knew it (and the more rivals still alive). I guess it's not that way anymore. It should be simple enough to cut down the price of a tech you're researching or to give a bonus to research on it for each civ with good relations (+1 or more), without actually giving a clumsy bonus to each city. It's just too micromanagy to put the bonus in each city instead of setting it for the tech itself. It can still be displayed wherever the cost of, and progress on the tech is displayed, like this:
1567/2456 (3400 - 944)
I do think something like this makes a lot of sense. I'm just not as hostile towards the current model as naf4ever is.

 

[OzzyKP]

Interesting...has anyone tried how it works in a game?

I haven't tried it. But my diplogaming group has our eye on it for our games potentially.

 

[Elhoim]

I always found it very nice, but I did not try it myself.

Rhye, what do you think about what I said before?

Hey, I have an idea! If agreements are hardcoded, why not change one the mod doesn´t use? I´m referring to Permanent Alliances! It is possible to use the Open Borders "slot" for trading only, and the Permanent Alliances "slot" for military passage? Of course the names and effects must be changed, or also these are hardcoded?

 

[Rhye]

I always found it very nice, but I did not try it myself.

Rhye, what do you think about what I said before?

It is a complex change, will require some time. In the meantime, let's see how it works with raised thresholds. Download the patch from the 093 thread