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

Discussion in 'Civ4 - Fall from Heaven' started by [to_xp]Gekko, Oct 14, 2008.

  1. [to_xp]Gekko

    [to_xp]Gekko QCT junkie

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,942
    Location:
    Seyda Neen, Vvardenfell
    this will probably hard to do and definitely need DLL changes but if there's anyone out there that can make it come true, it's the FFH team ;)

    so, would it be possible to change how Open Borders agreements work so that they're no longer necessarily a 2-directional deal? ( i.e. civ 1 can pass through civ 2 territory, but not vice-versa ) . this would be awesome in adding a whole new strategic level to the game imho. you'd have a lot of options like buying a 10-turn open border from another civ for a lump sum of gold, some gold-per-turn, resources, mana, even techs. or you could sell somebody the right to pass through your territory in return for some money, mana, resources, techs or whatever. would this be doable or is it hard-coded in the game?

    another thing: the biggest gripe I've always had with civ4 is how units get kicked out of rival's cultural borders if they are inside those when you declare war. WTF??!! it's the most gamey and dumb thing ever to see your stack of death end up on the other side of the globe, how did that happen?? especially in a game that claims to be close to a simulation or at least kinda realistic ( vanilla civ of course ) .

    I ABSOLUTELY LOVE how being CoE state religion keeps this from happening. but I think that instead of being a unique thing about CoE, it should be the norm. it makes sooooo much more sense! the CoE could get another nifty perk in return of course. I think this would make the game a lot more fun. if you see enemy stacks of death wandering through your territory, you should be very afraid. not just kick them out automatically, that is lame. it works very nicely as the Elohim worldspell, but it should be limited to that imho ;)

    so, what do people think about these 2 topics?
     
  2. Pyr0mancer

    Pyr0mancer Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2008
    Messages:
    542
    Regarding the first, yes, that would be very nice. I approve.

    Regarding the second, there's a reason that happens. Without the eviction, it becomes far to easy to wipe an AI out by a "sneak" attack. The AI doesn't recognize the stacks-of-doom outside each of its cities as a betrayal preparing to strike.
     
  3. [to_xp]Gekko

    [to_xp]Gekko QCT junkie

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,942
    Location:
    Seyda Neen, Vvardenfell
    that's true, but I'm pretty sure the AI can be taught to recognize those stacks as a possible threat. I'm not saying it will be easy as pie, but it should definitely be doable, afaik.
     
  4. El_Duderino

    El_Duderino Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    153
    Location:
    SanDog
    but allowing anyone to sneak attack takes away one of COE's benefits
     
  5. BugReportage

    BugReportage Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    143
    It'd be much more annoying if I was at war with someone, sending big stacks of doom ACROSS an ally's borders and they they see it as a threat and we take a huge relations drop and thus they declare war on me... :rolleyes:

    Well not annoying for me... I don't ask for open borders, I destroy all your cities, get manes and then kill the person I was out to get in the first place.
     
  6. FireBlaze

    FireBlaze Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 6, 2008
    Messages:
    705
    That's why he said that CoE would get another benifit =P
     
  7. El_Duderino

    El_Duderino Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jan 19, 2008
    Messages:
    153
    Location:
    SanDog
    yeah i didnt read all of his post, but that is COE's biggest benefit, it seems to me that its like giving all religions access to ancient forests not just FOL
     
  8. Arcite36575

    Arcite36575 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2003
    Messages:
    119
    If there's one thing I've learned over playing the last 15 versions of FFH: never underestimate AI stupidity.
     
  9. Kael

    Kael Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 6, 2002
    Messages:
    17,401
    Location:
    Ohio
    I would challenge you to find anywhere Civ4 claims to be realistic or a simulation of any sort.

    In civ3 there was 1 attack method. You got open borders with your neighbor. Your moved your massive army up beside his cities. You declared war and attacked. If you didnt take few cities int he turned you declared war then you were doing something wrong.

    It was the only acceptable strategy, it didnt make any sense (why would any country let you move a massive army right up beside their capital) and it didnt work well.

    So in civ4 they put in the jump to counter that strategy. You are right that its gamey and unrealistic, but its no less gamey than the alternative, its more balanced and easier on the AI.

    If we were to really be realistic then open borders agreements would specify exactly what units could move through a specific set of plots and that sall. But thats not fun for the humans to negotiates and even more difficult for the AI to do well. So we need one of the gamey systems to do it well.

    I like the current way it is, and I like allowing the CoE their special return to the old method, as evil and unbalanced as it is (they are giving up a lot to get it).
     
  10. [to_xp]Gekko

    [to_xp]Gekko QCT junkie

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,942
    Location:
    Seyda Neen, Vvardenfell
    well, I never played Civ3 so I'm not really sure how it USED TO work. Civ4 is definitely not a simulation, but compared to most games out there it's still one that tries to portrait history and so should try to be beliavable, and that mechanic imho ruins the feel. something being gamey is acceptable, but here I think it goes too far :D
    I do understand that there's a reason for setting it the way it is, but I figured that since CoE changed it and it worked for that, it might as well work with everything else. I might be wrong, of course ;)
     
  11. Sofista

    Sofista card-carrying

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,627
    Location:
    Trento, Italy
    Well, actually, it's the idea that a civ (theoretically comparable to "great powers" as they were before the XX century) would admit a foreign army freely into their borders that is completely outside historical realism.
    Civ games accept that exploration might not be necessarily done with recon units as a necessary evil, a compromise that has to be done. Expulsion of enemy units effectively enforces that wars should (and did) start from behind borders.
     
  12. [to_xp]Gekko

    [to_xp]Gekko QCT junkie

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,942
    Location:
    Seyda Neen, Vvardenfell
    that's very true, but I'm not thinking exploration here, I'm really thinking "passing through someone's territory". say that I am Bannor and need to get my army to Dis, and the only way to reach it is passing through Malakim territory. then as my army is having dinner next to Golden Leane, I get corrupted by Hyborem's whisper and decide to attack the city. suddenly, my whole army gets teleported back to where they came from. wow, that's one HUGE spell! :D
     
  13. Sofista

    Sofista card-carrying

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,627
    Location:
    Trento, Italy
    It's frustrating, right, but historically the army from nation A moves across nation B within a higher level of colalboration (anti-Napoleon coalitions, World Wars, you name it). Exceptions, such as Sweden allowing the Wehrmacht through their territory in WWII, were clearly the fruit of an "...or suffer the consequences" sort of proposal.

    And I wish Hyborem had the cleverness to best profit from his spell (well, all in due time). I more often see him grabbing cities one continent away, usually re-absorbed shortly after through cultural assimilation.

    To the topic: I'd welcome even more nuanced diplomacy, but it would need who knows how much AI tweaking to successfuly implement? And if you have to buy a temporary "free pass" through another civ, chances are your relationship is a far cry from "bosom buddy": considering your Golden Leane example, why should leader X let the bulk of your army in at any cost?
     
  14. [to_xp]Gekko

    [to_xp]Gekko QCT junkie

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,942
    Location:
    Seyda Neen, Vvardenfell
    cause I'm willing to pay good money for it, or provide them with the Water Mana they need so badly, for example ;)

    fear of being backstabbed shouldn't be much of a factor anyway. if I really wanted to wipe them out and they didn't grant open borders, I'd just DoW them and take their cities. it's gonna be a little longer than it would otherwise have been of course, but the end result is highly likely to be the same imho ;)
     
  15. Sofista

    Sofista card-carrying

    Joined:
    Oct 16, 2006
    Messages:
    1,627
    Location:
    Trento, Italy
    Let's say you're playing Bannor. How much would you ask Tebryn, presumably at least "annoyed" with you, to pass through with the clear aim of substituting your friendly neighbor with his own unholy minions? :p
     
  16. MagisterCultuum

    MagisterCultuum Great Sage

    Joined:
    Feb 14, 2007
    Messages:
    16,046
    Location:
    Kael's head
    I'd love to be able to get other civ to agree to let me move freely in their territory without letting them in mine, and I'd also like to be able to gift a one way open borders agreement to rivals with whom I share a common enemy in circumstances when they aren't willing to agree to open borders and I don't particularly care to cross through their land anyway. Seeing as how Masters can move freely in Vassals territory while Vassals need an open borders agreement to enter their master's I suspect that allowing one way open borders wouldn't be all that hard (although still above my skill).

    I'd like to be able to specify types or numbers of units too, but that is probably too much trouble. I'd settle for asymmetrical open borders.


    Another think that really annoys me is the diplomatic penalty from when you refuse to join in a war. Could you make it so that you could negotiate in such cases as to whether you'll enter the war, or to give them something other than military support to help their war efforts? I'm fine with this not giving the same bonus as agreeing outright, but I'd like it to prevent the penalty.
     
  17. Mithrus

    Mithrus Chieftain

    Joined:
    May 13, 2004
    Messages:
    173
    Actually, I like the idea of having two levels of open borders. One that only allows for non-combat units (but including the less combat-centric units like some of the boats and the tier 1 disciple units), and the existing one. Essentially, the lesser one would be most useful for exploring, spreading religions, and possibly working around cultural borders (how many times has a neighboring civ block a resource in your borders because the only land route was through theirs?)

    This being the case, the more open borders might even have a negative effect on adjacent civs opinions of both parties (it's pretty obvious you are staging a conflict, why else choose this option?).

    As a possible related event, I could see having a "drug ring" or similar be created as a direct result of the more aggressive open borders. The net effect would increase the inflation of the civ.
     
  18. xienwolf

    xienwolf Chieftain

    Joined:
    Oct 4, 2007
    Messages:
    10,589
    Location:
    Location! Location!
    The only way you could really allow all units to remain in the borders of an enemy would be if you also tied the human's hands on how they can conduct war. Either requiring some couple of turns of announcing your intention before the war actually begins, or requiring that you maintain an "Attitude" indication for every civ you know, making a requirement that it be below a certain threshold to Declare War, and restricting how much you are allowed to change the attitude by each turn (coupled with a "passive zone" which takes a few turns to cross in order to trigger a war which will raise your diplomatic feeling toward the other Civ and lower theirs toward you every turn you are in that particular level of attitude. This would be needed to keep a player from hovering "1 click" from the level allowed to declare war with every civ he ever meets. Ideally you would tie a lot of other aspects of the game into such an indicator as welll though, starting with having your attitude toward the AI influence their attitude toward you even when not in the passive zone)
     
  19. Jean Elcard

    Jean Elcard The Flavournator

    Joined:
    Feb 26, 2006
    Messages:
    1,008
    Location:
    Leipzig, Germany
    What about three levels or three different kinds of open borders. Sometimes I don't want anybody inside my borders, but I would like to conduct trade. Having no foreign trade routes can be crippling.

    1. Open Trade Routes
    2. Open Borders (only non-military units allowed)
    3. Extended Open Borders (military units allowed)
     
  20. [to_xp]Gekko

    [to_xp]Gekko QCT junkie

    Joined:
    Dec 16, 2005
    Messages:
    7,942
    Location:
    Seyda Neen, Vvardenfell
    lots of awesome ideas here. :)

    some more of my take on my "no more stacks getting kicked out of borders when DoWing" crusade :D :

    attacking someone you are not at war with should give you a major attitude penalty with EVERYBODY for being totally untrustworthy. other possible negative effects ( magnitude tied to your attitude with the leader backstabbed - i.e. the friendlier, the worst you get his by these ) include: major unhappiness penalties, revolts, revolutions ( in FFH Revolutions ;) ) , units switching allegiance to other nations. all of this should make backstabbing possible but not suggested , just as it should be. Council of Esus of course would protect against all this bad stuff happening cuz your people love deception ;) ( the attitude penalty for backstabbing should still remain though )
     

Share This Page