Open Borders

[El_Duderino]

i like jean elcards ideas on different levels of open borders, because international trade is a huge boost to your economy (and the ai's, the sidar and savartalfar never sign open borders to me unless their vassals to me and their economy suffers from lack of international trade and they fall behind in techs) but i still dont think that religions other than COE should be able to do a sneak attack, the ai would have no idea how to respond to it and i doubt the ai would know how to use it (and the ai is handicapped enough as it is). and it also makes COE too similar to the other religions

i just got back to base from the bar so if this is unintelligible i apologize

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

@El_Duderino: what about the ideas in my last post? I think that if it worked like that, backstabbing would be possible but end up being more detrimental than beneficial, effectively keeping civs from doing it 90% of the time. Council of Esus followers OTOH would still be able to be the treacherous backstabbing baddies they are

 

[onedreamer]

I don't understand why going through all this hassle. The Civ3 open borders (called right of passage back then) wasn't more realistic than Civ4 system. In reality a right of passage isn't bought but agreed between 2 allied parties during a war. In times of peace, no nation would let foreign armed forces enter their borders, not for money and not for anything else. But this would be too harsh on Civ's gameplay, so in this game it won't work like in reality. Many things don't, after all.

 

[Jean Elcard]

In times of peace, no nation would let foreign armed forces enter their borders, not for money and not for anything else.

That's new to me. There are quite some places on earth, where one nation did or does station troops or other military equipment in another countries territory. I'm thinking of US Patriot rockets in Poland for example. Not that I want a discussion about right or wrong of such doing here.

 

[onedreamer]

they are both members of an alliance.

 

[Jean Elcard]

they are both members of an alliance.

Right, they are bot NATO members.

Whatever, from a Civilization 4 perspective there should be at least two different agreements. Maybe three, but I'm not sure if the second is really necessary. One for trade routes and and one for military units. In which class to put the non-military units, I'm not sure.

Another, more difficult appoach would be to restrict the number of own units allowed at the same point of time in the foreign country.

 

[onedreamer]

well, apparently at least two levels sounds good because the trading part and the right of passage part are two very different things. But you are still looking at all this with realism in mind, while the current set up has a strategic value that goes beyond this: in Civ4, trade routes have great positive impact on a civ's economy. Now, if there is no downside for this whatsoever, opening your borders to anyone would be the obvious thing to do. While this downside should probably be an economic one, it seems Firaxis thought that it was easier to implement it so that opening your borders would be a double edged weapon, but I don't think it should go as far as not kicking units out of borders in case of declaration of war because the AI would simply not understand this. So having two layers open borders agreements IMO should mean thinking up something to balance foreign trade routes.

About restricting the number of units in foreign territory, maybe it wouldn't so hard since there is already a mechanism that checks for this in the unit upkeep costs. I think that -if it wasn't too complicated- adding unhappiness after a certain limit in the civs cities would be a good counter. Sort of like what happened in SMAC.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

I really like the idea of foreign trade routes being separated from open borders. you are right that it would need some kind of drawback though otherwise opening trade routes would be a no-brainer. I'd suggest giving that some kind of culture penalty to simulate the spread of different cultures and opinions that would make your citizens more aware of other countries and maybe even less trustworthy ( I'm thinking 1984-ish here ) , making you more vulnerable to culture wars ( increased chances of cities revolting, increased "we yearn for motherland" , etc. ) . maybe even a negative culture income like cult of the dragon used to have. it should work imho

 

[Tarquelne]

...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

I'd like that quite a bit. I get a tremendous mileage in Civ games from being Mr. Nice most of the game and then turning into a total bastard when I've got a military advantage. (It seems even worse in BTS when my Universal Suffrage/Emancipated/Free Speech/Free Religion civ goes from peacenik to world-wide-warmonger in 1 turn, featuring lots of starvation-inducing blockades and the mass bombing of civilian targets.)

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

ah! that's my very same default strategy. in vanilla civ4 I used to play Gandhi, pacifist till I get to nukes and then all goes kaboom and I agree that it feels kinda weird

 

[Imuratep]

As Kael said this possibility would be far away from realism. In real world contracts it was specified accurately where you can lead your army and where you can't (for example you may move the line till river x and if you do more you will be the contract is broken and if you don't retreat imidiately you're at war). Normally an open border to an enemy should also include who you hit with that, because the AI gives them to everyone even if they are only cautious, regardless if the person with which you have an open-border-contract wants to attack your best friend. An openborder treaty to an enemy is a declaration of war.
If you're realistic there have to be neutrality pacts in case of war, if you're realistic cultural borders are nonsense (noone accepts a city running over to the enemy without declaring war or at least a certain treaty or a democratic votum like it happened in Germany after WW II), borders are made by negotiations (which are of course influenced by the question of cultural influence), if you're realistic there have to be hard negotiations with everyone who has a certain interest in that area (so a neutral civ won't block ALL your conquered territory by cultural influence). If you're realistic diplomacy is much more important than it is in all parts of civ (except Rhys' and Fall. The first diplomacy system that persuades me. Diplomacy - and bribery - really mattered). You cannot simulate accurately a so complex system as the real world diplomacy, civ will always be a game.
That said your first idea is really good, but your second is far away from realism. I am anyway pleading to separate trade treaties and open-border-treaty, because the first happen quite a lot (even between partners, which don't know each other quite good), but the second needs a high level of trust.

 

[El_Duderino]

@ gekko i guess i just dont see the point of allowing everyone to backstab anytime, currently if you really want to you can just change religions temporarily to COE which would have reprocussions of its own: unhappiness from the lack of temple happiness; you would loose support from neighbors who had your former religion; you would be unable to build new units with medic until you switch back to your original religion (i forget how long the wait period is between revolutions); and you would be unable to build units while in the revolution

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

@Imuratep: of course I don't claim that would be realistic. I'm just saying that seeing a stack getting instantly teleported to a distant location looks very very very VERY weird

 

[Jean Elcard]

I am anyway pleading to separate trade treaties and open-border-treaty, because the first happen quite a lot (even between partners, which don't know each other quite good), but the second needs a high level of trust.

I really like the idea of foreign trade routes being separated from open borders. you are right that it would need some kind of drawback though otherwise opening trade routes would be a no-brainer,

Well, apparently at least two levels sounds good because the trading part and the right of passage part are two very different things. Having two layers open borders agreements IMO should mean thinking up something to balance foreign trade routes.

Good spoken Imuratep. It seems we are getting somewhere here. It think it is consensus, that it is not a bad idea at all to split open borders into two different agreements. If you ask me, the drawback for agreeing to open trade routes is already part of the game. By agreeing to it you are pushing the economy of your rival as well. Sometimes I don't agree to open borders as they are now, especially to open borders with the most powerful nations, because of this sole reason.

 

[Kolath]

Hmm... I fail to see the value added for multiple levels of open borders. It sounds like a pain to micromanage.

 

[Keeper_GFA]

I'm not sure about the multiple border thing either. But asymmetrical Open Borders agreements would be good. Even if the AI isn't willing to give it away, at least it would be an option for the player.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

well for example you could open trade routes without opening borders.

 

[Imuratep]

Hmm... I fail to see the value added for multiple levels of open borders. It sounds like a pain to micromanage.

I remember that in SMAC trade treaties and openborders (friendship treaties) were separated and it was not that hard to manage that. If you mean the realistic open border treaty (accurately adjusted where you may lead your units), I also don't want to see that, because you want to have fun with civ, not to simulate your tour of world domination in reality, want we . I just want two treaties: trade treaty and open-border-treaty (precondition: attitude at least pleased) to make diplomacy more interesting and to avoid attacks through the borders of my best friend.

 

[westamastaflash]

I'td be nice for 2 levels. One level would be "open borders" which would allow open trade routes and the ability for recon units and naval transports to travel through other borders. I think you should only be able to move armies into enemy territory if you have a defense pact with them.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

nice idea about recon units being able to explore with a "lesser" open border, I had thought of something like that. same could apply for elohim disciples ( monks travelling to the unique features ) and lanun ships I guess.