Partly Open Borders

[Lordclane]

Open vs. closed borders seems a bit extreme. Right now, I always play with closed borders to keep hordes of settlers from other countries infiltrating my areas. There's also the strategy of setting up blocking regions to keep settlers from moving into areas before you can occupy them. Maybe in Civ5, this could be made a bit more sophisticated. Consider several alternatives:

- Fully closed borders, like now.
- Closed borders only applies to large groups (settlers, workers, armies).
Explorers, leaders and religous types culd cross.
- Borders closed (or open) to specific classes: i.e., settlers, armies, workers,
individuals, naval vessels, aircraft.
- Sealanes - allow naval passage... perhaps in specifically selected passages.
- Come to think of it, opening specific squares of ANY type to unit types (see
above) of specific other countries might be an interesting bargaining item.
- High seas - Limit cultural areas to one square from the coast.


Just some ideas....

 

[niels251]

i think your right there should be an extra ste between open borders and closed borders.

But this should be in mine opion something like non-agrreseive type units may still come in and agressive units not.

More treaties would maken the game to complex and exploitable by the human.

 

[Andraeianus I]

I would like a distinction between open borders for trade and open borders for units.

 

[LlamaCat]

I would like a distinction between open borders for trade and open borders for units.

but that makes no sense in real life... how do you trade without movement of units between nations? I think that's kind of getting a little too extreme. I like the idea though of limited borders.

they could make the borders leak, like they do in real life...so if you send a settler into their territory, there is a % chance it will get caught and convert citizenship and become a worker for them (and vice versa for you).

and if you have closed borders, it doesn't mean military units should not be able to cross over anyway without an official declaration of war. it could give some options: you declare war; or you hold the unit in prison with the longer you holding it the further relations deteriorate, etc; or you exchange the unit back to them for some gold or other tech, etc.

 

[Silver Marmot]

I just wish the AI was smart enough not to settle cities right in the middle of my territory, then this option wouldn't be needed. I guess it's programmed to settle wherever it can, and if the only spot is a far-away desert surrounded by someone else's culture, it will go for it. It's quite unrealistic too.

 

[hossam]

i liked how in civ 3 you could cross the ai's borders without them neccesarily being able to cross your borders

 

[Pantastic]

but that makes no sense in real life... how do you trade without movement of units between nations?

That is the status quo in real life, there are a lot of nations that trade but don't allow troops to cross their borders. For example, Russia trades a lot with Europe and the US, but didn't allow the US to base planes in Russian territory near Afghanistan or stage troops from there. Germany traded with Belgium before WW1 and WW2, but had to declare war in order to move troops through to attack France.

 

[18lama]

Simple: Have 2 separate treaties.

One for Trading.

and One for military/domestic unit movement.

 

[BoydofZINJ]

Maybe it should be

"OPEN BORDERS TO ALL UNITS." (current way)

"Open borders minus your Settlers" (other units are free to go in)

"Open borders minus your settlers and combat units" (scouts, workers, and religious/corporation people may enter)

"Completely closed border" (current way)

 

[Atreyu]

i liked how in civ 3 you could cross the ai's borders without them neccesarily being able to cross your borders

Though you'd need a wall of soldiers to prevent the AI to sneak in and backstab you

 

[King Flevance]

As soon as you pull away from these 2:
Open Borders: Trade Routes
Open Borders: Unit Passage/Stationing.

Then is when it becomes too complicated for no reason, (other than someone out there is annoyed by something.) and exploitable. I mean, If I could have the option of opening borders and NEVER letting your settlers through, why would I ever allow your settlers to pass through if I could help it? Ais cant comprehend this. But they can comprehend allowing troop movement, and trade bonuses.

Also, opening borders in each catagory should give its own modifier. For example, if you have trade open borders open for a while you get a +2 for those open borders. Opening 'troop' borders gives the bonus of an additional +2 for a total of +4.

 

[Pantastic]

I agree that there shouldn't be a whole lot of options, just 'Trade and non-military units' or 'All units'. Stuff like 'no settlers' isn't really an actual option, why would you ever turn that one on even for an ally? You might as well just make a rule 'settlers can never cross anyone's borders'.

Settlers should be treated the same as non-combat units, especially since in real terms they often wouldn't be one coherent batch but instead would be a stream of various individuals and families over time.

 

[synyster]

Yea i think there should be open borders for trade & a right of passage for troops. Wasnt there something like this in Civ3

 

[BoydofZINJ]

Sometimes, especially, in PvP games you do want your allies to move their settlers to move thru your borders. However, sometimes you do not!

Its all about situations. And sometimes you want your friends to pass thru your borders with scouts so they can make contact and hopefully get people to trade techs you can not get from more hostile nations and you turn around and trade it with a more agreeable person.

 

[Andraeianus I]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Andraeianus I
I would like a distinction between open borders for trade and open borders for units.

but that makes no sense in real life... how do you trade without movement of units between nations? I think that's kind of getting a little too extreme. I like the idea though of limited borders.

It was that in Europe: first we started with open borders for trade and now we citizens can move freely without showing our passports. Free troops movement is probably only allowed within NATO.

The current situation is rather extreme: open borders means free trade AND free movement.

 

[Shaded]

You are thinking too realistically...

The problem here is that the game tries to provide "interesting decisions" to deliver fun.

Current open borders decision is an "interesting" one, because it has balanced positive effects and negative effects.

If one decision in game has only positive effect for you and does not have any negative effect, than everyone will pick it up.

If you divide the open borders to 2 types as "open borders for trade" and "open borders for enemy units" , than everyone will accept the first one and will not accept the second one, as first one has no negative effects, and the second one has no positive effects.

Thats why "sid meier" was a great designer

 

[Spaced out]

You are thinking too realistically...

The problem here is that the game tries to provide "interesting decisions" to deliver fun.

Current open borders decision is an "interesting" one, because it has balanced positive effects and negative effects.

If one decision in game has only positive effect for you and does not have any negative effect, than everyone will pick it up.

If you divide the open borders to 2 types as "open borders for trade" and "open borders for enemy units" , than everyone will accept the first one and will not accept the second one, as first one has no negative effects, and the second one has no positive effects.

Thats why "sid meier" was a great designer

The negative effect witht the first one are the "You've traded with our worst enemy." And the demands for you to stop trading. Also there is no positive effect of 1 if you are running mercantilism. Also the A.I. is also getting from the trade routes so even your enemy gains when you do.

Then negative effect with the second one is that the A.I. can be coded to not like to sign it with other countries so your units could rarely scout out the A.I. (except for spies). Also if you have a vassal or someone is in a war with you then you will want to open unit borders. Also you need to open unit borders to send missionaries and executives. Maybe you need 2 more relation points to get them from pleased to friendly to get some cheap techs from them.

There could be another 25 or 50% multiplyer for trade routes if unit open borders are signed.

It only takes a little bit of extra thought to give ideas that are not even in the game yet both positive and negative effects. I'm sure there is a good reason why Sid just included open and close borders. That does not mean its the greatest way to do things.

 

[Shaded]

The negative effect witht the first one are the "You've traded with our worst enemy." And the demands for you to stop trading. Also there is no positive effect of 1 if you are running mercantilism. Also the A.I. is also getting from the trade routes so even your enemy gains when you do.

The problem is negative effects and the positive effects should be balanced. If one is obviously better, then everyone will pick it up. Worst enemy negative effect is no match for a huge bonus from trade routes.

The merchantalism case is another "interesting decision". It has a positive effect of disabling your opponents trade routes.

Then negative effect with the second one is that the A.I. can be coded to not like to sign it with other countries so your units could rarely scout out the A.I. (except for spies). Also if you have a vassal or someone is in a war with you then you will want to open unit borders. Also you need to open unit borders to send missionaries and executives. Maybe you need 2 more relation points to get them from pleased to friendly to get some cheap techs from them.

You seem to be confused a bit. I didn't say there is no negative effects with the second one. I said that there is no positive effects with the second one. Your example is again a very specific situation. Having a vassal and having someone war with you corressponds to a very little time of frame. There would be no reason to sign long term open borders agreements. It would be just a minor feature.

It only takes a little bit of extra thought to give ideas that are not even in the game yet both positive and negative effects. I'm sure there is a good reason why Sid just included open and close borders. That does not mean its the greatest way to do things.

I didn't mean previous design was perfect. But i wanted to pinpoint that just wanting to have some feature for you does not mean it adds value to the game. People should consider the balanced interesting decision point before spamming nice-looking but game-breaking ideas.

 

[Pantastic]

If you divide the open borders to 2 types as "open borders for trade" and "open borders for enemy units" , than everyone will accept the first one and will not accept the second one, as first one has no negative effects, and the second one has no positive effects.

Why do you think that 'open borders for military units' would have no positive effects? I would expect it to have a stronger "you've helped us" modifier, that AI and player civs would be willing to pay more money/tech to get access to it, and for it to be reciprocal like open borders is now (so that you also get to move through them).

 

[synyster]

The troop movement part of an open border agreement could somehow be worked into a UN/AP resolution?