permanent borders

[Disgustipated]

I like the idea of having it as an agreement between two states to define each others boarders, that could be an interesting diplomatic arangement.

I agree. I'd like to see borders "finalized"

It's not like we get upset at Canada because of our close borders. I'd imagine we should be doing a helluva culture push into Canada by now. Why hasn't Toronto flipped yet? But then again, they have given us hockey and Michael J. Fox to counteract our culture push.

 

[grant2004]

It does make sense to sign fixed border agreements in some cases. Even as the civ with the strong cultural pressure I'd sign such an agreement with a neighbor if it boosted my relations with them, unless there was an important tile I was close to flipping. I think that's a good gameplay element.

It would also be useful in multiplayer where players can better evaluate their own interests and decide what a fair, and mutually beneficial border agreement would be.

 

[Thyrwyn]

Yes we do. Developers have clearly announced that culture expands borders, but does so one tile at a time, rather than in entire radius jumps.

Source(s)? The GamerNode preview and the Swedish PC Gamer preview both mention that borders expand one hex at a time but neither of them mention culture. The GamerNode preview specifically mentions gold - no mention of culture at all.

Just because the "culture" icon was seen does not mean that it represents culture nor even that it works the same way. Again, Civ 5 != Civ IV

 

[Suho1004]

So basically you do not understand the rules and then get annoyed when the rules are applied?

Close border tension arises when enough border tiles are shared between you and a neighbor. It matter little who settles where, and who the aggressive settler is. As soon as enough borders touch there is border tension. So you may as well settle in the face of the AI, unless you think the AI may indeed declare war over it when you are not ready for it. Aggressive AI's may indeed declare war once you settle close and become a viable target. Peaceful AI's that do not declare each and every game care little about borders, and you may as well settle next to them. Eventually there will be border tension anyway.

Must you start your post by belittling me and my position? Where in my post did I insult anyone else, or invite insult from anyone else? Please explain this to me.

I understand the rules perfectly, I just don't agree with the way they work. It makes sense that close borders would spark tensions no matter who the aggressive settler is. I do not think it makes as much sense that the AI does not distinguish between a situation where I settled aggressively and a situation where the AI itself settled aggressively. After all, the modifier doesn't represent the tension itself, it represents how the AI feels about that tension. And I just think it would make more sense if the AI was more aggravated (bigger negative modifier) if I settled close to its borders.

 

[SuperSatan3]

So basically you do not understand the rules and then get annoyed when the rules are applied?

Your Ad Hominem attack was really uncalled for. As for me, culture is most problematic when vassals or allies are involved. I hate it when 1.) A vassal's boundary cuts into my city or 2.) a vassal or ally is deprived of tiles I can't even make use of(since cities only 20 tiles).

Gameplay >> realism.

What is the point of culture if you just sign an agreement so that it doesn't matter anymore?

The agreement would only affect borders. Do not forget the other two uses of culture which are 1.) Adding defense to your city, and 2.) Winning a cultural victory.

 

[Ahriman]

1.) Adding defense to your city

City defenses are changing significantly, so we don't know how that will work. And we know that city defenses are much less important than they used to be. Even then, that's no value to culture at all from non-border cities.

2.) Winning a cultural victory.

Culture provides no incremental benefits while pursuing this goal, and this provides no benefits from culture anywhere except from your 3 highest culture cities (in Civ4).
This isn't a sufficient benefit for such a major mechanic.

 

[CTH]

As far as I have understand it, the growing of city radius has to do with what hexes you currently use and "want" to use. A river tile will be within your borders before a mountain tile because people would want to "live" at a river tile and therefore it should come within your borders quicker. But there is also a option to invest (it has been hinted that you could invest in more ways than gold) in a tile to make it "grow" into your borders quicker. Exactly how culture will work in civ5 (or if culture is in at all!) is as far as I know still a bit of very unkown information.
And Ahriman, gameplay trumfs realism but realism could create fun gameplay, they dont contridict each other.

 

[Ahriman]

As far as I have understand it, the growing of city radius has to do with what hexes you currently use and "want" to use. A river tile will be within your borders before a mountain tile because people would want to "live" at a river tile and therefore it should come within your borders quicker. But there is also a option to invest (it has been hinted that you could invest in more ways than gold) in a tile to make it "grow" into your borders quicker

This is all true (except that rivers run between hexes, not on hesxes), but they have said (somewhere, I can't be bothered tracking it down right now) that it is culture that drives this process. This is what culture is FOR.

Exactly how culture will work in civ5 (or if culture is in at all!) is as far as I know still a bit of very unkown information.

We know culture is in. We don't know how it will work exactly (we dont' know if it is still city-based, or empire based), but we know its primary purpose is for expanding borders.

And Ahriman, gameplay trumfs realism but realism could create fun gameplay, they dont contridict each other

Without any specific content, this is a fairly meaningless statement.
Culture's primary purpose is to expand borders. Its a major mechanic in the game. Having some diplomatic agreement that removes the main impact of culture is not good for gameplay, because it undermines the existing game engine.

 

[Thyrwyn]

@Ahriman: Could you please provide a source for this: "We know culture is in. We don't know how it will work exactly (we dont' know if it is still city-based, or empire based), but we know its primary purpose is for expanding borders." Please see my earlier post.

 

[awesome]

culture in the game represents more than just plays and musicals. let's use the example of texas. tons of americans were settling in mexico so those people decided that they didn't want that land to be part of mexico anymore. long story short, look at a map and you'll see that they got what they wanted. that's more of what a cultural flip represents than just liking their theaters more than ours.

 

[The_Reckoning]

I like the idea a lot. Set Permanent Borders as a diplomacy option. Stops the border sway, improves relations. Could make it so individual sections of land are exchangeable, with minimum requirements like % culture.

I have to mention I have a massive gripe with the way borders look in the screenshots. They should be straightened and organically warped based on the culture swing, rather than being hexagonally-warped circles.

 

[CTH]

This is all true (except that rivers run between hexes, not on hesxes), but they have said (somewhere, I can't be bothered tracking it down right now) that it is culture that drives this process. This is what culture is FOR.


We know culture is in. We don't know how it will work exactly (we dont' know if it is still city-based, or empire based), but we know its primary purpose is for expanding borders.


Without any specific content, this is a fairly meaningless statement.
Culture's primary purpose is to expand borders. Its a major mechanic in the game. Having some diplomatic agreement that removes the main impact of culture is not good for gameplay, because it undermines the existing game engine.

You know what I mean with a river tile, a tile that has river acess. All I can find about culture is http://au.pc.ign.com/articles/107/1075587p1.html that say that there is culture in the game but not what its purpose is. There is not anything else about it in the Civ 5 Confirmed features thread either. I am not saying that you are wrong but I have not seen any information that say what culture in civ 5 does. Please provide a source for what culture does in Civ 5.

An example where realism dont hurt gameplay is, in civ4, that you can move troops quicker on roads and on railrods. It is realistic and it is good for the gameplay. Or that you need horses to build horse archers, also realistic and is not in the way of gameplay. I know that these are very basic examples but I didnt say that gameplay and realism allways works togheter, but just saying that beacuse a feature is realistic then it is not good for the gameplay is wrong.

 

[LDiCesare]

How can you force them? An optimal AI would only sign the treaty if its in their interest.
[An optimal AI is a fiction though. In reality it would be very hard to get an AI that would understand whether or not it should sign such a treaty - and how much gold they would be willing to pay to sign such a treaty.]

Besides, it already sounds like you'll be able to trade land, so its much cleaner if you just use culture to take their tiles, then sell it back to them.


No idea what you mean here. How is this related to culture?

Force? Why would you have to force to get a deal. It can be in both parties' interests.
A fixed border as I see it is just a particular case of selling land: For instance, you pay someone a given gpt to automatically get a tile of land back when it culturally flips, rather than have to wait for it to happen and then spend a big lump of cash once, while losing the benefits of owning the land during that turn.

Backstabbing is realted to culture as in: I cancel the fixed borders treaty. Next turn, culture flips a few tiles and I get some free territory making it easier for me to attack the enemy. I call it backstab because you actually cancel a deal that the partner expected would give him some free room. Probably easily exploited if it's in, however.

 

[Osama Bin Davis]

Culture's primary purpose is to expand borders. Its a major mechanic in the game. Having some diplomatic agreement that removes the main impact of culture is not good for gameplay, because it undermines the existing game engine.

you could still have both. just cause you sign a permanent border treaty doesnt mean a city couldnt flip, it would just mean you would have to put in alot more effort to get it.

 

[Kazimierz Wielk]

culture in the game represents more than just plays and musicals. let's use the example of texas. tons of americans were settling in mexico so those people decided that they didn't want that land to be part of mexico anymore. long story short, look at a map and you'll see that they got what they wanted. that's more of what a cultural flip represents than just liking their theaters more than ours.

That example isn't as clear cut as you think. The people in the region of Tejas rebelled against Mexico and set up their own country. The country had many issues (including economic), so they asked to join the US many times and were turned down many times. Eventually, a rather greedy president (Polk) allowed the annexation and eventually instigated a war with Mexico so that he could get what is now the Southwest. It was not a cultural flip which saw the US borders expand in to Mexico as a result of culture.

While I doubt it would be implemented, I think it is realistic to have some sort of settled borders among friendlies and agreements among not-so-friendlies. It doesn't remove the cultural component unless you choose to make such an agreement with all your neighbors. That would be a personal game-play choice.

In reality, there is no border changes without war or political agreement. It doesn't "just happen" that territory gets reassigned to another nation because of the people their speak a certain language or have certain cultural characteristics.

 

[Ahriman]

In reality, there is no border changes without war or political agreement.

Yes, and border changes by culture are modelling those that occurred by political agreement. The idea are like 19th century European political agreements, where a conference of Great Powers would get called together to arbitrate some political dispute (particularly over colonial land), and those with more clout were typically awarded the claim.

More importantly, its a way of making culture important in-game and make pursuing culture a viable strategy, which is hard to do in a design sense because IRL culture is a fairly ephemeral thing.

 

[Kazimierz Wielk]

Political agreements occur between countries on a diplomatic level, via agreement by both parties, not land simply shifting alliances. The expansion of borders via culture in Civ IV does not model the political agreements. When my only iron deposit is located equidistant between my city and a neighbor's city and then the land passes to my neighbor, it is not modeling a political agreement on my part. I did not agree to it.

I can see culturally-caused expansion into unclaimed areas as realistic. Such expansion into the territories of someone else, is not realistic. The only way land exchanges occur in real life is through war or political agreement.

 

[Ahriman]

Political agreements occur between countries on a diplomatic level, via agreement by both parties, not land simply shifting alliances. The expansion of borders via culture in Civ IV does not model the political agreements. When my only iron deposit is located equidistant between my city and a neighbor's city and then the land passes to my neighbor, it is not modeling a political agreement on my part. I did not agree to it.

There are many, many political land changes in history where one side was basically pressured/forced into it by the acceptance of the international body politic (ie the Great Powers).

Think: German annexation of the Sudenland. Do you think the Czechs wanted that? No, they were forced into it.
Think: Russia and the Kuril Islands
Think: the boundaries of the Warsaw Pact (and whether the Soviets would get Greece or not)
Think: all the colonial bounaries in Africa
Think: Treaty of Tordesillas
Think: borders of the British/French mandates in the middle east

Plenty of political decisions about borders and ownership occurred without the consent of the locals. Adjudication of rival territorial claims were commonly made through politics rather than consent or warfare.

I agree that it in realism terms its a bit of a messy mechanic, but its a simple way to make production of culture and political power actually meaningful within the Civ engine.

Can you think of a simpler way to make culture meaningful than to have it influence borders?

 

[helpless_writer]

The easiest way to make culture meaningful would have it represent influence.

And this influence could affect how the people see you which would equal to how the representative sees you. So when you expand your culture's ideals into another civilization it could be no big deal if the two civilizations are similar, be beneficial in terms of science and commerce opportunities or if its a very conservative/communist like civ then there could be conflicts.

Kind of like how most of the Great Powers try to spread their culture/influence.

 

[Ahriman]

The easiest way to make culture meaningful would have it represent influence.

It already does. And influence gets you more land.

We do *not* want to complicate the culture mechanic with the social policies and diplomacy mechanics.