permanent borders

[ozzmatt83]

i would like to see cultural influence used to peel back the fog of war. if a neighbor is heavily influenced by your culture, it should have the same effect as the holy shrine does with visibility.


------
'we liberated the out of them sir'

 

[Kazimierz Wielk]

Think: German annexation of the Sudenland. Do you think the Czechs wanted that? No, they were forced into it. (ACCEPT OR THERE WILL BE WAR - POLITICAL CHOICE MADE)


Think: Russia and the Kuril Islands (RESULT OF WAR - WWII)

Think: the boundaries of the Warsaw Pact (and whether the Soviets would get Greece or not) (PUPPET GOV'Ts ESTABLISHED AS A RESULT OF WAR)

Think: all the colonial bounaries in Africa (POLITICAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLONIAL POWERS)

Think: Treaty of Tordesillas (POLITICAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN COLONIAL POWERS)

Think: borders of the British/French mandates in the middle east (POLITICAL AGREEMENT AS A RESULT OF WAR)

Again, culture is separate from politics with regards to land when dealing with unclaimed land. Once an area is claimed by a political entity, then the decisions related to land become political.

In terms of what effect, if any, culture could have, one would need to look at what culture does in the world today. It affects trade/wealth (the sale of culturally tied goods/services [such as music, entertainment, clothing, etc....). It affects political relationships (through linguistic, religious, cultural norms, cultural misunderstandings, etc...).

I sense you are defending the purity of culture only affecting borders for fear that culture will become relegated to a minor status in the game. That shouldn't be an argument against an idea that actually makes the game more realistic and detailed. There are other places where culture could influence other things (especially since it could fill in the void left behind by the anticipated reworking of the religion system).

 

[awesome]

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.

i know american history. i said "long story short" for a reason and meant it literally.

 

[Ramanag]

This idea intrigues me.

 

[Noddahrassa]

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.

I like your idea very much. It would be quite a simple way to settle borders. You just fix the status quo, and if the deal is cancelled, the culture rule applies again.

The problem I have with land deals and selling tiles is that I don't really know how it is supposed to happen. Do you really want to negotiate with the AI separately for every single tile along your borders? Apart from sounding like terrible micromanagement, how is that going to work in detail? And what will be the fate of tiles thus sold? Will they belong to the other party forever, no matter what happens later? Even if land deals are void when war is declared, strange things can happen in peacetime. Suppose you buy a few tiles along your border to fix it, but then the other guy's culture expands so much as to make tiles in the second row flip for which you have no deal. And now he can't be bothered to sell you these. You would end up with a strip of land engulfed by foreign territory, and I suppose among AI civs this would be a common sight. What if a third party comes in conquering? Etc.

Another possibility, which I think is quite realistic, is that every tile belongs by default to the civ whose cultural borders first expanded to it, and this remains so until a deal is struck or conquests are made. Culture would only influence this by determining which tiles are available for purchase (those which you would have if the other civ hadn't got there first). This would still oblige you to buy tiles you want to have one by one (or conquer them with a unit), but it would be comparable to real land negotiations, and you could rely on the territory you have until you sell it or lose it in war.

 

[CyberChrist]

Buying a piece a land could simply mean that the buyer gain all the culture that the seller have already build up in that tile/plot. The amount of culture transfered would then also be a factor in determining the price.

 

[Ahriman]

[Note; my comments are educated speculation, not established fact.]

The problem I have with land deals and selling tiles is that I don't really know how it is supposed to happen. Do you really want to negotiate with the AI separately for every single tile along your borders?

My guess is that you could shift select or drag/paint a block of tiles.

And what will be the fate of tiles thus sold?

It will transfer tile ownership from one civ to another.

My guess is that tile culture is massively simplified. No longer will we have a complex mix where each tile has cultural influence on it from multiple nearby cities of multiple factions. Instead, each tile will just have a single owner. When your culture passes the next increment marker, you get an extra tile. When my culture passes the next increment marker, I get an extra tile. If I'm producing culture faster than you are, then the net effect over time will be for me to gain tiles at your expense.
So Cyber's issue where culture is something that is "built up" in a particular tile would be gone.

Will they belong to the other party forever, no matter what happens later?

It won't matter whether you gained a tile through culture or purchase, you keep the tile but can still lose it through culture or you can sell it back to them.

Suppose you buy a few tiles along your border to fix it, but then the other guy's culture expands so much as to make tiles in the second row flip for which you have no deal.

This would not be possible if they use the system I imagine.
If the other guys culture expands, then it will take back the culture he sold to you first, because those tiles are closer.

Another possibility, which I think is quite realistic, is that every tile belongs by default to the civ whose cultural borders first expanded to it, and this remains so until a deal is struck or conquests are made.

I doubt it. This would dramatically weaken culture, and favor mass rapid expansion. Too much of a bonus for the "winner" of the early expansion race.

 

[Noddahrassa]

OK, I see your system. I suppose this would work as well.

I doubt it. This would dramatically weaken culture, and favor mass rapid expansion. Too much of a bonus for the "winner" of the early expansion race.

Well, then you'll have to go to war over it, like in real life. Or make the ubiquitous AI extortion: "I demand that you give us the following tract of land:" If you are weak, it would be wise to comply. You can also call the bluff and refuse, like when they want money or techs.

It is simply more realistic to have negotiations settle the issue rather than an automatic tile-flipping mechanism. Territory I occupied is mine, and if somebody wants to take it, they gotta ask or fight for it, not just sneak up on my borders and start building temples.

 

[Zhahz]

I'm for gameplay (since it is a game) over attempted realism (which will most certainly fail or have flaws, especially when tied to AI's and diplomcay).

The way culture and borders work in Civ IV is pretty slick - expanding/refining that system would be good.

 

[metsfan33]

i would would like to point something out. to those of you that have played the 1000 ad scenario, you probably know that France, and more specifically Paris, can easily become a culture whore. i' ve had games where i take over london, corodba, and even rome. while it'scertainly fun, it's certainly not realistic. so what would you prefer: realism, or gameplay that strays tofar from realism?

 

[Sir Spanky]

I have wanted Static (set) Borders for a long time and just recently have been thinking about how to implement them. I play all my Civ IV games using extremely large maps so having a neighbor civ being a close neighbor is unlikely where everyone has room to expand to 30 or so cities easily without coming into contact with another civs borders. Which leads me to think about the American West after all the wars and all the was settled there was all this unsettled land inside the borders of America. But there would be a need for a few new game play mechanics. 1.) Static Border Set
2.) Border Conflicts (Without Full War)
3.) Worker Colony (From Civ 3)

1- The ability to set your Nations Static Border after reaching Map Making(Possibly)

By using the Globe view, Strategic View, you may set your national borders beyond your current culture borders. The Static Border will not expand your sight radius or your culture border to the static border but will allow other nations show that you as a Sovereign Nation lay claim to the land beyond the border. This should show up as a darkened area of your nations culture color instead of the bright color.

2- The Static Border will not stop other nations from pushing into the lands or settling the lands and will not start automatic war with your country. Instead we introduce a new game play feature. Border Conflict - the area where between your border and culture border that an enemy country lays claim or has settled without consent can start a border conflict where all military units maybe attacked without enacting full war. This includes cities that lay within the two different static borders set by you and your rival. Border Conflicts can escalate into full blown war. Border conflicts are settled in a couple ways. War is declared and one side defeats the other or a diplomatic solution comes with an agreement on the border line between the countries involved.

Static Borders stop all Culture Borders from expanding beyond the line set but not the culture. A city on the other side can still flip but it will have to ask for permission... - could implement Civil War mechanic if denied permission?

Land Claiming... Ever see a random island that you wanted but you couldn't get to for whatever reason? Claim it with Static Border (small to medium (yea yea, I know it depends on map size) islands only). Must have a fort and a defending land unit on the Island to hold claim to it. - Can be involved with Border conflict.

3- Bring back worker colonies from Civ III
Probably one of the best ideas of Civ III the worker Colony. Reintroduce it with Civ V or VI but this time give the colony a little life... the worker colony can get Religion gain a culture border 1 radius from the colony around. Plus you may build things to upgrade the output of the colony (Resources)? And Along side worker Colonies there should be Worker Ports... Where you have an island with resources but you really don't want to place a city on it... blam... a worker port and Worker colonies.

Other - I would also love to see some new things such as Naval Bases and Air Bases (returned) to the game. Each allowing a few things. Naval Bases, can be placed on any sea tile that leads to ocean to allow for naval ships to out Sea and have a place to call Home. (random) Air Bases allow you to add air power any where you need it. They also can repair damage units not close to home. They must be guarded by ground forces or can be taken over by enemies.

Ideas, thoughts... I know its a half an half post... sorry.