Please give us realistic borders!!!

[Tomice]

My civ4 experience changed since the announcement of civ5. Things I learned to live with due to the lack of a changing possibilty bother me again, and I hope they get improved in the new game!

One of them is: BORDERS!!!

1) The circular spread of your culture often results in loads of useless terrain/ocean within your borders, but you can't reach that one peninsula tile (to keep your rival from settling there). You are forced to build crap cities like that to prevent the AI from having a stronghold in te middle of your territory.
My hope for Civ5: They announced your cities will autospread over fertile land (tile per tile) and you can "buy" tiles in addition. Hopefully this will lead to borders that are formed by geographical landmarks (ocean, deserts, mountain ranges) without the need to build crap cities.

2) Conquering land happened in an unrealistic manner in civ4: tiles shifted randomly in peacetime due to culture, without real-life relation. In reality, borders are not "flowing". Provinces might shift from one empire to another, but usually as a whole in a violent revolution. Also, after conquering a city militarily, the surroundings slowly shifted sides, which never happened this way. A culture shift always affects regions (Like the DDR: they lost their cultural connection to Russia after a while and re-united with west germany. it did not happen on a village-after-village basis from west to east)
My hope: They said cities keep their culture radius when conquered. That woud be great, although resistence against foreign occupation and cultural, peaceful conquering of WHOLE regions/cities should still be in, but more in a "your empire is more advanced/happy than ours, we wanna join you)

3) The strategic importance of ressource tiles (oil!) was never really adressed in the old system, they could shift like everything else.

4) Trading tiles with the AI and shifting tiles from one city to another within your empire should be possible!


What do you think?

 

[Mesodius]

G'day mate, throw another shrimp on the barbie! (just kidding, sorry)

I have always had somewhat of an issue with borders too, perhaps not as much as you. I was merely happy that in Civ 4 they made it so that foreign units cannot enter your borders without a Open Borders agreement. Anyway, on to your points.

1) I like that the borders are going to expand more quickly over fertile terrain, and DEFINITELY like the idea of buying more terrain- though I can think of how easily this could become for either the player or AI to exploit unless done very well.

However, if your borders are going to expand more quickly over fertile terrain, you aren;t going to want to buy that whole useless tundra/desert sitting next your empire. However, you are going to have to waste the resources to do so, because you'll have the age-old problem of the AI building cities in any open spot, regardless of the usefulness of the terrain. In other words, you either buy that entire forested tundra next your your empire, or what you see as a good border suddenly becomes 3-4 AI cities sitting behind your border.

This could be curtailed by making it so that you cannot found cities on useless terrain, of course...

2) Agree completely about the randomly shifting borders during peacetime. I always thought this was pretty dumb. "Oh, guys next door have a superior 'culture'" (whatever that means), "I guess our territory automatically shifts to their empire without any consent from our govt., military action, or diplomatic or political repercussions".

As to cities keeping their culture after conquest- If you remember, there was an option in Civ 3 that you could tic whereby a city would keep its culture after conquest, and I found this option VERY useful in many scenarios.

However, what I think they may do in Civ 5 is have it so that whoever occupied the particular hex last in war is who controls the territory. I like this approach considerably more. Not only is it way more realistic in that you don't automatically control territory within a 300 mile radius of a city just because you happen to conquer it, but because it allows you to actually, realistically siege cities by completely starving it to death via taking its surrounding hexes (without having a unit always sitting on the hex). This makes territory control MUCH more important. Perhaps, after an armistice is signed, a city would automatically control all hexes adjacent to it, regardless of who controlled it last- preventing the city from becoming COMPLETELY useless by being by itself in a hex in the middle of enemy territory.

3) The control of hexes via the method I talk about in #2 would completely solve this problem. You would not automatically control a resource merely because you have the city physically closest to it.

4) Complete agree that trading/buying/selling territory with the AI should be possible, assuming a method can be implemented whereby the player can't find an exploit. I don't know what you mean by "shifting tiles from one city to another within your empire". If you mean using the tiles for food, this is already possible. If you mean the "culture", then getting rid of city culture like I talk about in #2 would make this notion moot.

Hope this post makes sense. It's 05:48 and I've been up all night.

 

[Tomice]

don't know what you mean by "shifting tiles from one city to another within your empire". If you mean using the tiles for food, this is already possible. If you mean the "culture", then getting rid of city culture like I talk about in #2 would make this notion moot.

What I mean:

If your science city happens to be the first to acquire that iron source, you should be able to hand it over to the nearby production city without trouble.

Guess it should be clear now, English beeing my second language makes it harder to make my comments clear and crisp sometimes.

And yes, timezones are a nuisance good post, anyway!

EDIT: I had to look up the "shrimp" thing are you aussie? I'm not sure about your time zone, would have rather guessed hawaii than australia...

 

[Mesodius]

What I mean:

If your science city happens to be the first to acquire that iron source, you should be able to hand it over to the nearby production city without trouble.

Well, I assumed it would be like the other Civs where the iron from the iron resource can be used by any city in your empire so long as it was connected. If you mean working the actual tile, that's already possible. If you mean handing over which cities "culture" controls the iron resource...like I said I don't think it will work like that, and I like the system of territorial control better- You could build a fortress on top of the iron, and that iron would remain yours regardless of what happens to the cities around it, as long as you have a unit sitting on the iron.

Guess it should be clear now, English beeing my second language makes it harder to make my comments clear and crisp sometimes.

Well, your English is a LOT better than my limited German.

And yes, timezones are a nuisance good post, anyway!

EDIT: I had to look up the "shrimp" thing are you aussie? I'm not sure about your time zone, would have rather guessed hawaii than australia...

Thanks!

I'm an American, not an Aussie. Just throwing out terrible Australian (they talk about 'throwing shrimps on the barbie' all the time) and American (we can't tell the difference between Austria and Australia) stereotypes because in other forums which I shan't name I am a filthy, naughty troll.

 

[bob rulz]

Haven't they already confirmed that trading land with the AI will be possible?

 

[Mesodius]

Haven't they already confirmed that trading land with the AI will be possible?

I'm about 90% sure I read that somewhere on this forum, yes.

 

[BlackSpy]

Land trading is one of the first things Firaxis announced, it was with the intial Civ V is coming release.

 

[AlphaShard]

This is what happened with me wides family they came from a small town that was on the German polish border. After the war they still argue on whether the town is more German then polish due to that border.

G'day mate, throw another shrimp on the barbie! (just kidding, sorry)

I have always had somewhat of an issue with borders too, perhaps not as much as you. I was merely happy that in Civ 4 they made it so that foreign units cannot enter your borders without a Open Borders agreement. Anyway, on to your points.

1) I like that the borders are going to expand more quickly over fertile terrain, and DEFINITELY like the idea of buying more terrain- though I can think of how easily this could become for either the player or AI to exploit unless done very well.

However, if your borders are going to expand more quickly over fertile terrain, you aren;t going to want to buy that whole useless tundra/desert sitting next your empire. However, you are going to have to waste the resources to do so, because you'll have the age-old problem of the AI building cities in any open spot, regardless of the usefulness of the terrain. In other words, you either buy that entire forested tundra next your your empire, or what you see as a good border suddenly becomes 3-4 AI cities sitting behind your border.

This could be curtailed by making it so that you cannot found cities on useless terrain, of course...

2) Agree completely about the randomly shifting borders during peacetime. I always thought this was pretty dumb. "Oh, guys next door have a superior 'culture'" (whatever that means), "I guess our territory automatically shifts to their empire without any consent from our govt., military action, or diplomatic or political repercussions".

As to cities keeping their culture after conquest- If you remember, there was an option in Civ 3 that you could tic whereby a city would keep its culture after conquest, and I found this option VERY useful in many scenarios.

However, what I think they may do in Civ 5 is have it so that whoever occupied the particular hex last in war is who controls the territory. I like this approach considerably more. Not only is it way more realistic in that you don't automatically control territory within a 300 mile radius of a city just because you happen to conquer it, but because it allows you to actually, realistically siege cities by completely starving it to death via taking its surrounding hexes (without having a unit always sitting on the hex). This makes territory control MUCH more important. Perhaps, after an armistice is signed, a city would automatically control all hexes adjacent to it, regardless of who controlled it last- preventing the city from becoming COMPLETELY useless by being by itself in a hex in the middle of enemy territory.

3) The control of hexes via the method I talk about in #2 would completely solve this problem. You would not automatically control a resource merely because you have the city physically closest to it.

4) Complete agree that trading/buying/selling territory with the AI should be possible, assuming a method can be implemented whereby the player can't find an exploit. I don't know what you mean by "shifting tiles from one city to another within your empire". If you mean using the tiles for food, this is already possible. If you mean the "culture", then getting rid of city culture like I talk about in #2 would make this notion moot.

Hope this post makes sense. It's 05:48 and I've been up all night.

 

[blacksmit049]

I would like frontlines. I mean extending borders when your military is pushing. Of course that must be implemented during wartime. I just like it though.

 

[The_J]

What do you think?

...that 1, 3 and 4 are already somehow confirmed.

 

[Tomice]

...that 1, 3 and 4 are already somehow confirmed.

My intention behind starting topics is to check the community's opinion. I did realize some things are gonna change in a way I like, but it might also be selective perception.

If people see things the same way I do and are annoyed by similar things and firaxis realizes those opinions - then I can probably rest assured that one of my favourite games turns out the way I want it.

Just a bit of psychology, hope you don't mind!

 

[Carver]

2) Conquering land happened in an unrealistic manner in civ4: tiles shifted randomly in peacetime due to culture, without real-life relation. In reality, borders are not "flowing". Provinces might shift from one empire to another, but usually as a whole in a violent revolution. Also, after conquering a city militarily, the surroundings slowly shifted sides, which never happened this way. A culture shift always affects regions (Like the DDR: they lost their cultural connection to Russia after a while and re-united with west germany. it did not happen on a village-after-village basis from west to east)
My hope: They said cities keep their culture radius when conquered. That woud be great, although resistence against foreign occupation and cultural, peaceful conquering of WHOLE regions/cities should still be in, but more in a "your empire is more advanced/happy than ours, we wanna join you)
What do you think?

Interesting points. However, the "hardening" of borders is a recent event, occurring over the past few hundred years. Prior to that, borders were much more fluid and "flowing."

I would support your idea (in bold) for the period after, say, 1800 AD. But prior to that I think the Civ4 system of tile-by-tile conquest is a good representation.

 

[The_J]

...uh, must have misread this part, #2 was also confirmed. In the german Computer Bild Spiele it was said, that the cultural expansion will not be lost after conquering, and that conquering a city will affect happiness was mentioned here.

 

[weltraeumer]

G'day mate, throw another shrimp on the barbie! (just kidding, sorry)

1) I like that the borders are going to expand more quickly over fertile terrain, and DEFINITELY like the idea of buying more terrain- though I can think of how easily this could become for either the player or AI to exploit unless done very well.


Hope this post makes sense. It's 05:48 and I've been up all night.

"land you cannot defend you do not own" - Strunk

one question about buying terrain: of whom are you buying uncharted land? god? maybe we can look at it like your spending money to get some of your people there and cultivate it... no problems with trading land between you and the ai... but with this uncharted land: another thought would be, if a military unit of yours is standing long enough on a tile (in a certain distance to your nearest city) your borders will spread.
justification in real life are no problem, just look at the romans, military camps resulting in cities. An army is much more than just soldiers...

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I would very much like it if culture could travel to foreign cities via trade routes. Obviously this won't be able to convert those cities over to you like they did in CivIII & CivIV, but it should have impacts on diplomacy, war & the ability to ask for that city in trades (if it gets significantly high). It would also be nice if they could adopt most elements of the Culture Conquest Mod from CivIV, which allowed units to lay down culture on tiles in which they won a battle.

Just a thought .

Aussie.

 

[ArataWata11]

liked most of the idea here, its all great. . .

in addition, the ability to farm or turn into industrial or commercial town a tile near our city which not covered by the city's workable tiles. the benefits of the distant tile turned farm, industry or commerce sud go to nearby city.

in time of war, in case the town occupied by enemy, or the roads connecting such town to the city is occupied or destroyed by the enemy then the benefits stop till the road is fix and the town recapture.

more like a province where you have many towns and all the town's earnings/benefits go to the provincial city.

what do you think guys. . . still sane though