• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Proposal Workshop: Open Borderlands

Tekamthi

Emperor
Joined
Aug 12, 2016
Messages
1,717
edit: discussion has led in a different direction, see post #18, below

posted this in the other proposal workshop thread, but it got lost there. Curious whether this could work with VP -- especially interested in dev feedback, as it would require .dll work if at all possible, but general gameplay thoughts are welcome too

Proposal idea:
Early form of open borders, "open borderlands": functions similarly to OB, but only in plots at edge of a player's territory, ie. allows access to the perimeter of a civ's borders

Complex proposal: Would require DLL work, cannot be database modded without huge workarounds in lua

In-game Prereqs:

  1. writing researched
  2. embassy established
  3. DoF
In-game Functionality:
  1. available via trade/diplomacy screen, if granted by Player A to Player B, Player B's units can travel through all land and water plots owned by Player A that are either:
    • adjacent to unowned plot
    • OR
    • adjacent to rival player plots
    • (any plot owned by Player A that is surrounded completely by plots owned by Player A is not accessible to Player B, until OB or war)
  2. OBlands is pre-req to OB: when OB becomes available, players must first acquire OBlands before OB is available in diplo screen
AI logic:
same evaluation as open borders, just earlier

Purpose & rationale:

  1. Add some depth to early warfare, add some weight to war declarations that are borderlocked into never attacking anyway, etc.
  2. Give stuck scouts a way to get home. The common argument here is that stuck scouts are a failed skill check -- but diplomacy game requires some skill to manage too, so we're just shifting the skill required.
  3. Improved thematic/gameplay alignment: ancient borders as represented in civ 5 are too restrictive compared to historical examples, especially water borders
 
Last edited:
posted this in the other proposal workshop thread, but it got lost there. Curious whether this could work with VP -- especially interested in dev feedback, as it would require .dll work if at all possible, but general gameplay thoughts are welcome too
What happens to existing Open Borderlands deals when the Open Borders technology is unlocked?

The pathfinder would need to be updated, and few people touch that part of the code.
 
Good point. This is the kind of issue I had in mind by including the "optional function":

Optional function: open borderlands is pre-req to open borders, possibly simplifying things for AI: when open borders becomes available, they won't have to decide between both simultaneously.

...once OB tech is unlocked, players with OBlands can immediately agree to OB. Players without any pre-existing agreement need to get OBlands first, then on next diplo interaction full OB is available.

sounds simple enough in my head, but y'all are good at pointing out conflicts and special cases where things break down, or where simple ideas are rather complicated in .dll

pathfinding would be possible issue -- there would be some 1-plot wide corridors, though existing pathfinding can navigate corridors like this when its thin strips of land. Additionally, any units parked in border plots may block usefulness of this feature. Same happens in OB sometimes, but may be more common with this draft proposal. Also mountains in borderlands may render these agreements useless -- human could figure this out, but AI? strikes me as a minority of cases, but these are the issues I've conceived of so far. Hoping this thread might flesh out some workarounds, or maybe just determine with certainty that there are none.
 
Early wars between two empires will look ridiculous. if there is a neutral 3rd empire near them that gives access to its borders. And wars will look completely stupid if a neutral empire is between two warring parties.
 
in the case where both have access to the 3rd party's borderlands, yes, kinda see what you're saying: they'll be fighting down a single corridor and will likely stagnate somewhere in the middle.

i expect more often one or the other will have OBlands, not both... in such case enemy units will push into the other's territory, and war will occur there ~normally. The withdrawal afterwards is where it gets tricky, maybe.. potential to get stuck if OBlands expires mid-war, could see this being a problem without AI planning ahead appropriately... but this issue is present with OB too
 
Last edited:
I'll be honest I am not really sure what this mechanic does. Are you saying it allows me to move through a plot that is on the edge of someone else's territory (but still within their territory?).
 
I'll clarify OP a little when next at my PC... Think of it like you're granting OB but only for the plots at the edge, or perimeter of your territory: Player A gives some other player OBlands via diplo screen, that other player can now travel through player A owned plots that either I) are adjacent to unowned plot, or II) adjacent to a plot owned by any other civ. A plot owned by player A, and surrounded completely by other plots owned by player A, would remain inaccessible to anyone but player A, or those at war with player A (ie status quo pre-OB plot access rules). No effects on any plots not owned by player A.

edit: reformatted & simplified OP
 
Last edited:
This will lead to AI placing their cities in the most unpredictable places, going as settlers where they couldn’t before and interfering with each other’s normal development. It is impossible to predict further how this will affect diplomacy. Will any alliances be possible on one continent or will everyone fight, regularly founding cities near someone else’s capital?

By the time the Open Borders technology is achieved, empires manage to capture enough territory to prevent the establishment of foreign cities too close.
 
That's an interesting point, I guess I sweep pretty much all forward settling concerns into the "solvable via war" category. On my typical game of 43-civ, almost all available city spots are snatched up in ancient or early classical. Founding still happens afterwards but only via razing or on ocean-obstructed islands.

Since we're just theory crafting anyway, could just exclude civilians I suppose, though this would be a significant limitation.
 
I like the Civ 6 approach to borders: All borders are Open by default, and you unlock Closed Borders with a tech.

It solves recon getting caught in the early game, it's truer to history, and it pairs closing of borders with the ability to also purchase open borders, so you never have a situation where your ally is blocking your path while also no being able to allow you entry.

In this case I'd probably consider moving Closed Borders/Open Border Agreements a little sooner than Civil Service, it seems like a long time to not be able to enforce borders. Civ 6 also has UI that makes it clear that borders are open (dotted borders), which close up once the civ researches borders, so you can see at a glance why you can't run through a space; Civ 5 wouldn't have that, so it would be less clear. And the AI settling too-remote cities just because it can would be potentially devastating, if it's wasting resources just to feed cities to neighbors.
 
how is the concern of forward settling and creation of discontiguous borders addressed in 6? I only have the free copy on epic, have yet to really dig into 6 to know all its mechanisms. I do like that method for better historical accuracy. If some VP-or-better AI came out for 6 via mod or DLC or w/e, thats when I'll make the jump over finally.
 
I'd say the technology to do so comes very early, and early war needs even less units to fall a city, so you don't want to forward settle too much.
As a comparison : cities cannot attack without walls, and they do not gain HP if they are blockaded. A full blockaded city can fall in 2-3 turn if surrounded by 3 warriors (no need for slingers).
I might not be totally right, but the idea is here.
 
how is the concern of forward settling and creation of discontiguous borders addressed in 6? I only have the free copy on epic, have yet to really dig into 6 to know all its mechanisms. I do like that method for better historical accuracy. If some VP-or-better AI came out for 6 via mod or DLC or w/e, thats when I'll make the jump over finally.
Civ6 prevent forward settling mainly by the mechanism of loyalty. If your new built city is too near to others', its loyalty will fall quickly and has very low efficiency.
 
Why not make you cannot stay on the enemy's border but you can go through it? A la early naval which can go through the Ocean but not stay on it.
Only making them stay on the border feels kinda weird mechanic to me. This is pretty important for naval play or early recon, in which usually some jerks close access, making your units stuck or unable to proceed further.
 
Why not make you cannot stay on the enemy's border but you can go through it? A la early naval which can go through the Ocean but not stay on it.
Only making them stay on the border feels kinda weird mechanic to me. This is pretty important for naval play or early recon, in which usually some jerks close access, making your units stuck or unable to proceed further.
This is a good thought, at least in my view, but we had this suggestion before the community last round iirc and it went nowhere.

There are many "fixes" that I think would work well, personally -- I have filled the modmod subforum with some of these. But to your question of 'why not?', well, the OP idea here was selected in large part as an idea not yet/not recently discussed/considered by community.

That said, completely fair-game to re-evaluate prior related ideas. I can't answer "why not" beyond this cuz I was already on board with that particular idea whenever it was last suggested. Only drawback I see is it will still leave some stuck or obstructed units where borders are too wide or no vision available etc.

I believe there was some concern about exploiting such a change to significantly increase explored territory that would otherwise be locked away from player, which there is some truth to, though I think the impact on overall gameplay would be negligible. On this point alone about exploration advantages, OP idea here would be preferable as any advantages would be subject to consent of other players
 
Why not make you cannot stay on the enemy's border but you can go through it? A la early naval which can go through the Ocean but not stay on it.
Only making them stay on the border feels kinda weird mechanic to me. This is pretty important for naval play or early recon, in which usually some jerks close access, making your units stuck or unable to proceed further.
i like this idea, it's easy to implement. of course it does have gameplay implications which need to be discussed but i would sponsor such a proposal.
 
i like this idea, it's easy to implement. of course it does have gameplay implications which need to be discussed but i would sponsor such a proposal.

For reference, here's @CppMaster's thread that touched on this last round; it died on the proposal phase's floor. Was only concerned with recon at the time:

To summarize, much of the opposition there seemed to be that exploring required more skillful play if left without any unstuck mechanisms. Largely a subjective concern, and I take it there are many that feel that way.

Are there simple, easily implemented ways to mitigate this "skill flattening" concern? Perhaps crossing rival player territory costs a "toll"; say flat 1 gold per plot crossed, incrementing by 1 per era. In this way there is still some penalty to the "low skill" player, and maybe some added value to players holding important choke points, earning some $$ from their crossing... A little more balance to the winners/losers of such a change. Alternatively/additionally maybe the unit that crosses should receive some kind of temp debuff (temp cannot pillage would be the one that immediately comes to mind), to mitigate same-turn sneak attacks across plots that were previously inaccessible.

Even without any "exploration skill" or other balancing compensation, I'd suggest that, if crossing borders is implemented, it is enabled via promotion table; leaving it open to community to tweak where it is available, or not, just via database.
 
Last edited:
since it's so trivial i'll go ahead and make an option that defaults to off so people can experiment ...

edit: done

1703192084758.png
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom