Sea area

[Comrade Pedro]

I think that in sea there should not exist that solid agreements about rights of passage. If you want to get some boats through foreign territories you would have to waste some resources on granting rights of passage just to pass boats to their sea territory. I think sea right of passage should be a diferent agreement, and should be much more easier to make.

What is your opinion?

 

[GeneralX]

Agreed. Some options I thought of were:
a. Have civilization boundaries apply only to land, and a limiting ratio applied as they go across the seas (according to the strength of a culture, relative military/economic power).
b. Restrict sea boundaries to shallow areas only, leaving deep water areas free of influence.
c. Leave things as they are but remove the need to obtain rights of passage, except in cases where ships are entering shallow water.

 

[Darwin420]

Well, in the real world, national boundaries only exist 3 miles out to sea. And national 'influence' is only valid WITHIN 100 miles from land. The coastal area-only rule for sea passage is a good one!

 

[superisis]

Also, I'ld love for them to implement the ability for boats to pass over subs... cause what is the point of hiding subds in unfriendly coastal waters, if they'll get attacked (as sunk naturally) just because a stupid cruises is travelling from one place to another.

 

[greekguy]

it would be even better if they fixed the sub bug. this actually sounds like a really good idea and would be better than just broad culture being national borders.

 

[Darwin420]

I've been advocating borders being National, and not based on Culture. Much better if you have National borders, and Culture is more free-floating than it is now. Look at spots in the real world, like Africa - tribal (read: cultural) borders are disected by 'arbitrary' National boundaries... could make for some VERY interesting games.

 

[searcheagle]

it would be even better if they fixed the sub bug. this actually sounds like a really good idea and would be better than just broad culture being national borders.

In my game, the Sub bug is fixed. I have C3C. One of my transports was given the option to declare war before moving into a perceived empty square.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Still doesn't solve the problem that a sub should remain invisible unless either (a) it attacks something or (b) is detected by an appropriate vessel!

As for Cultural vs National borders, I agree that it should in fact be a little bit of both-i.e. culture defines your borders up to a point but, beyond that, it depends on diplomacy, economic and military strength-as well as terrain features.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[sir_schwick]

I've always said:

You determine your territory, culture makes it a lot easier to keep. Just assume territory that does not have enough culture in it will try to make the new rulers lives living hell. Establishing territory is as easy as saying, "I claim this in the name of X". Of course actually using it is a different story. Also, multiple parties could make claims to a territory, sparking the idea of true territorial debates.

 

[Tantor]

In general I find "border violations" to frequent in CIV. Violating a border should give rep hits and provide a casus belli. Same applies to the sea when it comes to military vessels. Especially coastal squares. Just think about it, what would happen if the entire chinese navy suddenly wanted to take a holiday cruise up and down the US west coast?

 

[wombatoftruth]

In my game, the Sub bug is fixed. I have C3C. One of my transports was given the option to declare war before moving into a perceived empty square.

I don't really think that's quite the problem with the sub bug that is being referred to. The player has always been given the option, the problem is, the AI always chooses to go to war when it bumps into an invisible unit. Subs in the regular game are just plain dangerous to have, as a civ that is gracious toward you, or even in an alliance with you, will declare war if one of its units runs into one of your subs. In the Middle Ages conquest, you have the same problem with assassins.

 

[sealman]

In my game, the Sub bug is fixed. I have C3C. One of my transports was given the option to declare war before moving into a perceived empty square.

The player always gets that message, it is the AI that always goes to war when it crosses a sub.

(edit: next time I should read the whole thread before responding)

 

[Darwin420]

@Tantor: I agree. Something needs to be done about the AI's border violation habit. I like the idea of a rep hit, and casus belli.

 

[Comrade Pedro]

nad also the gravity of the invading unit should also be evaluated. If it's a weak unit or if it's strong units, and in reazonable quantities....

 

[GeneralX]

The sub problem needs to be fixed before anyone can undertake operations in the litoral environment, a component of modern warfare that seems to be taking greater priority these days. I endorse Aussie_Lurkers comments fully.

 

[Admiral8Q]

Yes, subs need to have better abilities... and fix the damn bug

Anyways, I've had not much of a problem with sea trespassing, however, I agree, a "Sea passage agreement" should be seperate, and easier than a land "Right of Passage"

 

[sengfossil]

Agreed. Some options I thought of were:
b. Restrict sea boundaries to shallow areas only, leaving deep water areas free of influence.

I agree to that as a good idea for the state boundaries. But I still would like to see the expansion of the "cultural influence" to make a near by island-town flipping over to me.
So this should be 2 different things.: Boundaries and Influence

 

[Darwin420]

It will be interesting to see how they handle culture and boundaries, especially given the introduction of religion. I have a feeling that there will be a new system of determining empire boundaries, but it will probably not be influenced by your culture or a city's religion.

You determine your territory, culture makes it a lot easier to keep. Just assume territory that does not have enough culture in it will try to make the new rulers lives living hell

Very well said. Very well said, indeed.