Should Culture still determine borders?

[Gangor]

I have two suggestions in this matter:

Firstly, a new diplomatic agreement which gives one civ's cultural boundaries precedence over another's, much like when you vassalize your neighbour. This would provide a step between a peace treaty and capitulation, but still be a prize worth waging a war for.

Secondly, and I think I've seen this suggested somewhere before, garrisoned forts have a cultural border. The extent of the border could depend either on the number of units in the fort, or perhaps upgrades to the fort performed by workers. Perhaps to balance this function the worker would have to be consumed?

 

[Terrance888]

I have two suggestions in this matter:

Firstly, a new diplomatic agreement which gives one civ's cultural boundaries precedence over another's, much like when you vassalize your neighbour. This would provide a step between a peace treaty and capitulation, but still be a prize worth waging a war for.

Secondly, and I think I've seen this suggested somewhere before, garrisoned forts have a cultural border. The extent of the border could depend either on the number of units in the fort, or perhaps upgrades to the fort performed by workers. Perhaps to balance this function the worker would have to be consumed?

Yeah, it was like 'Outpost->March->Fort' system where the Fort was the last stage, was like a city, and you can sacrafice workers to get 'Pop' to work tiles, which converts all resources to hammers.

Marches, IIRC, have a -50% on hammer bonus, and a lower pop count.

Outposts have no culture boarders but 2 viewing range. You need to worker to work X turns to upgrade to march.

This was to represent the growth of outposts into heavily settled towns, then small cities, which can become a true city. (Outpost at Three Rivers-> Fort Duquene/Fort Pitt-> Pittsburg)

 

[w2w2w]

I strongly disapprove of this, because allowing units to claim land just makes military more powerful; it's a step diametrically away from the direction Civ should be going in.

it would be such as a *fake culture* if it doesnt have a city in it. if it doesnt have a city in it and the enemy places one in your claim land then the enemy gets all that land instead of you. claim land would be more of a land multiplier and not really borders

 

[Camikaze]

it would be such as a *fake culture* if it doesnt have a city in it. if it doesnt have a city in it and the enemy places one in your claim land then the enemy gets all that land instead of you. claim land would be more of a land multiplier and not really borders

What would be the point of it if it could be taken away from you without any bother anyway?

 

[w2w2w]

because if you want that iron right in the middle of a desert without wanting to give a high maintenance low production city then the better idea is to claim the land but if an enemy sees this and the borders are already done then he might as well build a city and just use the same borders

 

[Camikaze]

Well they wouldn't want to do that if they saw the Iron, though.

 

[Lord OST]

Now I´ve read the whole thread and hope I can come with my opinions:

I think the cultural borders should expand faster to make it more possible to convert cities.
But the borders should be held back by military units along the border. Forts could have a small range of cultural defense, while single units only protect their tile.
If the power of the enemy culture gets too strong, the defending units will get hurt by a revolt and pushed back, as the new borders lines up.
It should also be possible to make treaties over borders. That might be possible with the invention of paper.
Military units should not convert by culture. They are mobil and can therefor simple walk out if the culture is too strong. A city on the other hand is not mobil and will therefor convert.
Military annexation of land seems to more like a military thing than a cultural thing.
But I think it could be a possibility to use some kind of cultural missionaries to cultivate an area you might find interesting. It can give cultural civs more possibilities to gain land faster and in an other shape then the circular we got now. It can also be used to cultivate areas before you build your settlement there.
The idea of a cultural border influenced by the administrative limit is also quite realistic. Like that

I would think that strength should depend on the culture of the unit's home civ, though.

Here I absolutely agree with rysmiel.

 

[rysmiel]

because if you want that iron right in the middle of a desert without wanting to give a high maintenance low production city then the better idea is to claim the land but if an enemy sees this and the borders are already done then he might as well build a city and just use the same borders

Why is any of this a problem ? You build the city. Problem solved.

City maintenance is a broken mechanic that gets in the way of doing that, granted.

 

[Argetnyx]

How about this:

Culture only determines borders untill a certain tech is researched, or a certain wonder is built (the Treaty of Versailles is a good choice), then the borders are locked.

After the borders are locked, the only way to gain or lose tiles is by war or by treaty.

For example: Germany wants to get territory from Egypt (in game hypothetical opponent), they could:
A) declare war and take the tiles
or
B) ask a third party to help decide who gets what

 

[Terrance888]

I agree with Argetnyx, except that new cities can claim up to their fat crosses with culture.

Maybe the Treaty of Versailles should be at Divine Right-Nationalism-Constitution. Or just an arbitary border such as if 2 of these 3 techs are researched by more than x nations, then the borders between nations is locked and shall not change through cultural means, but through espionage, military, or economic means.

 

[Argetnyx]

Maybe the Treaty of Versailles should be at Divine Right-Nationalism-Constitution. Or just an arbitary border such as if 2 of these 3 techs are researched by more than x nations, then the borders between nations is locked and shall not change through cultural means, but through espionage, military, or economic means.

Nice, I think it should be around when the borders really did freeze, around the late-industrial WWI era...

 

[Terrance888]

Well, mostly when the borders stopped expanding from changing alliegience (aka, Brittany supporting france and Britian during the 100 years war) was after the 30 Years War, mostly wars after that are for various resource tiles, large towns (Alsce Lorrain, Low Lands, Italy ect) and strategetic routes.

Example, france turning in all of New france.

Example, Lorrain won and lost to prussia/germans/austrians over the centuries. (BTW, I consider the Austrians to be the Holy Romans in the game when making my own senerios)

Example, Austria turning over nothern itallly to Sardinia-Piediment, an important step to Itallian Unification.

Pre 30 years war example, with the influence mod, English vicotries capture many lands in northern france.

Hastings, they hit an important tile (that cow near hastings), took London, and the victory took most of sourthern England as the north rebels.

Muslim's rapid expansion, victory after victory gains influence, which gains drafting cities, wich gains soldiers, which gains victory after victory in almost all directions.

 

[Trias]

How about this:

Culture only determines borders untill a certain tech is researched, or a certain wonder is built (the Treaty of Versailles is a good choice), then the borders are locked.

I don't think its a good idea to instantly freeze the borders at some tech. I'd favor a more dynamic approach where some tech opens the possibility to make bilateral treaties that fix the borders between 2 civs and prevent culture flips between the two civs.

To make this work well we again need the possibility of unit helping resist culture flip. This gives both sides reason to agree to a border agreement since it potentially frees up a lot of units.

 

[Lord OST]

I agree with Trias. It will destroy the concept of culture if the borders cant be changed in more modern areas. As said earlier, the paper can lead to the possibility of making border treaties. Maybe the culture could still make influence on the tiles, even though the countries have of border treaty, but the tiles wont flip side. If the countries removes these deals the tiles will flip if enough culture, but it wont flip immediately. How long it takes for the tile to flip depends on how much influence it got from the other civilization and how many units it is of the one and other civ on that tile.

 

[Argetnyx]

I agree with Trias. It will destroy the concept of culture if the borders cant be changed in more modern areas. As said earlier, the paper can lead to the possibility of making border treaties. Maybe the culture could still make influence on the tiles, even though the countries have of border treaty, but the tiles wont flip side. If the countries removes these deals the tiles will flip if enough culture, but it wont flip immediately. How long it takes for the tile to flip depends on how much influence it got from the other civilization and how many units it is of the one and other civ on that tile.

And when is the last time that borders changed by something un-diplomatic?

 

[CheeseWalrus]

I was thinking make it moer realistic. maybe like a scout unit but has a *claim land* function and get boundries that way. this would also make a scout more useful but would need to be worked on to avoid un balencing the game.

Idea: have forts with culture. Then you could have an option for scouts to build fortresses, while being consumed in the process.

 

[moscaverde]

I like fixing the borders with a determined tech, with your bunch of land turning in a nation. Nationalism-like tech would be a good time, I believe.

The idea of forts giving culture is a bad way to improve forts, imo. If you want to claim tiles using units, declare war, this simple.

The way people talk, culture looks like diseases.

 

[rysmiel]

And when is the last time that borders changed by something un-diplomatic?

Pick the current ongoing war of your choice.

 

[Argetnyx]

Pick the current ongoing war of your choice.

That doesn't include diplomacy? Thats impossible. Every recent change in borders has been due to diplomatic maneuvers.

 

[Terrance888]

Well, maybe I can use one of my old ideas: many borders

A diplomatic Boarder that most nations agree on.

Cultural borders concerning which nation the people feel they belong to.

Military Borders are the extent of military influence: American's military influence spans the world (not, not dominant influence) while the Taliban's militia control northern pakistan.

Influence, a mix of all of these borders. Military units may leave less influence as nationist resistance is high (Free France!) The same way, Influence also declines the longer the former culture generator is occupied. Finally, even after Greece was destroyed, it still had influence and slowed Greekized the Byzantines, so influence stays arround after a naton id destroyd and can revive a nation. Military also give some influence, as seen as Prussia's unification of Germany, where her military convinced the myraid city states to join.

Ok, in real life, we see these borders all the time. Spanish Culture often flowsnorth of the U.S. Mexico border, but United State's Military Ifluence (suposidly) span all of the americas.