Sovereign Borders

[Dell19]

If you're sufficiently more powerful than the AI, and in its good books, it will tend not to protest if your units move thru its turf, esp if you avoid tiles next to cities.

I guess I am never in that position since its usually in the early stages where moving units through enemy territory would be useful and thats when the AI tends to be more powerful.

 

[Joey_Ramone]

How about when you "attack" an AI unit in your border your troops just escort the offending AI unit out of your territory.

 

[Dell19]

That could work. Similar to how it was possible to return diplomats to the enemy capital on Civ2. Although I would still like to see borders actually being followed since it would allow the possibility of units with the ability to ignore borders, such as curraghs and explorers, which would increase the importance of these units.

 

[krasny]

too complicated , it should be upto the AI to request a right of passage agreement if they wish to traverse your territory

 

[Luckily survive]

I think and should limit the land power with the sea power, the warship should oppose square city contain the dint of threat.The warship in the civ3 is not enough now strong and big, can conquer the oceanic race, then can conquer the world.British Empire is not because of sea power, talent enough rising !
I hope the civ4 can enhance the power of the maritime power!

 

[krasny]

'I hope the civ4 can enhance the power of the maritime power!'

me too........

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=88760

 

[rcoutme]

Perhaps the tech "Nationalism" should allow you to institute a "Closed Border" toggle. This would equate to telling all others that if their units are in your territory, then you will give one warning and then kill the units. This should not constitute a war, as you are only defending your own turf.

 

[covenant]

Perhaps the tech "Nationalism" should allow you to institute a "Closed Border" toggle. This would equate to telling all others that if their units are in your territory, then you will give one warning and then kill the units. This should not constitute a war, as you are only defending your own turf.

This is right on. This might also give a slight hit to trade but also make it difficult for invisible troops to enter your territory... Have it be a Small wonder built, like The Berlin Wall. If cIV has something in like immigration/emmigration, it would effect this too.

 

[AKtionFich]

the initial idea seems to be motivated by the tactic to secure a area by cutting the revial of, thats doesnt make sence.
civil unit like (settlers/workers/transports) shell be able to trepass terretory at every time. maybe it would make sence to make a depper relation system, something like trade contracts , which are needed for trepassing borders.
Generally it shell be depending on the age and ur military status how efectiv ur border is.
so that 1. in erliar times border is realy ineffectiv and growth up to a state a trepassing of military units isnt possible anymore.


seeborders are limited yet. i think how it works makes sence because inreal there are big seeterritorys becaus of small islands, which are to small for a civ-square, those areas are presented by seasquares.
it would make sence to combinate seaborders with seafaring techs. like the net of gallys for costsquare borders, and frigates for seasquares.

to combinated the whole incident with a compare of powers would make sence also

 

[geishapunk]

Perhaps the tech "Nationalism" should allow you to institute a "Closed Border" toggle. This would equate to telling all others that if their units are in your territory, then you will give one warning and then kill the units. This should not constitute a war, as you are only defending your own turf.

I thought this over and think this is the perfect solution to this problem! It is true that in ancient times, an even somehow in middle ages, borders were not that protected nor being patrolled (Ah, and who wants something like the Limes could do so at every time in CIV3). With the rise of the nations this changed and so should it be in Civ 4! I think it should be possible to manage this issue, so you can grant other CIVs different kinds of possibilities passaging your empire. From simple total border control and not letting anything in, over to just let this kind of units in to a "Right of Passage". And i think after warning a CIV moving out you should be able even to kill or to capture these trespassers.

Sorry for my bad english. Tried my best...

P.S.: As this is my first post i just say hi and must admitt beeing really that i found this board, because it is great!

 

[dh_epic]

I think this is actually quite realistic.

People fly over airspace incorrectly all the time, and it sometimes results in someone being shot down. There's an "international incident".

Sometimes it leads to war.
Other times there's a peaceful resolution with lots of apologizing.
Other times there's a paceful resolution with a lot of tension and blame.

"You killed our troops!"
"What was he doing there?!"

War is not forced.

 

[EddyG17]

If the units trasspassing attack your units, it is war. But if you kill them while they are still in your territory, the official report will say that they get lost in the wild.

 

[Dreadnought]

I think this is actually quite realistic.

People fly over airspace incorrectly all the time, and it sometimes results in someone being shot down. There's an "international incident".

Sometimes it leads to war.
Other times there's a peaceful resolution with lots of apologizing.
Other times there's a paceful resolution with a lot of tension and blame.

"You killed our troops!"
"What was he doing there?!"

War is not forced.

I hope in Civ4 you can 'accidentally' kill the units in your territory, but then say, "Oh, I'm sorry! It won't happen again." When they come back you do it again!

 

[AKtionFich]

but add the option to attack an unauthorezied unit without declaring war, the option to force it out would be nice too, not the diplomatic way.

 

[huh?]

In regards to the sea borders...

First, this does not affect the tiles that your town can work at sea, it only applies to the border.

During the Anceint Age, your border extends to the coastline. In theory, you don't have any real vessels that you could domestically patrol the water with anyway.

In the Middle Ages, you get one tile out to sea (if your culture is strong enough to get it that far). Naval vessels are becoming better for patrol purposes.

In the Industrial Age, your border is two tiles out to sea (if your culture is strong enough to get it that far). Better vessels and advent of technological help.

In the Modern Age, your border will extend as far as the culture will let it for that city.

On land, I see two common instances of border crossing:

1. That exploring unit that is trying to return home.

2. Settler+unit stack trying to move across to settle somewhere.

I would think an age based border system would work. The ancient age is pretty much as-is. With each age the AI would respect your border more (unless they want war).

 

[eddie_verdde]

UNIT MOVEMENT1
with exception of artillery, most units are able to cross every single square of the landscape...what about geographical barriers? physical borders such as impassable mountains (eg: the Pirenees, the Everest, etc.) or lethal deserts (Sahara, Gobi)... you just can't cross a cavalry army along a mountain full of snow!!

There should be more of these geographic features that itselves constitute an obstacle to armies...


UNIT MOVEMENT 2
maybe the number of moves of ships should be increased in order to be accurate with real world...especially in the Ancient Times. In the previous civ games, they move so slow that sometimes it 's not worthy to build a fleet and carry a large number of units to other continent or from a point to another....this discourages invasion of other continents and surprising landfalls far from the war fronts.

Travelling by sea is not only a way of crossing continents but also a faster way of travelling, probably faster than what is suggested by the proportion of 3:1 observed in the number of moves of sea units and land units. I believe this is true especially in the ancient times.


SURVIVAL OF UNITS IN HOSTILE LANDS
units shouldn't be able to survive for more than a limited number of turns when they are CROSSING big deserts or tundra for instance (similarly to triremes navigating in ocean squares)....and if they do they should receive hit points penalties for that.

imagine if Caesar decided to cross the Sahara with his legions...

 

[brinko]

if one of these insurging settlers build a city inside one of my national parks, im gonna write a letter.

 

[dojoboy]

The "incident" idea - that you can kill a trespassing unit without necessarily causing war - has been suggested repeatedly, and I rather like it. Of course, the civ that got it's unit should have its attitude to you drasticalyl worsened, potentially to the point of declaring war.

Also, I think you only should be able to do such attacks after having first warned them and given them a turn to go home.

I like it too. But, the AI should be coded to be able to make the decision to walk around the borders. Otherwise, one could easily restrict the AI's ability to expand by killing wondering spearman/settler combos.

 

[brinko]

i know someone said border patrol, this is a good solution. how many borders go about unprotected in the world???
i doubt the states would let mexican settlers armed with federalis cross the border freely to settle on some garbage island off of new york...(no offence to the people of mexico, just an analogy)
there should be a fenced off border, or at least a choice of one. when war is declared this border could be easily destroyed by passing units, then after it must be reestablished by workers.

 

[Synergy67]

One terrain improvement might be walls which mixed along with armed fortresses could serve to actualy recreate a Great Wall or a workable border barrier. Roads passing through walls would be assumed to be controlled by border guards. In order for an enemy to cross your border with walls, it would have to use artillery or the like to destroy them and then move through. Where roads or rivers pass through, offensive units might be able to crash through. Either way it is an act of war and destroys the wall in that location until rebuilt. Any units on walls would receive defense bonuses akin or identical to fortresses. This way you don't have to park units all along the border just to keep a settler or stray military unit out. They'd cost money for upkeep, and be expensive to build, but could be very helpful in some areas. They would become less useful and effective in the industrial age and beyond when cannons and artillery come along to easily knock them down or planes can fly over them.