There should be three types of open borders

[Stylesjl]

1) Commercial Opening. Meaning cities are allowed to trade with each other, BUT no units can pass through

2) Civillian Open Borders. Settlers, Missionaries, Scouts, any non-combatants (plus this agreement automatically includes the first one)

3) Full Open Borders. Works like the current open borders system

How about that?

 

[almeida_cohen]

i like the idea

 

[Killroyan]

Totally agree. I really don't like open borders because it wouldn't be the first time that the AI backstabs me. This would really solve the problem.

 

[Azatoth]

With the system you propose, who would sign for a civilian or full open borders agreement ? Nobody, you would have absolutely no interest in it. So religious missionaries would never be allowed to spread religions, and your units (military or scout) would never explore ennemy territory.

With the system in place in the game, you have to think about your strategy : when you sign open borders agreement, you're gonna increase commerce (and thus earn more gold - maybe to increase science rate for example), but in the other hand your ennemies will spread their religion and have info on your own territory. You have to make the decision based on your strategy, and that's the interest of it.

 

[BadHorsie]

Great idea. I haven't ever really used an open borders agreement, because I just know it'll be a regrettable mistake. However, I have a couple of questions:

Do open borders make your relations better with a civ? (and how much so)

Does the AI start garrisoning loads of units around your territory (like they did in Age of Empires, if anyone knows)

 

[marioflag]

I appreciate your idea because it would be more historically accurate considering that i don't think tht a civ would accept so easily that foreign armies pass through their territory.
Anyway i think that it wouldn't add so muuch in terms of gameplay.
What i think must be changed is the fact that if 2 civs have open borders and one of these is in war with me shouldn't be allowed to attack me through neutral territory because it isn't realistic nor fun in terms of gameplay seeing armies of your enemy at 2 tiles from your city but you can't attack them because in "neutral territory".

 

[GiantRaven]

Do open borders make your relations better with a civ? (and how much so)

It does add a bonus (not sure how much)

 

[DarkOpus]

[...]
What i think must be changed is the fact that if 2 civs have open borders and one of these is in war with me shouldn't be allowed to attack me through neutral territory because it isn't realistic nor fun in terms of gameplay seeing armies of your enemy at 2 tiles from your city but you can't attack them because in "neutral territory".

Sweden allowed German soldiers to march through its territory to annexe Norway in WWII. An extremely strong border guard whilst you open up a second front is the answer to your problem. Take advantage of the situation yourself and attack others from a friend's border as well. If the AI can do it then you can.

 

[Mr. Nice]

Do open borders make your relations better with a civ? (and how much so)

Yes. Like supplying resources and peace, it builds up over time, in general won't get better then +2 though.

Does the AI start garrisoning loads of units around your territory (like they did in Age of Empires, if anyone knows)

At this point, it is clear that you don't know that on declaration of war, all units of that side get kicked out (the same happens if you cancel Open Borders without declaring war), which stops what was known in Civ III as "ROP rape" (equivalent of open borders in CivIII was called Right of Passage). Of course back then, it was far more often humans doing it to the AI not the other way around .
Thus the only downside of open borders is that they can scout out the disposition of your defences and move through your land to empty lands beyond. And that last point is pretty much the only important one, if them scouting you out reveals you to be weak enough to be worth attacking, then your defences weren't good enough in the first place .
Thus if I have cut of a peninsula that I plan on settling or similar, I may refuse all open border requests, but beyond that I'll freely sign open borders with anyone I want to be friends with. The improvement to relationships is small but nice, but more important are the foreign trade routes.
As for the list of 3, I don't really see how the distinction between the first 2 can be made even in historical/real world terms. How would you know whether those foreign merchants are really scouts/missionaries/great people? Missionaries can effectively be shut down with Theocracy if neccessary, and even without actual missionaries turning up religions can spread (subject to Theocracy) with luck anyway. Once they get to scout your cities, it really doesn't matter whether those use scounts or armies due to armies getting kicked out at the start of hostilities, so in reality there's no tangible benefit in complicating the single open borders agreement system in the game.

 

[marioflag]

If we see to reality under international law a country which allow foreign troop to enter his country to attack another country breaks neutrality with the country attacked which is free to retaliate, so Sweden broke neutrality commitment to Norway.A modifier in the game when enemy troops pass neutral civ territory to attack you or in the opposite case you attack AI through neutral territory is more realistic.

 

[Mr. Nice]

A modifier in the game when enemy troops pass neutral civ territory to attack you or in the opposite case you attack AI through neutral territory is more realistic.

A modifier to what though? Remember in principle such an action would change your opinion of the country who allowed the troops through, and your opinion isn't measured by any stat in the game. Remember you can declare war on the third party in such a case whenever you like.

 

[marioflag]

A modifier to what though? Remember in principle such an action would change your opinion of the country who allowed the troops through, and your opinion isn't measured by any stat in the game. Remember you can declare war on the third party in such a case whenever you like.

Yes I Can Attack AI whenever i want but AI doesn't make difference if troops pass through neutral territory or are directly attacked.In realistic terms there should be a way to stop a neutral AI to lend their territory for attack against your civ (i speak also for AI).

 

[atreas]

A modifier to what though? Remember in principle such an action would change your opinion of the country who allowed the troops through, and your opinion isn't measured by any stat in the game. Remember you can declare war on the third party in such a case whenever you like.

No modifer will help. What it WOULD help is to have the ability to declare war against such an offending "neutral" civ without the diplomatic penalties a war carries with. Additionally, you could also get the right to pillage improvements (even without declaring war) in the "intermediate" country (for example, destroy the roads that lead to you). Then the intermediates would think about it twice before they allowed troops passing from their country.

 

[Kissamies]

I believe it was Aussie_Lurker who suggested 2 level open borders a long time ago: Partial (non-combat units and trade), and Full. Motivation for getting full open borders would be capped trade with partial open borders.

 

[atreas]

I believe it was Aussie_Lurker who suggested 2 level open borders a long time ago: Partial (non-combat units and trade), and Full.

I don't know how long ago Aussie_Lurker suggested it, but I can give my post dating from January

A compilation of ideas

Needless to say, I am really happy that this issue was brought up independantly by others. I don't give the link to claim that I was first, but to provide also some other ideas about that - especially in relation with culture spreading.

 

[KingCruz]

Great idea.
Especially with AI who i don't trust, except I cant trade with them unless I have open borders. And when I do, I see stacks of cavalry running around my empire, scary sometimes

 

[HourlyDaily]

I've always wanted to let the AI know what I really think of them. How unfair is it when you refuse their flat out greedy or arrogant demand and they give you a temporary -1 modifier.

I want the AI to know that I'm not interested in dealing with them or hearing their stupid requests. Make it worthwhile for them to cultivate my friendship or go crawling back to into their backwards civilization. And let me set it at the level I want.

 

[mjs0]

No modifer will help. What it WOULD help is to have the ability to declare war against such an offending "neutral" civ without the diplomatic penalties a war carries with.

This is a really good idea, some system of "casus belli" (I think the game Europa Universalis also used this concept) that would permit declarations of war with 'just cause' would be a good addition to the game. A war under such circumstances should result in fewer negative effects, e.g. reduced war weariness, reduced diplomatic penalties and might even result in non-triggering of defensive pacts in extreme cases.

Oh, and for the record I would support a multi-layered open borders approach but I couldn't commit to how many layers (2 or 3) without more thought and discussion.

 

[quizibuk]

I think a two level system with the low teir opening up trade routes, and
passage for all units that may be carried by a caravel(misionary, scout, explorer, great people, and not that you would need the agreement for them, spies)
Settlers would open up your rear to settlement and that is usually tops on my list of things I hate.

The second being the current system.

 

[jimbob27]

Yeah, a two level system sounds better. It'd be nice if the full open borders agreement canceled out any "our close borders spark tensions". This is the most stupid annoying modifier, especially as it's usually caused by the AI settling right outside your capital. You can be best of friends with a neighbour, and still get this stupid modifier. Its not like america and canada grumble over their borders. I'd be better too if the borders didn't shift due to culture between 2 very friendly civs.