Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by mazz0, Oct 27, 2016.
Oh right. Well then there's an easy fix.
How bad is it actually to keep your borders closed with your neighbors? In terms of relations.
I never open my territory and then, when I need to improve my relation with that civ, I offer it for free, but never to close civs...
Never agree to Open Borders unless you are numerically superior to your opponents - then you can do this to them!
I definitely agree that it is incredibly annoying, though. I want to propose two fixes for this:
1. Unit maintenance in lands that belongs to other sovereign civs cost double during peace. The extra maintenance cost is given to the civ whose land the unit is standing on. This is how it should work anyway, as foreign troops who stop by an allied state have to pay for food, accommodation, amenities and whatnot. I don't see why they get to park for free and use my lands as their battlefield with another civ.
2. Unless at a time of war, civilian units should be able to move through and stack with foreign units. No reason why they should be able to block my builders' wood-chopping just by standing on my land. No reason why the best counterplay to proselytizing is creating a ring of 6 units around my city, either. This fix is possible and has been done before in mods. And it is very important to reimplement this fix.
I'd like to know the answer to this, too. I've yet to have it happen in one of my games.
I didn't see that happen when it was done to me. The troops were in my lands; the DOW was made and they did not get teleported out. Just another reason never to open borders.
If you think it´s bad now just wait until the open border agreement ends and you realize their units don´t get kicked out but instead stay locked in where they are.
You´re basically screwed until you get open borders again and hope your neighbor starts moving them out of your land.
This is why I stopped giving open borders unless the Civ is so far away they won't likely get to my primary territory anyways. It's just not worth the headache having to slalom their fortified warriors and chariots with my units.
You could work it with a Unit cap too which is greatly increased by encampments. So you can still have your Ancient War raids without needing Encampments but if you are going to want a real Invasion force you need to build encampments. The minimum cap could be tied to number of cities and even Policy Cards. I have no doubt there are magic numbers where this could work that both gives encampments more importance as well limiting the A.I carpets of Doom. The idea is that you can generally defend without encampments but you cant really invade outside of Ancient Era and Early Classical Era Rushing.
I actually enjoy the change to 1upt and believe it is a step in the right direction.... It has its challenges tho and in some ways Carpets of Doom are worse than Stacks Doom. You cant have unlimited Unit Caps with 1 UPT,. Panzer General and its clones, HOMM, pretty much any 1upt game i can remember all have max unit Caps based on Map sizes. The alternative is the OP. The A.I is too stupid and too easy to fall into patterns
Honestly, for me the best solution to this problem would be simply increasing unit maintenance (and maybe cost) leading to smaller armies (also, slightly decreasing barb spawn to recompensate for this). Cities alone in civ6 are much easier to capture than those from civ5 anyway, where you needed many units just to take down nightmarishly fortified cities, not to mention units - this time warfare is much less about avoiding city fire.
LESS UNITS FOR ALL CIVS! Less traffic jams everywhere, less AI problems, more individual importance of units!
It would even be more realistic in a way - it feels absurd how pre-medieval armies can fight via frontlines across entire countries, armies in history were small in comparision to the terrain and overall population, until industrial era population boom and warfare evolution leading to long frontlines. That's the interesting difference between 1UPT and SoD btw - first one better models late era warfare with frontlines and country-sized operations, second one better models early-mid warfare with few decisive battles.
As for the enabling religious units to stack with other types - it'd be good change by the way, but a) I am not sure if engine allows it b) The problem of logistical nightmare is of bigger scope than just religious units.
I never give open borders.
Separate names with a comma.