 |
|
MJohn99519
|
|
I like the idea of the territory negotiations and the purchacing of empty lands. However, if the trade of a city occurs under peaceful conditions the improvements should not be destroyed. Perhaps the effect negated while under the new civ, but not the actual buildings.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
snoopy369
|
 |
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:32
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by LzPrst
of course claims that couldnt be settled would be "disputed borders" like kashmir is to pakistan and india. what if cities couldnt be built in desert/tundra squares at all. after all noone can or wants to live there, and there are hardly any cities built on such terrain that has grown to any size. in civ I tend to build on these squares since I get the minimum food/production/trade there and will have less crappy squares in the city radius.
you could build forts and possibly even colonies, but they'd be limited so that they never grew beyond a certain size. |
Building forts i'd say is the most realistic way of working this out. I liked your initial idea but had a hard time imagining this working -- i mean, drawing a line where and how?? I suppose you could literally draw a line, but civ hasn't ever been playable in that manner, so I don't see why that would be likely to change (even if the whole engine *is* changing, that's pretty drastic).
However, if you could say have a base territory as we do now (culture or just city radius, however), and then any territory that's not in anyones' base territory can be "claimed" through building forts or colonies (in the current usage of the term, civ3 style). You build a whatever, and then your radius extends to that.
Someone who's not necessarily at war with you can lay claim to part of that area as well (by building their own fort), and then there would be some sort of conflict resolution method -- whether that's just simply a war, or some sort of diplomatic arrangement from the F4 screen (maybe the ability to trade forts?).
If multiple people lay claim to one area i'd say you can use it if you have military there and the other guy doesn't (ie I have a rifleman in my fort and yours is empty), but if you both or neither have military there then nobody can use the area until it's been resolved (presumably by gifting the fort, or by taking it by force).
I definitely like the idea, so I don't have to build dumb cities in the middle of the desert just to keep people from building near my territory or to keep people away from "my" resources.
I'd definitely set it so that actually building a city in a "Disputed" zone is grounds for going to war, as well as perhaps disputing it at all (ie if i claim it first, if you lay claim as well second I can go to war with you). It'd make citizens happy to go to war (and mad to NOT go to war, even in democracy -- especially in democracy) for either side, and international law would "side" with the original owner -- ie if #1 attacks #2, all good; if #2 attacks #1, small repercussions on the diplomatic front.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
I think that it would be quite easy to negotiate borders in diplomacy.
Bascically in the Diplomacy screen you would have a mini-map. You point and click on the mini-map to create a line marking where you want your border adjusted to. The When you finish marking this border, the computer will ask you if that is what you want to ask for. If you say yes, then it this demand will turn up on the table! Alternatively, you could use the same point and click system to mark out squares, rectangles circles or ovals of land that you wish to lay claim to. The rest would be pretty much as above.
Of course, unless that territory either belongs to either of the negotiating partners, or has in some way been 'claimed' by one of the parties, then you won't be able to click on it!
Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
snoopy369
|
|
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:32
|
|
I'd say that's great in theory but not so good in practice for two reasons: First of all, the coding, particularly the AI coding, would be a HUGE pain, and the AI coding would never work right imho. The minimap would have to be square-by-square accurate (and have that sort of definition) since we're talking about precise borders here, yet be tiny (even on a HUGE map). And you'd have to have several options for each square -- neutral, owner 1, owner 2, DMZ, etc. (Beside the point that there are often more than 2 people disputing a region; what happens when players 1 and 2 agree to some territory that's right outside player 3's land, and then player 3 and 4 agree on its disposition as well?).
Second, it would make the game more complicated to the newer users -- a game that's already considered by many novice players to be too complicated. I agree that experienced Civvers like yourself and myself would love a feature like this, but I don't see a novice civver liking this added complexity. I think that borders being determined by physical placement of objects is much more intuitive and easier to follow for a newer user.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
The_Aussie_Lurker
|
|
Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
May 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
Well, there HAS to be a simpler way that my idea can be implemented, or simulated, coz I just feel that, along with unit trading, this is one part of diplomacy that is severely MISSING! After all, how many wars have started by minor territorial squabbles (like Kashmir), or been ended by ceding territory to another nation (like Mexico ceding land to the US). Also, what about the 'Louisiana Purchase'? I mean, I know that the civ games aren't supposed to replicating history exactly, but it would be good to be able to TRY!
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
snoopy369
|
|
Of the Peanuts Gallery
Apr 2004
time: 23:32
|
|
I think that physical markers work fine. You can easily in civ3 give up territory -- by giving up a city, which realistically would happen anyways (ie when we got the Gadsden "purchase" from mexico, which was effectively them ceding us land, we got El Paso, Las Cruces, Deming, etc. with it). The only real issue is unsettled territory, which is more complicated -- but can be simply addressed by giving Forts/barricades/outposts small zone of control factors, like I addressed earlier. You can easily trade these items to other civs just like you can give a worker to them -- heck you could just vacate and they could take them over, wouldn't *have* to be a diplo screen action (ie for MP games), and could be effected militarily. Again, real-life wise, we do NOT really just draw lines in the sand -- there's generally a fort or some sort of outpost associated with it. Even the Louisiana Purchase involved the transfer of many forts, outposts, etc. (though admittedly not that populated), but I don't think we should worry about that close of accuracy -- if we did we'd have a lot better places to look than this. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
grap1705
|
|
Borders is a major issue early in the game when you try to occupy as fast as possible as much space as possible (and possibly as many resources and luxuries as possible).
I was thinking more or less the same thing as Boris Godunov but he said it first:
=> have your exploring units, whether they be explorers, workers or whatever soldiers, be able to claim a square (or hexe), marking it with your color (costs one turn or is free action?), so that you define the land you claim your own.
If someone comes around, wants it because its rich land or because he believes he's closer to it than you are, then you either leave it to him or have casus belli free of diplomatic malus.
Isn't that how it goes in real life? We determine our political borders, over desert and mountain as we wish, independantly of city implantation. Then having indeed a grip over that land we claim and being able to defend it is another matter.
Political borders are indeed very different from cultural borders. So it's not a good idea to link them as is done in Civ3.
The cultural influence is an interesting concept though. Culture spreads among the land, caring only half about political borders, and can then be used to influence citizens of across border cities so that they are more inclined to revolt and try secession to join our culture if a majority of them is favorable to us. If the neighbor wages war against us while we have a strong cultural influence on a good number of his citizens, then the occurence of trouble in his cities will be greatly favored as citizens will mobilize against an unpopular war.
Of course, this is also very true the other way round.
So that in fact, I don't think it is the nationality fo citizens that is interesting, but their cultural inclination. Thus we could see the extent of our neighbours influence over citizens of our border cities and anticipate trouble if too many are gained to his views. Propagande actions can strengthen this tendancy, both in an offensive way over the border, as in a defensive way in our border cities.
The problem with this concept is: will the AI be smart enough to manage this intelligently? Synthetizing a map and its strategic implications at a glance is easy for a human mind, much less so for a linear analytical algorithm. Which is why AI have always been so limited in using land caracteristics in their strategy in a really clever way.
The idea of trading pieces of land in diplomatic negotiations is very appealling. But same as above, I fear however that the developpers won't be able to make the AI "I" enough so that it understands the stakes and is able to negotiate with some sense.
Can't we imagine a terrain improvement similar to an iron wall, that can be build between two fortresses to "peacefully" prevent wanderers from entering our land? They'll have to come by boat or attack and break the wall (easy to do, but gives clear alarm of what is up).
Besides, I don't like at all the AI reacting in a threatening way when peaceful workers or explorers cross their land. Can't people just travel?
If the AI doesn't want them, it can expell them or arrest them and send them to jail (concept to be invented in the game) which can then make way for diplomatic negotiations. This shouldn't cause an automatic declaration of war. But it can also serve as casus belli (with a little diplomatic malus) if we're looking for a pretext.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Max Sinister
|
|
Autoclaim? And what if two civs could claim the same tile that way?
Maybe if you could annex every unclaimed tile you uncover... others could take your land, if they want, as long as it's not worked, and you could take their unworked land... but if you take too much, they'll get angry...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
In the game I was playing last night, the Aztec's were trying to get two knights to fight the Egyptians on the other side of my territory, after asking them to remove the troops 5 times, and whilst blocking the AI from allowing them further in, I finally got the desired automatic removal.
The AI moved them from from a square next to their territory (mine) to a gap within my cities, but far closer to the Egyptians. What was that all about?
I'd used 4 Riflemen, whilst in the middle of a war just to stop them broaching my territory- they then magically jump over all 4 and end up in the right direction to fight the nation I was trying to stop them fighting. Only one of the four was one a road- so all the other 3 were wasted units.
It takes about 5 requests to get an AI unit to be automatically be removed (the AI only need ask twice), by the fifth request they are already a city within your territory, or nearly on the otherside of your border anyway- exactly where they wished to be in the first place (if the above settlement inside your border wasn't the stupid AI's goal.).
Stupid and annoying- yet it gets repeated to ad naseum each time you conquer land- daft as a brush AI sending settlers you must stop- unless you want a war with the AI programme, for that is who you really declare war upon. Utter stupidity.
Toby!!
|
|
| |
|
|
|
123man
|
|
External borders come from military and economic power and/or the desire to keep/acquire the land, in addition to terrain. Therefore borders should have a mainly military/production/economic aspect. Colonial powers didn't take over the New World because everyone in the New World liked their temples! Cultural influence may be influential in modern times, but that's because everyone can see examples of culture now(media) and because it is linked to marketing (economic). Also cultural superiority doesn't also engender people to a civilisation, it may cause resentment and hostility. So it seems a bad idea to base borders on culture alone.
Also, I think there should be the option for internal borders (ie States, Counties, regions or Districts). It could be a way of dealing with corruption and taxation in far-flung empires. Taxes could be arranged on a per region basis, so rich central areas can subsidise frontier regions And if the region/state gets unhappy it could result in rebellion or civil war. Also it could be used for enhancing city production governors (ie if a region is bordering a civ that you are at war with they could be put on military footing and produce defensive units, while other areas don't need to be).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
jordie
|
 |
Sydney, Australia
Mar 2002
time: 15:32
|
|
I like Roman's and Inverse Icarus's ideas of border negotiation. It is a must, at least in the later eras. Also Stefu's idea that borders shouldn't fluctuate once a peace treaty is signed.
On Inverse Icarus's idea of territory cost, I think its ok, but I think it may end up getting too complex? If maybe you keep it simple it would be great.
I like GodKing's idea of "All land in your empire should be productive, the closer to larger urban areas the more productive." as I find it annoying to have a few useless tiles within my empire but no way of using without founding a city that would compromise the cities around it... spare tiles should be allowed to be used.
I also like the idea of colonies being able to grow into cities eventually.. just look at Australia, New Zealand, America... etc.
Initially, I think borders should be determined by the size of cities/towns and how spread out the population is. In later times they should be negotiated only after wars have been fought and peace treaty signed. Before that they should be able to grow.
Also, I think "claiming" land at the beginning should be the way to go, and if it is claimed by you for a long enough time without opposition, it is yours. If two countries claim the same land, they can either choose to agree on borders, occupy with military or even build cities etc. So you can claim as much as you want and other people can see it. So also, say you and your allies are at war, you can claim certain parts of the country you are attacking and if your allies agree, it doesn't matter who take it, once the war is over the city/land becomes yours. This would allow better division and no more single cities in the middle of others or blocking cities etc.
I also like the idea of provinces, you select a few cities to join into one province and they would work together and allow shield and food sharing. Also, if you put a captured enemy city into a province with a lot of cultural influence, then there is a better chance of assimilation. Or if you group a bunch of enemy cities together they may be happier cause they are working with their own people... but also the province would also be likely want to break away (like Quebec.). It would also allow for the idea of break away states, like with the Soviet Union break up. Also, each province would have a capital that would experience more growth then surrounding cities. It would seem more realistic with one city with 8 million people rather than 5 cities with 3 million people in each clustered together, if you understand me? Look at states and countries. USA, Canada, Australia all have states/provinces where more often then not the capital is the biggest city in the state. While countries with no main provinces like Iraq have a central city like Baghdad. I'm rambling now...lol. These borders would just be the outer border of the selected cities, but the cities must be next to each other or the closest via sea.
I also think, that there should be the possibility that cities can form on their own without user intervention...although rarely. Say on a trade route with lots of traffic, a city with a special economic bonus would form. Or a city in a good place along a river could form with an agricultural bonus, and a city on hills with a defensive bonus....?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
123man
|
|
I apologise if I wasn't clear. I didn't mean to allow different regions to be mobilised at different times, I was talking about the idea of having common regional governors (to cut out on micro management) that could be made to be focused on military production vs. domestic production. That's what I meant by 'military-footing'. But essentially, the way that you described it is the way a civilisation can be run with Civ3. That's usually what I do, the core always is most developed and produces units, while the border and recently captured cities are only building domestic structures, so I don't see how this is different (minus the bonus from mobilisation). It just removes the need to set it up yourself.
I also like the idea of a region capital bonus, most likely in economic terms, since most regional business will be centralised there.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
uXs
|
|
My uninformed suggestion:
Starting from the Civ3 system, implement the following changes:
1) Start with the current city spheres (circles) of influence, but also add a second, "lesser" sort of influence that automatically exists between every 3 points of your primary influences. The effect of this will be almost nothing at first and get stronger over time, until it's as strong as the normal influence. This will eliminate gaps you would otherwise have in your empire.
(Note: this type of influence will have no effect on enemy influence that allready exists.)
2) Forts. These do nothing except claim 1 square of land. (Could be more, or increase a little bit with time.) The secondary influence from point 1 will make this a simple way of claiming land. (Forts should not dissappear if an enemy builds a city in the vicinity.)
3) Border patrols. These will detect enemy incursions in your territory, but aren't powerful enough to actually stop them. (Edit: actually, they probably should be able to stop settlers and other non-military units.) You will get a diplomacy message about incursions though. Depending on border patrol funding, the size of your border, the terrain, and the size and composition of the enemy troops, it's possible for enemy troops to sneak inside your borders without being detected right away.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
The simple fact is none of the Civ series has ever had border integrity, I think most players would agree this is one of the poorest areas, I also suspect most dislike the cultural idea, although most would welcome the national expansion WITHIN your borders that it gave.
I'm certainly fed up on the third version that they still can't programme a way to solve settler units giving you endless grief by trying to pass through your national border to settle inside your territory.
My idea for national borders is: Your outer cities should have a sideward, not outward expansion, once "married", then outward expansion could occur upto usual city limits. (a square box, two tiles deep). After a set number of turns "border creep" towards each other will occur
Areas surrounding a city that are unsuitable for settlement should be "X"'ed by the AI and added to the nearest border. (essentially mountain ranges which provide a route into your territory)
Another, and far simpler idea will be a tech advance, within the middle ages that "discovers" the concept of national borders, at which point the AI draws a circle of tiles around all outer cities of each nation automatically, and from then onwards: And through which NO unit can pass unless a treaty is proposed.
Toby?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
mart7x5
|
|
Maybe the first paragraph was proposed already by someone, but I haven't found it:
One of the historic facts was that countries claimed some territories for themselves when even noone from that country actually was there. At some point in history Pope divided the world between Portugal and Spain. Obviously, for many native Americans it changed nothing until Spanish or Portugese actually came there, but that might be included in the game too. Each country might (if it chooses so) claim some territory it hasn't visited yet. It would not probably bring a glory to that country among international diplomatic comunity. Also some other country could such "claimed" territory colonize without any obstacles, only claiming country would send some nervous notes to the colonizing king or prince. Might even cause a war.
Territory might be actually controlled. If I send a worrior to a tile, that worrior might declare the land belonging to my country. If the tile is inhabited by some native population (kinda new element here I guess) that population would be included in my country. Their loyalty is another matter. I liked here solution of Europa Universalis 2, although that game is that different. The problem is that there is so many tiles on the map. So maybe when establishing a city, all inhabitants around would during that turn agree for joining new country, or agree but not be loyal, or start uprising right away. Non-inhabited and not belonging to anyone else tiles would be within city limits anexed right away. The need to actually send a unit (military or explorer) to a tile to have it included in the country might be required for tiles not belonging in the city radius.
Present culture influenced territories are not that good. The most annoying thing is their "switching" from time to time. Culture would influence inhabited tiles, so inhabitants from time to time might convert to another country by declaration of its convertion or uprising.
Inhabited tiles - with still increasing resolution of monitors we presently have already so much room in a tile - there is a place for a single hut - making it known someone lives there.
This all may add to complexity, but borders especially in today's world are important. Some countries have borders accepted by some countries, other do not accept them, etc. I think there is a lot of room for "borders improvement" in civ4 compared to civ3.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Toby Rowe
|
|
London, UK
Feb 2001
time: 05:32
|
|
mart,
The Falklands were a good example- uninhabited until a Portugese explorer discovered it- I guess he saw no use for them and then "discovered" modern Argintina 400 miles away, for which the Treaty of Tordesallis was brought in for? What dispute brought conflict between Spain and Portugal to need the Pope to intervene?
Too much EUII I reckon!
At least in Civ 2 et al, we start as a Unique Civ, so nobody nicks anyone's land and the world is your oyster.
I think the concept of "border creep" in the awful cultural model is very good- losing a city to a rival nation, 3 cities further inside your nearest bordering city to the nation is just %^&*$£ due to total lack of testing by Infogrammes.- great concept Infogramme- but needed testing, It would have shown them just how silly it was, as existing on our PC. (all that money to buy the temple quickly for "culture points") per-lea-se....!!
I do believe they tried their best to address the "settler inside your border AI", but failed by tagging it to the disaster of "culture".
Culture and Identity within each city I have no problem and was way better than "Partisans take to the hills" in Civ 2 I felt. (Ps, why is the Roman AI so bad in this version?)
Anyway, if Civ 4 adopts the "cultural influence" without the city allegiance- great- but on a fast war your best mates on the AI planet will still know the spaces within the map- just like as you spend max money on research- the most advanced seems to give it to the others for a biscuit(cookie), so you might as well "stay with the pack" rather than running ahead of them, as you get a whole loada money more.
Toby?
PS: Just once, I'd love to encounter a nation that hasn't invested in research much and still has horseman to your dragoons/Cavalry! Why waste your time if they get your advances 5-10 turns later?
I'll stop moaning!!
Pps; Create individual islands for each nation, surrounded by mountains, such that they can never settle on the coastline, and thus never meet another Civ- Invade one and 2.000 years later they still have horseman- the AI doesn't properly function unless another AI "gifts" or exchanges a tech, which the rest by the same mechanism then get.
I hope Civ 4 will be very different- cheating AI is lazy programming to me. Fine in other games, not in the benchmark strategy one.
Last edited by Toby Rowe on 10-12-2004 at 08:23
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Ur
|
 |
Summeria
Mar 2000
time: 05:32
|
|
This is mainly borders and cities, with a couple of other things thrown in.
Having played all the CIV's, I'm interested in exploring a couple of more radical ideas around borders and cities.
1. Like Majesty I'm interested in the concept of having a less directive approach to how the Civ works socially and economically.
So I as King, set policy and purchase items to influence economic, cultural and social conditions etc - and the people respond accordingly to these influences.
They set out to colonize local areas in response to saftey, terrain, policy etc. So rivers, coastlines, high grain areas, crossroad, forts etc would be high profile areas for people to build farms, inns etc (and a percentage of the population are always on the move)
Military control of a region could be directly established as it is now (around Forts, watch towers, military camps etc). The direction of the military must remain in direct hands of the "king" otherwise its no fun. This would require money of course....
I find the current situation quite contrived - to build a settler and tell him to go places and then build a "city" is too controlling. (this probably breaks Sid rule - which says you must be in control of all units)
2. I would like to move further away from the current city concept - yes cities are necessary, but I would like settlements to grow as people congregate together (as result of above) then a city would occur when enough people where present. The king could influence this with policy decisions, stationing military units, and even errecting structures.
(This is after the establishment of the captial of course)
It would be nice to see the process of settlement occuring, but without have to micromanage everything.
Size of civilization should rest on the area of land (region) rather than on the city as a base unit. Inns, farms etc should appear as people spread out etc
A tile based game should be able to handle this - metagame data should tag each tile to handle ownership issues.
The actual ownership would be determined by the presence of structures - like farms, inns, forts.
When enough of these structures are in one place - and the conditions are right - *pop* a town appears.
A political map could be triggered to give the player an idea about what they control.
The actual border (which becomes very important after Nationalisim) would then be agreed through a diplomatic process. I don't see it too hard in a tilebased game to agree on a border, either via natural features or between cities of different nations, but based on the political map.
Again the policy, purchases (infrastructure, buildings) and miltary strength/positioning of the would influence:
- Influx of people (refugees, immigration)
- Rise of banditry/tribal attacks
- Tax collection
I guess I'm wanting to have more a petrie dish approach - don't want to lose all control - just some. Game balance will be main concern I guess.
I don't know if these ideas are particularly new, but as I said I would like them to be kicked around.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:32.
Apolyton Time is 00:32. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
03-05-2004 02:14
|