18-08-2004 09:25									#1
	Border Control Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

Hi all,

Border Integrity.

In CivIV, I'd like the cultural expansion binned (trashed).

However, the filling in of your borders was long overdue- As programmers couldn't be bothered to deal with the settler AI they tend to send settlers off to where a city could be founded, even if it happened to be in the middle of your nation.

I suggest "borders".

Once you have at least two cities you have an invisible AI line that no'es all squares beyond it (coding), for 5 tiles beyond it, as the various nations expand, all internal tiles receive an "no" regarding setting.

The most radical solution is to make a city radius actually SQUARE!!, or, even more radical:

Allow you, when founding a city to choose which tiles your workers will work within within the tiles (if say all 33? were offered), as of course, we'll all mould our own border then.

Toby (hope this makes sense!)

	19-08-2004 04:34									#2
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Well, I certainly think that borders should go beyond (or be totally different than) culture. You should simply be able to claim territory by settlement and military presence.

	19-08-2004 09:04									#3
	Tired of ads?

Why not steal from Rise of Nations? In RoN the border is defined by a couple factors: science (civic) and city improvements. As for molding the shapes of the borders, I'm wondering if natural conditions such as extended desert or extended mountains should stop the border early, then the left over (missing) squares could be satisfied automatically by something obvious such as up and down a river. For that matter a city founded on a river would have a boundary stretching up and down the river more than away from the banks.

I guess there are many different things that can be done. I think the worst idea is to scrap extended borders (beyond the city radius). What I'd like minimally is a border that I can somehow push out which gives me some sort of an advantage.

	19-08-2004 19:00									#4
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

UberKrux had suggested that each type of terrain have a different value in terms of how far borders spread along it- for example, borders expand widely in deserts, since they are underpopulated, and along plains. Grasslands and forests and hills are a bit more resistant, jungles, marshes,and mountains take a lot of culture to get assimilated. This would make territories much more reastic and alliviate big empty areas, PLUS slow down crazy expansion by swallowing useless territory with less cities.

	20-08-2004 00:56									#5
	Increase Your PM Length

quote: Originally posted by GePap UberKrux had suggested that each type of terrain have a different value in terms of how far borders spread along it- for example, borders expand widely in deserts, since they are underpopulated, and along plains. Grasslands and forests and hills are a bit more resistant, jungles, marshes,and mountains take a lot of culture to get assimilated. This would make territories much more reastic and alliviate big empty areas, PLUS slow down crazy expansion by swallowing useless territory with less cities.

That's a cool idea!

	20-08-2004 20:14									#6
	Get a bigger avatar today!

A way of simplifying the varying strengths of penetration of borders would be by tying it to movement points. For example, say that all cities get an automatic four-movement-point radius plus one movement point for cities (over six population) or two movement points for metropoli (over twelve). If radii of two civilizations overlap, the space will be apportioned based on how much radius each claims (for example if a city claiming a radius of four movement points and one claiming six movement points are in conflict, the four mp one gets as close as possible to 40% of the distance and the six mp one gets 60%). Various wonders or improvements could increase the amount of distance one could claim.

As for claiming uninhabited land, I like what CTP2 did where building a fortress claimed the land in its immediate vicinity similar to plopping down a city. Having fortresses claim all squares within a radius of two to three tiles would allow concrete land claims.

	20-08-2004 22:47									#7
	Suffering from ads?

Uber's idea sounds good.

I want Culture to stay in CivIV, perhaps with minor modifications.

-Arrian

	27-08-2004 10:47									#8
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think the concept of what the culture model tried to do (stop rogue settlers sent by the AI settling within your national territory was fine).

"The world and your uncle" knows that they couldn't prevent this problem with the AI and so came up with the concept of culture as a solution.

Your empire is unique, every game, they just couldn't work out a way to stop the other AI code sending settlers to the single tile, in a mountain range they could found a city in, right in the heart of your nation.

The conseqence is you spend 4,000 years with 3 units every turn shuffling, simply trying to stop them getting in. Boring.

Influence along valleys/plains won't help if you view the type of maps you have in Civ3 (but a million miles better than Civ2), on huge maps. Massive mountain ranges exist, but still contain just one square they can settle on, along with one other arable tile, and every nation that knows of it, still sends endless settlers to "grab" it.

It's a pain in the something.

Borders!! Yes, that's all I ask for! (The AI need merely X the tiles within- just 6 cities 2,000BC will create one- how hard is it to do?!!) Square cities would help, but isn't a solution regarding current AI.

Toby

PS; I did want this to go into one of the idea's topic's, but saw none that matched, so, please feel free to move the posts, or the idea, and then delete this thread.

Last edited by Toby Rowe on 27-08-2004 at 10:54

	27-08-2004 13:30									#9
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Good ideas, I especially like Uber's idea. I'd like culture to be in cIV though, but not as it is in Civ3(ie culture flip).

Oh, and the official borders thread.

	28-08-2004 05:44									#10
	Suffering from ads?

You could just ahve tow layers, one for cultureal influence that controls city swaps and such, and borders that are your actual physical control. ust toggle between the two.

	29-08-2004 04:53									#11
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Ubers' idea might have some merit if the AI stops sending settlers to settle on the 9 unclaimed jungle tiles in the heart of your empire. (Or the single hill surrounded by mountains).

The AI needs to be adjusted, or borders do. Using fortresses isn't a bad idea as they historically would control a border- but it forces you to garrison them, and early in the game this is very expensive, also the game isn't set up to factor this additional time (building the unit and fortress) or cost of, into the general AI.

I still prefer either square shaped cities, or a new system of territorial integrity.

As for the current "culture" system- can anyone name a single city that in unison had the population all throwing up its hands saying "We don't want to be Roman, let us be Greek instead- they are just sooooo cultured!!"
(knowing my luck, examples do exist!)

Toby

	29-08-2004 04:58									#12
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Toby- It's simplification. You think your warrior is surviving 1500 years wandering around with no supplies? Of course it is getting supplies-- just instantly. And when he finds money in a hut it goes straight into your coffers.

	29-08-2004 04:59									#13
	Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

quote: Originally posted by Toby Rowe Ubers' idea might have some merit if the AI stops sending settlers to settle on the 9 unclaimed jungle tiles in the heart of your empire. (Or the single hill surrounded by mountains). The AI needs to be adjusted, or borders do. Using fortresses isn't a bad idea as they historically would control a border- but it forces you to garrison them, and early in the game this is very expensive, also the game isn't set up to factor this additional time (building the unit and fortress) or cost of, into the general AI. I still prefer either square shaped cities, or a new system of territorial integrity.

Making the AI respect borders is easy enough if you plan on implimenting it from the start.

quote: As for the current "culture" system- can anyone name a single city that in unison had the population all throwing up its hands saying "We don't want to be Roman, let us be Greek instead- they are just sooooo cultured!!" (knowing my luck, examples do exist!) Toby

Yeah, they used to be Greek cities.

	29-08-2004 05:09									#14
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Blimey-

I just copied the above post into the correct thread, came back to delete it and leave a post asking the moderator to delete this thread- and you'd replied!! (I type with one finger!)

Anyway mate, I meant the time to build a unit, then the cost of maintaining a unit in each garrison (the AI on current AI would not bother to also build thus) this would leave your civilisation behind (tech), simply in order to secure your border- a simple solution is required- Square cities or an alternative is needed.

Toby

	29-08-2004 05:46									#15
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Your borders should be defined by settlement patterns (pop. density) while the sphere of influence should be defined by military strength, or some such.

	29-08-2004 06:29									#16
	Put an end to popups!

Marcos,

Come on mate,

Weak nations were attacked by stroppy nations as they were militarily weak- but one thing always was constant- the borders betwixt the two nations- weak military or not.

A border is a border is a border- The developers of Civ 4 must concentrate the programming on this aspect- no one supports any of the previous 3 versions in this aspect, settlers try to get into your nation simply as the AI is basically thick (stupid) about this.

In programming terms, at least X certain squares for AI settlers, or decide on Square cities (workers). If they decide to retain the current city shape and the daft cultural model then asking a nation to remove units must happen immediately, not 4 turns later when it's already to late as they are now closer to the other side of the city, and well on the way to plonking a city inside your empire (they get removed ((finally)) exactly into the free space they wish the build a city in).

Playing on the harder levels, losing a city to cultural influence is very. very frustrating-Rome never took a Greek city by cultural influence, it did it by being an ancient Hitler- and destroyed a noble civilisation in so doing.

however, whilst helping bring tribes into a more enlightened period- like us British, although enslaving us didn't help to make us love them, and once gone from the island, the aquaducts and colusseums went to ruin with wattle-and-daub hutted settlements once again begame the norm. Still, The Pagan Queen of the Icendi tribe of Britain fought them- seriously culturally backward compared to the Romans, but not a cats hell in chance they would all throw up their hands saying "we love Romans, lets all become on, even if we are only made Slaves"......The resistors in Civ 3 is accurate, cultural influence isn't.

Toby

Ps; Trip: Was the Roman area once Greek? I know almost nothing about the ancient world I'll happily admit.

I do know that peoples in Europe didn't suddenly city by city "go Roman"- soldiers made it so, nothing else!

Last edited by Toby Rowe on 29-08-2004 at 06:44

	29-08-2004 08:38									#17
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Toby Rowe Ps; Trip: Was the Roman area once Greek? I know almost nothing about the ancient world I'll happily admit. I do know that peoples in Europe didn't suddenly city by city "go Roman"- soldiers made it so, nothing else!

Parts of Italy, along with other areas of the Mediterranean were under Greek rule originally (the Greeks were quite the overseas colonizers).

As far as whether a city can suddenly "go Roman," it depends on how you look at it - control over cities or regions is determined by who the people give their loyalty to. If not enough force exists to keep them under the control of one leader, they will disobey the "correct" authority and instead opt for that which they support.

This is reflected in Civ 3 in that if you do not have enough military units to suppress a city the chance of it flipping increases. With enough military units, you can assure that a city will never flip.

While I agree that this mechanism does need to be tweaked for gameplay reasons (i.e. it's annoying and there are better ways to do it), it does actually have somewhat of a historical precedent.

In any case, I'm sure both the culture and borders system will be expanded upon in CIV.

	03-09-2004 03:55									#18
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Yep Trip,

But that's implying any city between the two nations' captitals have no loyaltly to either as a starting point-patently not true.

I once played on deity level- I'd built 3 cities and then discovered the Russians. Geographically the Russians owned the rest of the land. I started to concentrate on Map making to avoid an expansion war. alas, my middle city was subsumed into the Russ Empire before I began, even though they hadn't even built a single wonder- we were equal.

On the more realistic Regent level, Ive watched as a city I conquered get subsumed by the very civilisation I got it from- about 10 turns later., and once I'd built a temple.
The Chinese whom I was fighting were "In awe" of my culture- not shocking as I'd built every wonder bar two. (by cheating in starting with 20 cities).

What angered me in this event apart from the obvious (above) was that 2 other of my cities lay between the nearest Chinese city to this one (a size 5 outpost, against this size 11 city).

I personally think that cultural influence distracts from the game, and does nothing the enhance it.

If they were to produce a credible model in Civ4, the simple fact that the "cultural value" might exist within it just makes me laugh- under this model all current nations in Europe would be Greek or Roman, only Britain , Norway and Sweden might have avoided the inevitable- by water and physical distance to a nearest city alone.....

Toby

	04-09-2004 06:01									#19
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

quote: Originally posted by Toby Rowe asking a nation to remove units must happen immediately, not 4 turns later when it's already to late as they are now closer to the other side of the city, and well on the way to plonking a city inside your empire (they get removed ((finally)) exactly into the free space they wish the build a city in).

Absolutely! It so torques me off when a civ with whom I'd like to remain peaceful decides to waltz a settler toward a tiny unclaimed (because it's a terrible place for a city) area in the middle of my territory and then blows off my requests to leave until either I'm forced to declare war to get rid of the pest or they're so close to their goal that the automatic move out of my territory actually saves them turns in getting where they wanted to go. Yes I know I can assign units as "shepherds" to block their route and make them wander back and forth, and I've even devoted 8 obsolete units (when I had nothng better to do) to completely surround them so I could watch them sit there, but that's a huge waste of units, time, and player attention.

RESPECT MY BORDERS!!!!!
Why not have one-way rights of passage? You want to cross my territory, but I don't want to cross yours? Request "Safe Conduct" across my territory and offer me something of value.

An easy way to deter Safe Conduct or RoP abuses - Any of your units in another civ's territory under Safe Conduct or RoP are instantly redlined (or possibly destroyed) if you declare war on that civ. Presumably they were travelling in a non-combat-ready status and being watched by the home forces as part of the agreement. Their units in your territory would be similarly effected by this logic, but I would prefer that the innocent civ not pay the penalty as a way of avoiding abuses.

I would prefer eliminating R's o P in favor of Safe Conduct, as these one-way agreements are more realistic. The English "allow" the USA to base forces in their country in exchange for various considerations, but the last time I checked there weren't English tanks freely moving about the USA.

I would also like having the ability to build airbases and forts (ground bases) in an ally's territory to serve as forward bases for my forces under a Safe Conduct agreement. If the Safe Conduct agreement ends, the bases get turned over to the host country.

OT - Along a similar vein, I'd like to have one-way protection pacts, as well as mutual protection pacts.

	04-09-2004 09:02									#20
	Tired of ads?

Simcity 4 like layers

	05-09-2004 06:01									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Patcon,

What you say makes sense.

Imagine that pesky settler unit being automatically destroyed upon entering your territory as it had no right of passage.

Your idea's for mutual protection pacts and forward basing are excellent, I hope this gets into Civ4- after all, you don't want your best trading partner destroyed, and it is in your interests to protect them, and even spend some cash in so doing.

If Political systems are retained, then the same principal should apply- a natural affinity to nations with the same system- making mutual protection pacts more likely, and a system of shared defence common, just like NATO.


Going off topic, US Forces are on British territory in several parts of the world (Ascension Island, Diego Garcia and the UK of course). They are there as part of NATO and will always be welcomed by the majority of UK subjects, mind you, it still doesn't change the fact that our Challenger II MB tank is miles better than yours.....what's that US petrol-guzzler called again?!

Toby

	07-09-2004 01:03									#22
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

Question


How about the tatic have moving a palace to get other cities to flip. Cultural borders are realy invisible, but extend further.

Wouldn't that have a huge impact on borders?


The other thing I hate, which could be fixed with these ideas:

I try to place fortresses with a unit side by side to close off any gap (never happens), they just move diagnolly right throuh.

	09-09-2004 09:32									#23
	Suffering from ads?

I never tried that one- with corruption as is in this model (more than about 20 squares away you get 100% corruption, bar a democracy, and one sheld per turn only- so 200 turns to change Palace).

What would be the point?- all your core cities would then suffer the distortion on the "real world" Infogrammes imagined. I'd love to know what pollution the infogramme office suffers, and how much corruption exists within it. I assume the average pay in the Seattle office was $15,400 pm, but by the time it reaches the Boston office they only get paid $11pm and are hungry, hence the frustration the programmers felt ;-)

Of course I take the piss, but this was how how I viewed the model after spending $54 (£30 buying the game back then infogrammes)


I certainly don't remember many Roman Governor's being executed for not providing the money the senate decided that province would produce, corruption, like Pollution in this version is daft- joining another empire is plain stupid. If it did ever exist- whom does it penalise?- the player of course- hardly likely to make us play the game again is it?

On lower levels, we get the (unwanted) cities, on highest levels, they get ours- but as I observed, the trigger is utterly random, whilst the concept is bonkers.

Toby

Last edited by Toby Rowe on 09-09-2004 at 10:09

	09-09-2004 15:28									#24
	Inflate your Upload Space

Just a tatic I read by others, I never tried it.

	10-09-2004 05:48									#25
	Get a bigger avatar today!

Why should there be cultural flips? Look at Nagorno-Karabakh, it is totally surrounded by Azerbaijan, yet is still pro-Armenian because of the population being Armenian. No culture flipping there

	10-09-2004 17:34									#26
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

i want the ability to hold my borders from an encrouching AI. for example say i have a colony close to an AI border which i want to keep. i could build a fort on it and add some military units and could keep the land from being swallowed up by culture.

Also i like the idea that i could "claim" land for myself, whether it's empty or inside another civ's borders. Of course that civ could let it go, or demand it back, etc. Maybe the action of building a fort would claim the land as my own and even make a border around it. Building the fort could use up a worker. Then i need some military units to make sure my new land stays mine.

	12-09-2004 12:53									#27
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

Hi mate,

A sguare-shaped city might help, but it also forces you to place cities in a position you may not want just to close the gap.

Personally, as your cities expand, I like a line drawn that follows the tips of your cities to each other in a link- like a modern national border, how difficult this is to achieve in terms of programming I've no idea- I do know that all 3 versions haven't addressed the problem. bar the last, but the means they employed (culture) pleased almost none of us.

On final thing: Square shaped things work well in human minds- planning is so much easier!!, now, where's my box....

Toby

Ps, I was watching a BBC "Open University" programme last week, and like an unwelcome tap on the shoulder, the Med' history it was covering told me a few cities from the Hittite (sp?) empire "went Greek" on the Western border- typical! However, it only happened once the Hittite empire was collapsing around the Emperors ears.

But.....I just knew examples would exist!!

Anyways, If you have already won the game by a "cultural" victory, to lose a size 10 city to a size 2 city, two cities away is a complete mockery of the concept anyway, which shows how seriously Infogrammes took their own idea on incept!

Last edited by Toby Rowe on 12-09-2004 at 15:58

	20-09-2004 19:03									#28
	Put an end to popups!

I don't care how they solve it! As long as there's no more annoying units standing around outside the main gates of my capital, picking their noses or whatever they are up to I'll be happy!

Seriously, when I first heard about the cultural expansion border I thought I would get rid of them, but no, the AI just had to keep littering my highways.

	20-09-2004 21:13									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Heh!!

I mused upon it, then I thought "hold on, they have given us the solution"- The borders now expand, and it does generally stop the AI code from sending many settlers to that single square.

Problem was, they had to call it "culture" and then wrap a new unwanted concept around a solution to an annoying gaming issue.

Why didn't they simply use the "spread of influence" bit only? (cities alone, not temples etc provide the needed points once borders eventually meet as they will.)

Still, I'd prefer a border concept at onsett.

Toby?

	22-09-2004 22:33									#30
	Increase the size of your Attachments

There you go! Thats the biggest problem with the Civilization franchise. In all of the 3 civilization games, but especially in the 3rd one, I was having, in my mind, control over a certain territory. I had cities populated with borders. But all the time, I found out that some other civilization would try and colonize the only little square that wasn't taken by my borders on the continent, even if that meant colonizing a lonely 1x1 desert tile. That's just nonsense. I got pissed more than I could ever remember. Add to that the freaking behavior of some Civs to circulate freely within your borders at peace time, I was just going crazy.