08-09-2005 06:32									#1
	Borders and Diplomacy Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

Sorry if this has been covered before but.....

How about an ability to use diplomacy to set borders in the game. In Civ3 and SMAC, borders were decided by whichever civ could claim it by distance or influence. Though, this has led to one-city civ's keeping a 5-tile radius due to culture just because I never got around to crushing them early. That leaves me needing to declare war for one specific tile that I might want.

Shouldn't I be able to bargain or deal for it? Maybe trade some of my tiles for some of the AI's. The US and Canada's border is nice and straight through diplomacy. And that would help prevent other countires controlling one tile on my continent across a stretch of water. And if a deal can't be made, you could always go to war.

I should be able to claim as much land as I want and if no one contests me then I deserve it. Maybe the AI will be more willing to trade for a couple of tiles, since it never wants to give up a city.

	08-09-2005 09:46									#2
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I'm hoping for more diplomacy features and being able to divy up land between civs. The Berlin Conference that divided up Africa comes to mind.

	08-09-2005 11:52									#3
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Very good idea.

As I said in an other thread, it matches reality: borders aren't defined by culture, but through diplomacy and international treaties.

	08-09-2005 15:26									#4
	Remove this text

Nice idea for the Civ 5 wishlist, but sounds difficult to implement in interface terms.

Also, divying up land is hard enough playing against humans. Getting the AI to rationalise a deal would be tough, I expect.

	08-09-2005 20:10									#5
	Increase Your PM Length

I think it might be easier to get the AI to accept a deal for a few tiles. It must be easier than getting them to accept a deal for a whole city, which is hard to do even when you're rampaging through their empire.

We should be able to claim nearly any land we want in the game for our borders. If we claim it, then the AI can't build there unless they make a deal with us. Then we either relent our claim to the land or if it's important enough then we go to war over it. And the deal can be AI:"I see you claimed this land. Well nertz to you. It's ours now." You:"Ha, you got me" or "You'll take this land when you can pry it from my cold dead hand"

The US bought the Lousiana Territory from the French and the vast majority of it was really undefended land. If Spain/Mexico decided they wanted to build a city in Oklahoma, would we have stopped them. That's diplomacy.

Just think no more building a crap 3-tile city just to close a gap on your continent so the AI can't drop a city there. The US bought the Gadsen Purchase from Mexico just to run the train through. Hitler claimed Czechoslavakia and no one did anything about it, but they did when it came around to Poland. I can't imagine there are enough cities in Siberia to completely cover Asia so Russia doesn't have any gaps. And for once we can claim the Tundra and Desert land without wasting good settlers.

Maybe not a great solution, but it does fit what happens in real life. SMAC's diplomacy and RON's diplomacy were more realistic compared to Civ3's. Put the computing power to this and screw the animated leaders. I'd even take this over Wonder Movies.

Insane rant over.....BTW Firaxis, you better not take any the Wonder movies.

	08-09-2005 21:21									#6
	Inflate your Upload Space

quote: Originally posted by M. le Comte Very good idea. As I said in an other thread, it matches reality: borders aren't defined by culture, but through diplomacy and international treaties.

So very true. Just think of Africa and it's colonisation.

Yeah the idea is fine AoA but then what do you think an AI would ask in exchange for that alaska-tundra tile that, lo and behold, has oil (I hope Bush doesn't read this ).

The AI would be programmed to either refuse trading it or else, give in the city (if underpowered to you) or else ask for crazy over-the-top demands.

Just think how much gpt asks from you the AI when you already have hooked up 7 luxuries already.

Oil= ships, bombers, tanks (shiver), helicopters (in C4 that is).

Good idea, but just how much are you willing to pay for that tile.

True, SMAC'S diplomatic model was light years ahead of CivIII.

	08-09-2005 21:40									#7
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

This would be a great addition. Perhaps in early game, in unclaimed territory, you claim the squares any of your exploring units enter. You have the same (or similar) line of sight, but the squares you enter are claimed (picture your unit posting his flag. This would slow down initial exploration as you would have to enter more territory early in the game. It would also only be effective if the territory was yet unclaimed.

This would certainly add a lot of strategic options to the diplomacy later as tiles were traded and exchanged. Another example of this is Israel and the disputed lands there. A possible outcome would be that a country might cede a tile to you that you could build an airbase on, or a fort (Philippines to the US). This would be very interesting!

	08-09-2005 22:29									#8
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

quote: Originally posted by PapaMonkey This would be a great addition. Perhaps in early game, in unclaimed territory, you claim the squares any of your exploring units enter. You have the same (or similar) line of sight, but the squares you enter are claimed (picture your unit posting his flag. This would slow down initial exploration as you would have to enter more territory early in the game. It would also only be effective if the territory was yet unclaimed.

I don't know about all this. Good idea for a scenario or a mod, maybe. Territory claiming didn't happen very often at all except for a few hundred years in the age of exploration.

	08-09-2005 23:42									#9
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

and then after that, all of it was claimed, so people couldn't very well make new claims then, could they?

	09-09-2005 03:30									#10
	Tired of ads?

Well I think Civ has a perfectly playable and not-too-unrealistic territory-claiming model - building cities.

	09-09-2005 03:35									#11
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

which lets you build cities anywhere, even in between their cities if they dont spam them. there are certain areas where you simply cant build without going to war. smac has it right with a auto 7-tile border. although that could way use a treaty-for-turf option

	09-09-2005 03:59									#12
	Suffering from ads?

I believe the new health system is supposed to solve many of these problems.

Territory trading, even if it is historically significant enough for the programmers to try and implement (I think it's debatable), would be a PITA to implement. Things like cultural expansion, both of the traders' cities and of third-party cities, conquest by third-parties, etc., would make things a real mess.

	09-09-2005 04:03									#13
	Support Apolyton

quote: Originally posted by PapaMonkey This would be a great addition. Perhaps in early game, in unclaimed territory, you claim the squares any of your exploring units enter. You have the same (or similar) line of sight, but the squares you enter are claimed (picture your unit posting his flag. This would slow down initial exploration as you would have to enter more territory early in the game. It would also only be effective if the territory was yet unclaimed.

The other problem with explorers prancing around all over the place claiming territory would certainly be explorer-spam, and the resulting criss-crossed multi-coloured patches of totally empty yet claimed territory that can really screw with, among other things, troop movement plans (especially since borders can now be closed).

	09-09-2005 04:10									#14
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

options to ignore territory claims.your base can even be smack dab in enemy territory.so what? they go to war,or ignore you. if they choose not to fight,the whole area,say 5 tiles goes to you as your turf.

or you and someone else can just agree to totaly ignore someone eles turf,and actually remove it from the viewscreen (your view)

	09-09-2005 07:00									#15
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

I don't think claimed territory should be officially part of your empire and so other civ's can certainly walk right through it. This should represent the empty wilderness and it is pretty much up for grabs. Sure the Age of Exploration and continental claims was brief, but it would be interesting to see how the diplomacy could change the game.
I don't think you would have to walk through every tile to claim it and maybe it should be line of sight. Maybe it would be better to actually have to claim the land by clicking the speicifc land you want.
There must be some way to limit it from becoming an explorer free-for all....make it be a max percentage of your settled land or make it have to be within 20 or 50 tiles from a city.
Any settled city automatically trumps claimed land and that would remove any more distant claims.

Drakan: they might ask a lot for the tundra. But if I claimed it first, would they be willing to go to war to put a city there. And what would I be willing to pay for the land if they have it knowing it might be a dud. In Civ3, I'd have to go to war to get the land. A peaceful option would be nice.

	09-09-2005 07:48									#16
	Tired of ads?

quote: Originally posted by AoA I don't think claimed territory should be officially part of your empire and so other civ's can certainly walk right through it. This should represent the empty wilderness and it is pretty much up for grabs. Sure the Age of Exploration and continental claims was brief, but it would be interesting to see how the diplomacy could change the game. I don't think you would have to walk through every tile to claim it and maybe it should be line of sight. Maybe it would be better to actually have to claim the land by clicking the speicifc land you want. There must be some way to limit it from becoming an explorer free-for all....make it be a max percentage of your settled land or make it have to be within 20 or 50 tiles from a city. Any settled city automatically trumps claimed land and that would remove any more distant claims.

This might solve some of the problems, but then what would the feature be worth? Would it give you LOS? Seems a bit unfair and unrealistic. % of your settled land size? Advantage big civs (Portugal was tiny).

Again, an interesting idea, I just don't see how it would work or what purpose it would serve in the regular game.

	09-09-2005 16:00									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations: Deluxe Edition

quote: Originally posted by PapaMonkey This would be a great addition. Perhaps in early game, in unclaimed territory, you claim the squares any of your exploring units enter. You have the same (or similar) line of sight, but the squares you enter are claimed (picture your unit posting his flag. This would slow down initial exploration as you would have to enter more territory early in the game. It would also only be effective if the territory was yet unclaimed. This would certainly add a lot of strategic options to the diplomacy later as tiles were traded and exchanged. Another example of this is Israel and the disputed lands there. A possible outcome would be that a country might cede a tile to you that you could build an airbase on, or a fort (Philippines to the US). This would be very interesting!

Although the idea seems i good I think it would result in a perpetual state of war. Ever civ will concentrate sending explores and in no time the whole world will be divided. And since when did any AI put a reasonable price on anything? I once tried to buy a city, just founded and on a very bad place but only 2 or 3 tiles away from oil. The AI was far behind in technology and thus should in theory be unaware of the oil source. Although I was loaded with money, resources and cities I was not able buy the city and had to conquer it....

	09-09-2005 20:57									#18
	Inflate your Upload Space

I agree that building cities is the best way to claim territory. The cultural radius of a city indicates the level of city influence, so building between two other cities really is building in vacant land, not plopping down between Main and First Streets.

I would, however, offer a very simple approach that solves this issue with little game modification:

Make a change such that a colony occupies a small and ungrowing cultural area which in effect "claims" that land (e.g., 4-5 tiles perhaps). Then the building a city within an existing colony's cultural boundary would be an act of aggression. This would allow "colonization" using existing Civ theory, and one could sell/buy/trade these colonies the same as cities. The AI will still not do well at colony trading without a lot of work to upgrade its capabilities.

	09-09-2005 21:22									#19
	Increase the size of your Attachments

culture and borders has nothing to do with each other. in history there are thousand or millions of examples where areas had the same culture but that didnt have jack to do with borders.

an area is not simply culture a or culture b. culture is an overlapping thing and cannot be measured as such anyway. civ3 places a faulty miscinception into peoples heads

Last edited by Cataphract887 on 09-09-2005 at 23:29

	09-09-2005 21:46									#20
	Increase Your PM Length

"Culture" is a bad term for it. What they really want is "influence." Rarely in recorded history has anyone expanded into empty space. Usually, what's empty is the historical record of the inhabitants of that area, not the land itself. Most claiming wasn't done by sending explorers to claim empty land, but rather by two or more nations dividing up some other nations' lands between them. The colonization of the New World, Africa, and Asia is full of examples of that. The multiple partitions of Poland are another example. Cultural borders don't represent culture by itself, but rather the strength of the influence of your people. Influence is an approximation of cultural, military, and economic strength. In Civ3, this influence was derived directly only from cultural strength, with little direct correlation to military and economic strength. I am hopeful that the change in Civ4 that allows entertainers to generate culture will help a bit, although I would definitely like to see cultural borders changed to spheres of influence with an explicit contribution from the military and economy.

	09-09-2005 21:49									#21
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

quote: Originally posted by Cataphract887 culture and borders has bothing to do with each other. in history there are thousand or millions of examples where areas had the same culture but that didnt have jack to do with borders. an area is not simply culture a or culture b. culture is an overlapping thing and cannot be measured as such anyway. civ3 places a faulty miscinception into peoples heads

Very well said
Except that it should be nothing instead of bothing

	09-09-2005 23:16									#22
	Tired of ads?

Inca911's colony idea

Sophist

	09-09-2005 23:32									#23
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

quote: Except that it should be nothing instead of bothing

no idea what your talking about

quote: "Culture" is a bad term for it. What they really want is "influence." Rarely in recorded history has anyone expanded into empty space. Usually, what's empty is the historical record of the inhabitants of that area, not the land itself. Most claiming wasn't done by sending explorers to claim empty land, but rather by two or more nations dividing up some other nations' lands between them. The colonization of the New World, Africa, and Asia is full of examples of that. The multiple partitions of Poland are another example. Cultural borders don't represent culture by itself, but rather the strength of the influence of your people. Influence is an approximation of cultural, military, and economic strength. In Civ3, this influence was derived directly only from cultural strength, with little direct correlation to military and economic strength. I am hopeful that the change in Civ4 that allows entertainers to generate culture will help a bit, although I would definitely like to see cultural borders changed to spheres of influence with an explicit contribution from the military and economy.

just as long as it can be done on an abstract map and without manually sending out settlers\whatevers
even though that sounds gareeable to me,i still dont think culture should matter much.culture should effect happiness,not borders

	10-09-2005 01:34									#24
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

Sophist...yes that's the idea I was trying to express. Influence over land does not have to be solely tied to Civ3's idea of culture. I would be happy with the ability to make a diplomatic gentleman's agreement to divvy up land....even a small portion of land.

We should have much more realism with borders in the game such as it following natural boundaries such as rivers or mountains or coastlines. And if the computer won't handle it automatically, then let us hammer it out diplomatically with the AI.

I like inca911's idea. I think a colony should function as a placeholder (i.e. I hold this place) and should not count as a city for corruption level or culture or population growth. Maybe at best it could provide an extension of your borders and act as a port (although you can always load people onto boats from any shore I guess). If the AI wants to put a city there, you can peacefully yield it, trade for it, or make them declare war and fight for it.

It doesn't matter if the AI would never go through with a tile trade. Right now there's no possiblity of us getting land without going to war (as the AI rarely ever trades), so at least there will be another option.

	10-09-2005 01:42									#25
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: Originally posted by Cataphract887 culture should effect happiness,not borders

Borders are just a formalization of existing spheres of influence. Borders come after influence, not before. Through most of history, borders haven't been nearly as formal as today. Far more important was control of cities, ports, strategic points, resources, etc. The "empty" space around those mattered less. That's why it's more important to think of it as the informal and powerful concept of influence, rather than the formal (and relatively meaningless on its own) concept of borders.

That's why cultural strength is so important (though, as I stated above, it shouldn't be the only factor). There's the influence that comes from the barrel of a gun, the influence that comes from getting paid, the influence of a spiritual leader, and then there's the more subtle influence that comes from a sense of common identity. Civilization thus far has only modelled the last in this way. I don't have suggestions for how to incorporate the other three in a mechanism for influence. I'm not even sure whether it's meaningful in a game context, as methods of control using military, economic, and religious means are built into the game in other ways, while borders are the only expression of control possible using culture.

	10-09-2005 01:53									#26
	Got spare money?

quote: and then there's the more subtle influence that comes from a sense of common identity

i dont see that you can take a nation say germany and say because germans have a majority in poland(just as example) then germanys borders still stay where treaty says they are. the germans living there,why would they be influenced more towards german rule? they have their own country and plan going now.

quote: Borders are just a formalization of existing spheres of influence. Borders come after influence, not before. Through most of history, borders haven't been nearly as formal as today. Far more important was control of cities, ports, strategic points, resources, etc. The "empty" space around those mattered less. That's why it's more important to think of it as the informal and powerful concept of influence, rather than the formal (and relatively meaningless on its own) concept of borders.

depends on if we are talking about true borders or paper borders. in more modern times the 'empty' space you refer to is as important as the important items themselves as an area to stop the enemy before he can get there. control all the space around an object and the object too is controlled

	10-09-2005 05:14									#27
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by Cataphract887 i dont see that you can take a nation say germany and say because germans have a majority in poland(just as example) then germanys borders still stay where treaty says they are. the germans living there,why would they be influenced more towards german rule? they have their own country and plan going now.

That's why it's influence and not control. Germans (ethnicity and culture) are a majority in Austria, but it's an independent nation. The economic, religious, and military factors counteract the cultural affinity. Besides, Germany and Austria have been separate for centuries, but there was a lot of fuzziness before the unification of the German states in 1871 regarding who controlled what.

quote: [SIZE=1] Originally posted by Cataphract887 depends on if we are talking about true borders or paper borders. in more modern times the 'empty' space you refer to is as important as the important items themselves as an area to stop the enemy before he can get there. control all the space around an object and the object too is controlled

There are no true borders. It's all on paper.

	10-09-2005 05:24									#28
	Support Apolyton, buy Galactic Civilizations

quote: There are no true borders. It's all on paper.

if as a dictator of a country and i have my army occupying an area,i would say that my boundary roughly runs around the edge of where my troops can control. true border.

quote: That's why it's influence and not control. Germans (ethnicity and culture) are a majority in Austria, but it's an independent nation. The economic, religious, and military factors counteract the cultural affinity. Besides, Germany and Austria have been separate for centuries, but there was a lot of fuzziness before the unification of the German states in 1871 regarding who controlled what.

thats (and thanks for the austria,i couldnt remember its name)

but in civ3 the model used simply showed culture=control. weather or not there is influence in the area,your border shouldnt go through their lands. a german and an austrian border and then a german culture border that encompassses both.that would be

	11-09-2005 12:05									#29
	Support Apolyton, buy Alpha Centauri

quote: if as a dictator of a country and i have my army occupying an area,i would say that my boundary roughly runs around the edge of where my troops can control. true border.

That's control, not necessarily borders. You can control areas that are outside your borders; other countries may be occupied. When Russia (and other nations) occupied parts of Europe after WW2 they had effective control over the occupied nations but in most cases their borders didn't expand to envelope those nations. Real life borders exist only on paper and may or may not correlate with area of control.

	11-09-2005 12:37									#30
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

The diplomacy of Civ III is like a commodore 64 game. We had better database style games for such trading on apple II e's.

They have no excuse in this day and age, with the wonder machines we have.

I expect them to have a comprehensive diplomacy and trading system, that will take this game to the next level that is deserves.