Extending your borders. - or - Land a commodity?

[Kevin Ar18]

Terrain in Civ III should play a much greater role in the game.

I would like to see more solidly defined territorial borders in the game.

Instead of it just resizing with the flow of culture influence, you should have to claim the land or take it by force. Land would become something worth fighting for instead of just cities.
It would also be something you would negotiate as peace settlements or after-war agreements.

[Inverse Icarus]

too complex, i assume. you'd need an inferface to trace borders in a diplomacy screen.

[DarkCloud]

One should be able to buy and sell land;

real life examples: Louisiana Purchase

One should also be able to offer land as concessions in war as Kevin stated.

This will make the game more interesting and engrossing.

[Rollo_CH]

Firaxis said that the "countryside" will play a greater role in Civ 3, that you have to defend not only the Cities but also the land. Than I sincerely hope that there will be a possibility to "stabilize" your borders with your neighbors. The way the borders moved when someone (friend or foe) build a city close to your borders in SMAC, pissed me off...and actually that was one reason I quit playing that game. Borders (between states) should only be able to be altered by war-means or diplomatic bargaining!

[Kevin Ar18]

Originally posted by Rollo_CH
Firaxis said that the "countryside" will play a greater role in Civ 3, that you have to defend not only the Cities but also the land. Than I sincerely hope that there will be a possibility to "stabilize" your borders with your neighbors. The way the borders moved when someone (friend or foe) build a city close to your borders in SMAC, pissed me off...and actually that was one reason I quit playing that game. Borders (between states) should only be able to be altered by war-means or diplomatic bargaining!

That is exactly what I meant. I don't want the SMAC method where if someone builds a city in the modern era all the sudden the borders change.

I think there should be both diplomatic and war options to claim new land.
But as a brought up in another thread, perhaps after a war you must make an agreement on how to resettle the land? Say you conquered lot's of a certain civ, but you want give the land back to them and let them live (but you place an occupation force in there)?
You may also want to negotiate taking away some of their land after the war.

[wotan321]

...and speaking of civ borders, did anyone notice in the "resources" walkthrough at the Firaxis site, that the border over water is not the standard + pattern as it is over land? Whats up with that?

What other factors than culture effect a civ's borders?

[Rollo_CH]

...and speaking of civ borders, did anyone notice in the "resources" walkthrough at the Firaxis site, that the border over water is not the standard + pattern as it is over land? Whats up with that?

I think it may depend on the fact that they did not yet discover "navigation" or something like that. The possibility to send your early trireme's outside coastal waters to "high sea", and still make it. I think it worked in that way in Civ 2. Therefore they simply haven't managed to survey the waters further from the coast.

[ancient]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq


Actually, this was the US "buying" land from the French, who didn't even own it. Just as the Dutch "bought" Manhattan for trinkets - from a tribe that didn't even use the island. Never mind what the actual inhabitants thought about the deal. What the US bought was agreement from the French that the US may plunder it and kill its inhabitants instead of France doing this.

One big problem with this idea is that borders as we know them today didn't even exist until late in the 19th century. Prior to that, beyond cultural and social bonds, there was what essentially was the extent of a ruler's ability to collect tribute/tax in exchange for promised defense against other would-be tribute/tax collecting rulers. ...I sound like a real sourpuss in this post!

I happen to like the idea of city influence defining "borders." Also, the colony element of the new game will make defending territory relevant, even important if you have valuable resources at hand. You can go exploit the wealth of the land, but the neighbors can take it from you if you let them. There is a long thread on this topic - many ideas and good discussion.

France did own the louisianna territory.. and even had people settling there such as In New Orleans. But the majority of the land truely belonged to the natives which i guess was your point..

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by DarkCloud
real life examples: Louisiana Purchase

Actually, this was the US "buying" land from the French, who didn't even own it. Just as the Dutch "bought" Manhattan for trinkets - from a tribe that didn't even use the island. Never mind what the actual inhabitants thought about the deal. What the US bought was agreement from the French that the US may plunder it and kill its inhabitants instead of France doing this.

One big problem with this idea is that borders as we know them today didn't even exist until late in the 19th century. Prior to that, beyond cultural and social bonds, there was what essentially was the extent of a ruler's ability to collect tribute/tax in exchange for promised defense against other would-be tribute/tax collecting rulers. ...I sound like a real sourpuss in this post!

I happen to like the idea of city influence defining "borders." Also, the colony element of the new game will make defending territory relevant, even important if you have valuable resources at hand. You can go exploit the wealth of the land, but the neighbors can take it from you if you let them. There is a long thread on this topic - many ideas and good discussion.

[Grumbold]

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
One big problem with this idea is that borders as we know them today didn't even exist until late in the 19th century. Prior to that, beyond cultural and social bonds, there was what essentially was the extent of a ruler's ability to collect tribute/tax in exchange for promised defense against other would-be tribute/tax collecting rulers. ...I sound like a real sourpuss in this post!

I think that where populated areas of neighbouring countries actually met (like in Europe) the concept of a border and national identity was well established long before that. Scotland and England certainly had a good idea of which parts of their borderlands belonged to them at any given time since the Middle Ages. It was when the Europeans started drawing lines on maps to deliniate the extent of other people's countries that problems really started, particularly when it all looked like sparsely inhabited savannah that no-one used.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by Grumbold
It was when the Europeans started drawing lines on maps to deliniate the extent of other people's countries that problems really started, particularly when it all looked like sparsely inhabited savannah that no-one used.

...especially because that sparsely inhabited savannah was really fully used farmland or pastureland. The euros of the day just didn't bother to find out who was doing what with it. Lack of fences apparently made it clear enough to them that nobody used it - at least not properly.

This topic gets me riled up, I'll stop now before it turns to a rant. I'll let the smilie do the ranting:

[Inverse Icarus]

i believe that you should be able to forcibly expand your borders with military units.

if a said militay unit is "squatting" in an enemy's territoral square long enough without the said enemy ranting and raving, the borders should reshape.

in civ 2, if u had a city near an enemy, and you both wanted a silk, you could walk a warrior over it, and claim it, and vica-versa.

this would also please the facist militarists in this game.

:oints to self::

[Inverse Icarus]

also, that SMAC border concept isnt plausable in civ 3 because a new city wouldnt have any culture to start with.

(unless mike's made a cathedral in it??!?!?)

you should have plenty of time to whine and stomp on it.

[johndmuller]

If they started with the SMAC idea of borders (which is quite possible), we can hope that they made modifications to accomodate the general discomfort people feel with those ever shifting boundaries.

What kind of things would be reasonable given that starting point?

a) Freezing the boundaries whereever they first meet. Note that they might still change if a 3rd party arrived.

b) Letting them move around, but not to interfere with city production areas.

c) Available for negotiations once initiallly established.

d) Existing borders can be extended 1 tile at a time by some covert means (i.e. diplomat action)

e) Existing borders can be extended 1 tile at a time by some military means (i.e. military unit squats for x turns or executes the "occupy" action).

f) Existing borders can be extended 1 tile at a time by some other means (like developing the tile with a former).

[Inverse Icarus]

whenever i played civ2 with my friends, wether against or allied, there were always border disputes, and terrirotal purches.

it was basically like "give me 500 gold or get off that island"

or "300 now, or i colonize it before you get there"

sure its crude, but hell it works.

i assume your talking with AI. well AI sucks.