Should it be an act of war to plant a city that moves another civs borders?

Akaoz · November 11, 2001, 17:04

Grumbold · November 11, 2001, 17:10

In Civ 3 the border represents your cultural influence more than your political and geographical territory. Really there should be both but that would just complicate things. At least the borders don't shift wildly like in SMAC. Lets leave it alone

adaMada · November 11, 2001, 18:21

I voted for it being an act of war, but I think it should be somewhere in the middle. If it's going to seriously impact your border, you should have the option of saying no, but that should seriously tick the other nation off, and if you say yes, it should make them much happier with you. In other words, a diplomacy tool... also, if they go ahead and make the city, it's an act of war. I also think it should depend on how much shifting happens -- what's unacceptable is the AI putting cities that touch your boarders in an effort to push your boarders back as far as possible, but if it'll cause a one-square push back on a city with a huge culture, then I don't think it's as big an issue. Having said that, though, that'd be hard to implement, and I don't think it's the biggest issue out there with this game, so...

-- adaMada

TitanTim · November 11, 2001, 18:21

I think there should be a rule that you can't build a city within 3 spaces of another city. Of course if a city is built close to a border thereby shifting the border, that city would be sitting very close to a cultural turnover (or at least in theory).

Cities that have been culturally overthrown should have the option to be razed (the dissidents so hate their city and like yours that it becomes a ghost town and they move to yours). One thing I've always hated about the computer is the stupid places they build their cities.

Trachmyr · November 11, 2001, 18:49

In addition it would be nice that when units get deported for crossing your territory that get deported to THEIR territory, and for the next 20 turns tresspassing requires a decleration of war.

TitanTim · November 13, 2001, 23:16

Here! Here!

Oh I'm sorry I'm on your land, I'll get off. Oops, did I just step back on your land? Well then, don't mind me, I'm just going to build another city on that vacant single-space peninsula on the other side of the continent.

jbird · November 13, 2001, 23:25

I had been chewing on this idea myself, and i'm suprised and glad that someone else brought it up. I don't mind if a civ builds a town near my city. I don't mind if he builds a city, and eventually his culture is powerfull enough to push back my frontiers. I *do* mind when I build a city to harness a resource (generally within the working radius of my civ, and that tile is often *worked* by my farmers/miners, because the resource sqares have bonuses with them).

Now, I don't want to call for "real life" here, but you can't just kick the farmers of one nation out of the land they're working and not have that nation be justifyably upset. This is *exactly* the type of thing that caused wars in Earth's history, and I would like to see it modeled in Civ3 as well.

Jbird

Malkuth · November 13, 2001, 23:52

This is how you win with Culture victory though. When An AI plants it on a border thats fine thats part of the game. But when it plants it in an empty space middle of your empire thats bad, since he just gave you a free City.

Venger · November 14, 2001, 00:11

The border system in Civ3 really isn't much of a border system. The border of the United States doesn't change when some Mexican squatters create a shantytown along it.

A real border system should be enforceable. Right now, the only enforcement is that you cannot buld a city directly inside a nations "border". However, you can put one right next to it and push back my border. Huh? Come on guys, there has to be a better way than this.

And that way should be that a city's border cannot retract unless the city is destroyed by another Civ. It makes ZERO sense that a city I found suddenly loses territory because the neighbor built a FRIGGIN TEMPLE. Once a border is established, only the change of ownership of a city should be able to modift those borders.

Now mind you, this still encourages building temples and cultural buildings to expand your borders until they are met, but once they meet, that's that. When the Space Needle opened we didn't suddenly expand the Canadian border...

Venger

Venger

Kc7mxo · November 14, 2001, 00:21

I'm all for pushing borders back. But not into the city radius. If its in reach of my city, then its MINE. so the ai should stay the #$#@ out.

What the ai is doing is actually very good strategy. in my last game the bastard managed to push my borders back one square in the most critical area of my entire empire. the square that had iron in it. My only option, other than war, was to build a city one fricking square away and take it back.

And if i didn't have to be so worried about corruption, this wouldn't be a problem.

Venger · November 14, 2001, 05:49

Quote:

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
I'm all for pushing borders back. But not into the city radius. If its in reach of my city, then its MINE. so the ai should stay the #$#@ out.

What the ai is doing is actually very good strategy. in my last game the bastard managed to push my borders back one square in the most critical area of my entire empire. the square that had iron in it. My only option, other than war, was to build a city one fricking square away and take it back.

And if i didn't have to be so worried about corruption, this wouldn't be a problem.

Dude, that's not smart, that's just screwy - is it a border or ISN'T it? If it's a border, then changing the border should require a little more than flopping a tent next to your fence line...

Venger