View Poll Results: Should Forts, Colonies and Outposts produce borders?
Yes, all of these terrain improvements should generate borders 8 20.51%
Yes, terrain improvements should generate borders, but not these ones 1 2.56%
Yes, but they should have fixed borders! 17 43.59%
No, I like the border system as is! 13 33.33%
Voters: 39. You may not vote on this poll

 
 
Thread Tools
Old July 5, 2002, 03:00   #1
The_Aussie_Lurker
BtS Tri-League
King
 
Local Time: 03:49
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Adelaide, South Australia, Australia
Posts: 1,451
Poll: Should Forts, outposts and Colonies produce borders?
Sorry to poll you to death like this, but this is one part of the Culture system which I'd like to see altered!!
Basically, the options are:

1) Yes, all the listed terrain improvements should generate borders, and should have "Culture" in the same way as an improvement.

2) Yes, some terrain improvements should generate borders, but I had different ones in mind!

3) Yes, they should generate borders, but they should be a fixed 1-2 squares in radius!

4) No, I like borders and culture just as they are.

If you answer this poll, could you also indicate whether you feel that borders should be negotiable as part of a peace settlement or other form of diplomatic agreement (like trade!)

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.
The_Aussie_Lurker is offline  
Old July 5, 2002, 05:57   #2
Adm.Naismith
King
 
Adm.Naismith's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:49
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 1999
Location: Milano - Italy
Posts: 1,674
Well, I haven't much time to ponder about these suggestions, so I'm writing my idea as it come to my mind.

Fort: It can be built only in owned territory (civ cultural border) or in open field (outside any cultural border); you can't build a Fort inside enemy border, but you can still keep it if the enemy border expand and include it.
The Fort should excert a 9 square border (like a ZOC) only if garrisoned by a military unit.

Colonies: a garrisoned (by a military unit) colony must survive to border expansion, as far as any proper city. Similar rules should apply for cultural flipping.
an unguarded colony should "flip" side as it is included in another civ border.

IMHO colonies should never disappear: they are population place that can't grow. They should change in cities joining another worker (2 workers = same population count than 1 settler).

The Colony should excert a 9 square border (like a ZOC) only if garrisoned by a military unit.

Note: no defense bonus for a military unit garrisoned in a colony.

Outpost: as I understand so far they are only "sentinel" or "sensor" watchpoint. No way to have a cultural border.

Disclaimer: my opinion hasn't been tested for game balancing, so it can be irrilevant or simply dead wrong. Please forgive me in advance.
Adm.Naismith is offline  
Old July 5, 2002, 22:49   #3
GeneralTacticus
Alpha Centauri Democracy GameAlpha Centauri PBEMPtWDG RoleplayNationStatesInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamCivilization III PBEMApolyton Storywriters' GuildACDG3 Spartans
Emperor
 
GeneralTacticus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:49
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: of Melbourne, Australia
Posts: 6,851
Quote:
IMHO colonies should never disappear: they are population place that can't grow. They should change in cities joining another worker (2 workers = same population count than 1 settler).
The problem with that idea is that 2 workers are cheaper than 1 settler, and have the same pop cost. So, it would be more cost effective to build a colony and then turn it into a city than to build the city straight off.

Last edited by GeneralTacticus; July 5, 2002 at 22:59.
GeneralTacticus is offline  
Old July 5, 2002, 23:36   #4
Sabre2th
King
 
Sabre2th's Avatar
 
Local Time: 23:49
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Nov 2000
Posts: 1,691
I don't really have an opinion in any of this, but I would like to point out to General that colonies can only be built on a resource.
Sabre2th is offline  
Old July 6, 2002, 01:42   #5
m0lok0plus
Settler
 
Local Time: 03:49
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: May 2002
Posts: 5
One possibility, although it would require a complete reworking of the game, is that colonies and forts can create "territory" which is different from cultural zones. Territory can never grow and may be something like a 9 block zone of control around a fortress or a colony (as mentioned before).

This zone of control acts like your cultural homeland in that enemy units may get booted out and enemy settlers cannot found cities upon this land and there will be no barbarian uprisings within the zone. However, this zone can never grow without building more terrain improvements (ie. more fortresses and colonies). Since this territory is not culturally linked to your homeland these fortresses and colonies will easily be absorbed into an encroaching enemy cultural border.

An example of this would be the Lousiana Purchase. This was American Territory with almost no cultural link to America. However, as settlers moved in it gradually became a functioning part of the union.

Or invision Texas, a Mexican Territory, which felt stronger ties to a foreign (American) power than to it's own homeland so it switched sides.

This might be an easy way to stake a claim on that huge jungle which just isn't worth planting settlers on or to slow the growth of an enemy culture.

Just a thought...
m0lok0plus is offline  
Old July 6, 2002, 15:19   #6
Panag
MacCivilization II Democracy Game: ExodusC4BtSDG Rabbits of Caerbannog
Emperor
 
Panag's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:49
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Posts: 8,117
hi ,

you should have posted the option on and off in the poll , ....

have a nice day
Panag is offline  
Old July 6, 2002, 15:38   #7
HazieDaVampire
King
 
HazieDaVampire's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:49
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: The British Empire
Posts: 1,105
i'm gunna make a better version of this, it'll have more accurate results.
HazieDaVampire is offline  
Old July 6, 2002, 15:48   #8
Panag
MacCivilization II Democracy Game: ExodusC4BtSDG Rabbits of Caerbannog
Emperor
 
Panag's Avatar
 
Local Time: 05:49
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: MY WORDS ARE BACKED WITH BIO-CHEMICAL WEAPONS
Posts: 8,117
Quote:
Originally posted by HazieDaVampire
i'm gunna make a better version of this, it'll have more accurate results.
hi ,

great , post a link when its done

try to include more options if you want

have a nice day
Panag is offline  
Old July 6, 2002, 17:52   #9
jsw363
Prince
 
Local Time: 19:49
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jul 2001
Posts: 319
Quote:
Originally posted by m0lok0plus
One possibility, although it would require a complete reworking of the game, is that colonies and forts can create "territory" which is different from cultural zones. Territory can never grow and may be something like a 9 block zone of control around a fortress or a colony (as mentioned before).

An example of this would be the Lousiana Purchase. This was American Territory with almost no cultural link to America. However, as settlers moved in it gradually became a functioning part of the union.

Or invision Texas, a Mexican Territory, which felt stronger ties to a foreign (American) power than to it's own homeland so it switched sides.

This might be an easy way to stake a claim on that huge jungle which just isn't worth planting settlers on or to slow the growth of an enemy culture.

Just a thought...
I too have been thinking of a way to "claim" territory without having any cities there. Claimable land that you would defend with military units could be different than your civ's boundaries. There's nothing that's more annoying than landing a settler on a island and while you wait for the new city to expand someone lands their own settler their. This territory would eliminate that problem.

Liked the example of Texas. Hadn't been able to come up with too many examples of culture flipping in RW but that's a great one. (You sort of have to discount the independence part though)
jsw363 is offline  
Old July 6, 2002, 19:03   #10
Inverse Icarus
Emperor
 
Inverse Icarus's Avatar
 
Local Time: 22:49
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: flying too low to the ground
Posts: 4,625
i proposed that a while ago.

forts should have borders or at leat FORTIFY borders.

for example, if i have a border with an AI civ, and i build fortresses down it, the border shouldnt push back, makign my fortresses in enemy territory.
__________________
"I've lived too long with pain. I won't know who I am without it. We have to leave this place, I am almost happy here."
- Ender, from Ender's Game by Orson Scott Card
Inverse Icarus is offline  
Old July 6, 2002, 19:34   #11
zulu9812
King
 
zulu9812's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:49
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: of Scotland
Posts: 1,383
Borders in civ3 are reliant on culture-generation. Having forts with a fixed 9 square 'zone of control' territory means that a player can just build 1 fort, then another and another, and keep on expanding their territory virtually for free (the only cost being the time it takes the worker to build it). Terrible idea. Secondly, since these forts produce no culture and since if they generate border expansion they should be subject to border shrinking, wouldn't they simply culture flip to an opposing city?

A cost-free, cultureflip-free, risk-free way of expanding your border? No way.
__________________
Up the Irons!
Rogue CivIII FAQ!
Odysseus and the March of Time
I think holding hands can be more erotic than 'slamming it in the ass' - Pekka, thinking that he's messed up
zulu9812 is offline  
Old July 6, 2002, 20:40   #12
notyoueither
Civilization III MultiplayerCivilization III PBEMInterSite Democracy Game: Apolyton TeamC3C IDG: Apolyton TeamApolytoners Hall of FameCiv4 InterSite DG: Apolyton TeamPolyCast TeamPtWDG Gathering StormC4DG Gathering Storm
Deity
 
notyoueither's Avatar
 
Local Time: 21:49
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: of naught
Posts: 21,300
They should have a 0 radius border (they only control their tile) they should not generate any culture or grow in any way, and fortresses should be immune to flips (outposts and colonies, I'm not sure).

Correction. Occupied fortresses should be immune to flips.
__________________
(\__/)
(='.'=)
(")_(") This is Bunny. Copy and paste bunny into your signature to help him gain world domination.
notyoueither is offline  
Old July 7, 2002, 05:27   #13
Nevs23
Chieftain
 
Nevs23's Avatar
 
Local Time: 04:49
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: Dresden
Posts: 37
My choice:
"Yes, all of these terrain improvements should generate borders"

Nevs23 is offline  
Old July 7, 2002, 21:32   #14
Mongoloid Cow
Warlord
 
Mongoloid Cow's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:19
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 174
Why not have fortresses and colonies produce borders on the square they are on only. If completely surrrounded by other civs territory, it is disbanded, and you get your worker back (if a colony), and all things on the square are moved to your nearest city.
Mongoloid Cow is offline  
Old July 8, 2002, 02:10   #15
GoodFella
Warlord
 
GoodFella's Avatar
 
Local Time: 03:49
Local Date: November 1, 2010
Join Date: Jun 2002
Location: formerly known as Prince
Posts: 252
A fixed 9 sq radius. I like the idea of territories.
__________________
If you are unable to read this you are illiterate.
GoodFella is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 23:49.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team