One annoying thing were floating boarders when an enemy base was founded near yours. I think the first base has right to its whole territory. The last base founded should only get what remains.

What do you guys/ladies think?

As to me, it is just frustrating when you've built a nice base (surrounded by resources e.g.), and a few turns later you notice that half the base's territory 's gone in favour of a new enemy base nearby.

Do you think this is justified, or do you want to see it changed (like me)?

Do I hear the clash of metal?

quote: Originally posted by general_charles on 05-03-2000 02:26 PM I think that once countries are allied, they should be allowed to go in their allies' territories and their units should be allowed to be on the same squares and therefore defend together

Remember those pesky caravans from your allies which would slowly plunk their way along or beside your roads,thereby impeding your own units movement?
I agree that allied units should be able to occupy the same spot.

If you have had your border reduced then it creates a temporary void where other nations can move in and take that territory, otherwise after a while (or after sending your units out to take it back) then it would become your territory again. I also think that if a city has been cut off from your capital for a long time then the chances of it revolting will increase.

quote: Originally posted by Grier on 05-10-2000 05:42 AM If you are at war then military units moving into your borders reduce your border.

This doesn't always apply. Just because a country has military units somewhere doesn't mean that the country loses it's border there. Think US/Vietnam War. We had troops all over the country(ies), it doesn't mean that we gained that land or that they lost it. I think you're thinking along the lines of a war with bordering nations. But your rule doesn't always apply. Especially when considering air strikes against a country (US strikes on Yugoslavia)

quote: Originally posted by Grier on 05-10-2000 05:42 AM I also think that if a city has been cut off from your capital for a long time then the chances of it revolting will increase.

I think we're thinking along the same lines when I compare this to England's expansion into India, North America, and Africa. By "cut off" do you mean if it a certain distance from the capital? If so, I completely agree. Corruption and waste already occurs in Civ 2, but a "revolution factor" should be used to determine a city's hunger for independence or joining a new civ. In the capitol = 0%. In a city 5 square away = 2%. Across the globe = 75%. Is this what you meant or something else?

I dont think that troops would take control of territory unless they are bordering nations. How about this as a solution, the number of turns an enemy unit sits on a square then it takes that many turns to return that sqaure to your border by natural means.
For example: A unit moves into your territory and sits there for 8 turns before returning to his own civ, that area would be owned by nobody for the next 8 turns at which point it would return back to you. Moving one of your own units into the area would return the area to you much quicker.

To add...

Civ 1 claims land from a neighboring civ (civ 2) while at peace. This allows Civ 2 to valid pretext to declare war on Civ 1.

Land can also be discussed during diplomacy and if land is given up, no unit is needed to claim it.

If a city is taken, than the city (and the land it uses for resources) becomes part of your civs territory without a unit having to claim the land. Thoughts on this please...