|
Author
|
|
Topic: Borders |  |
|
Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
Warlord
Salt Lake City, USA
Oct 2000
|
 |
posted December 18, 2000 15:18
   | 
 |
 |  |
I want nation borders in civ3! in civ2, You so called, 'civilzation' is not that at all, its just a group of cities with a leader. There would be two kinds of borders, one would be natural borders: i.e. mountains, rivers, oceans, etc. the second would be man-made, claiming borders. With the explorer, settler, 'leader' unit, or engineer, you could have an option when you reach the outskirts of your borders to, "expand border.". With this you could claim territory. natural borders would be just that, natural borders. also, when you win a war against another civ, you could set a 'neutral boundry' inbetween your and your opponents borders. It would require both of you stay out of it. Much like the reinland after WW1. oF course, with borders would come invasions, something I must request for civ3. there would be 2 kinds of invasions, a secret attack, and an actual, invasion.I would like to add something else to this thread too, you should be able to name your wars. of course not all of them, but just the larger ones. and you should be able to name large battles. the game would auto save your 'named' battle, then would auto create movie from it. in later years, you could go back to this video, and watch the battle as if it were a movie. I like this idea because when that happens, seeing your self win a famous battle, it gives you a feeling of pride. and I just like to see myself womp someone elses @#%! |
orange
King
Moderator at the Civilization Gaming Network
Feb 2000
|
 |
posted December 18, 2000 15:52
  |
|
| |
This is definitely a good concept that I hope they include with Civ 3. My idea is that military units have the option of "Claming land" that they move into. Once the land is claimed by Civ A, it is there's. Now Civ A can ask any opposing Civ (Civ B) to leave this land, even if it is unoccupied or unsettled land because it belongs to Civ A. The land can be negotiated, taken during war, or traded in return for money, units etc.Thoughts? ------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr" |
beyowulf
Chieftain
US
Feb 2000
|
|
posted December 18, 2000 16:13
|
|
| |
quote:
Originally posted by orange on 12-18-2000 03:52 PM
This is definitely a good concept that I hope they include with Civ 3. My idea is that military units have the option of "Claming land" that they move into. Once the land is claimed by Civ A, it is there's. Now Civ A can ask any opposing Civ (Civ B) to leave this land, even if it is unoccupied or unsettled land because it belongs to Civ A. The land can be negotiated, taken during war, or traded in return for money, units etc.Thoughts?
|
Also, the farther from your main cities, the less claim you have to them. Say to send a unit to claim some land, then leave it abandoned, and then a neighbor comes over, and puts a city in it, you could protest, but your arguments would have as much merit as if you were actively defending/using the land. |
orange
King
Moderator at the Civilization Gaming Network
Feb 2000
|
|
posted December 18, 2000 16:38
|
|
| |
Well that seems logical...but just look at the Falklands War! I guess the AI should be programmed to be more willing to part with far away lands...but once in a while this shouldn't be the case.------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr" |
Jer8m8
Chieftain
New York, America
Nov 2000
|
|
posted December 18, 2000 16:52
|
|
| |
Diablo, you once again bring up something discussed in The List |
orange
King
Moderator at the Civilization Gaming Network
Feb 2000
|
|
posted December 18, 2000 17:00
|
|
| |
who cares?  ------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr" |
Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
Warlord
Salt Lake City, USA
Oct 2000
|
|
posted December 18, 2000 20:07
|
|
| |
Jer, all you guys complained to me about saying that all this new stuff 'newbys' were saying had already been said. Now you doing it back!  p.s. I bring this up again for the new guys, and so that I can refresh my memory. |
Big Crunch
Prince
Soon to be known by a Symbol...
Sep 2000
|
|
posted December 19, 2000 09:25
|
|
| |
"There is nothing new under the Sun".It probably has some relevance to people complaining about repeat topics.  |
raingoon
Prince
Los Angeles
Aug 1999
|
 |
posted December 19, 2000 13:52
|
|
| |
I think borders are the key concept around which Civ 3 must be built. To begin with, they must be married to a resource model. It isn't just that we're moving units around to expand our land by claiming it, but we're claiming land based on the kinds of resources we think we can find -- or have found -- there. Resources that are essential to the growth and maintenance of our empire.Units should be able to reveal hidden resources on the map as well as claim them. Whether this requires a special unit for that, or can be any military unit, I don't know. But these aren't the Civ2 or CTP2 resources. These are the above mentioned kind of resources, which have great strategic import, to the building and maintenance of your forces and your infrastructure. And borders becomes an essential component in what becomes a fundamental game system -- resources fuel your nation's ability to explore, exploit, and later trade and defend, along new borders which have been negotiated for you. |
Deity Dude
Chieftain
Aug 2000
|
|
posted December 19, 2000 15:34
|
|
| |
Excuse what i am about to say because i havnt researched the threads relating to borders, and i think the concept is great, but what exactly would a border do. Does it stop other civs from entering or building a city within your border. If so whats to stop people from claiming everything as within their border. What if 2 civs claim the same area. If there is an appropriate thread that details the background info on borders just point me to it if you don't feel like rehashing it here. |
DarkCloud
King
of Clouds
Jul 2000
|
|
posted December 19, 2000 16:33
|
|
| |
Diablo, just bump your old threads instead of creating new ones; a word of advice. |
orange
King
Moderator at the Civilization Gaming Network
Feb 2000
|
|
posted December 19, 2000 20:05
|
|
| |
Diety Dude - two civs CAN'T claim the same land. That's the point. If one civ claims another civ's land...it can be considered an act of war. If they simply move into unguarded territory, you can ask that they remove themselves (and threaten them with war). Borders will show the ACTUAL boundries of your civ...not just the usual 21 squares around your city. This way you can control far away lands without having a city there. Maybe there can be a way to do this with oceans as well. ------------------
Civilization Gaming Network Forums
~ The Apolyton Yearbook
~ The poster formerly known as "OrangeSfwr" |
Diablo, Bro. of Mephisto
Warlord
Salt Lake City, USA
Oct 2000
|
|
posted December 19, 2000 21:10
|
|
| |
yes, exactly what orange said. p.s. darkcloud, I posted this new thread cause I have some new ideas. |
Pangaea
Settler
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Dec 2000
|
|
posted December 19, 2000 21:34
|
|
| |
Heh, I always hated the "zones of control" in Civ II... the time I send a unit into look at my neighbour's land, would be the time he puts a city in, and my guy can't leave without violations to treaties, hehbut thats why they created the disband button, I guess...
And borders would be nice.... Imagine how small Canada would be if we had to have major cities around all the land we control....
We'd have southern Ontario, parts of Quebec, most of the maritines and BC 
Also, that could lead to better things, like rights to the goods on that land (so you no longer need to have it within city radius, if the technology is advanced enough to transport it) All kidns of new aspects can open |
Yog-Sothoth
Settler
Norway
Sep 2000
|
|
posted December 20, 2000 08:01
|
|
| |
I think that the internal "structure" of your empire should have a mayor impact on the border issue. This of course means that you would have different states of your empire.If you have a lot of "independent" parts of your empire, and the control you have over these are limited you should not be able to define your borders outward that well. On the other hand if your empire is consolidated and with a strong sense of unity, you should be able to have well defined borders around your empire. These two are extremes, and there would be several states inbetween. I'm not sure if this made any sense, now that I see it written down. It was a lot better in my head
|
Grumbold
Warlord
London, UK
Mar 2000
|
|
posted December 20, 2000 08:41
|
|
| |
I don't have a problem with claiming land that is uninhabited and unoccupied but I also don't think there can be any enforceable border under these circumstances if no troops are patrolling to spot violations. If you want a firm border, build watchtowers, forts or cities. That stops a civ with good fortune during the early exploration process just claiming vast tracts of land it cannot possibly settle. The current squabbling over antarctic mineral rights and offer to sell acres of moon surface strikes me as being perfect examples of unenforceable territorial claims. | |
Apolyton Civilization Site Forums
