I've had that happen often, and have sometimes not noticed and demanded that the other civ withdraw their unit... only to be told, "We have no troops in your territory". Grrrrhh! What do you mean, no troops in my territory? Your elephant is right in the middle of my territory! It just doesn't happen to be in the radius of any of my cities...

I hope this kind of situation will be corrected in Civ3. We need an improved definition of what "your territory" is: and whatever algorithm is used, it must include tiles that are completely surrounded by your cities, though not actually within the radius of any of them.

What do you think?

quote: Originally posted by airdrik on 04-04-2001 04:56 PM As the game progresses, treaties are made and more substatial borders established.

That sounds very sensible. But I seem to have missed earlier discussion of this issue. What do you mean by "more substantial borders", and how are these established?

It has been a great enhancement, that seems to be refined and added to Civ III.

Well, I hope it will be refined, because actually (SMAC) under some circustances borders floated wildly when another Civ built a city near yours, and allies seems to ignore your border a bit too much under many situations.

Again, the recent "preview" (CGW and last Sid news about diplomacy) mentioned treats to permit other civ soldiers to pass throu your territory.

I'm sure in future Civ you'll be happy, about unwanted elephants near your cities

quote: Originally posted by Adm.Naismith on 04-05-2001 04:21 AM Well, I hope it will be refined, because actually (SMAC) under some circustances borders floated wildly when another Civ built a city near yours, and allies seems to ignore your border a bit too much under many situations.

I agree that the concept needs some tweaking. Once a border is in existence for a while, the fact that my neighbour builds a city close to it shouldn't make the border immediately jump two squares into my territory. That seems OK in the early game when your border covers a lot of land that you haven't really established yourself on, but in mid to late game it can be annoying. Mid to late game "invasion by encroachment" should have some diplomatic consequences at least.

quote: Originally posted by Echinda on 04-06-2001 08:39 AM I agree that the concept needs some tweaking. Once a border is in existence for a while, the fact that my neighbour builds a city close to it shouldn't make the border immediately jump two squares into my territory. That seems OK in the early game when your border covers a lot of land that you haven't really established yourself on, but in mid to late game it can be annoying. Mid to late game "invasion by encroachment" should have some diplomatic consequences at least. - Echinda

Not to put CTP2 on a pedestal (it sucks in so many other ways) but I really like how it handles boarders; it's essentially first come first served, so if you build a city it'll establish a permanent boarder, which can only be encroached upon if a foreign city's actual radius (not just it's presence) extends into your boarders before your city radius does (of course CTP has an expanding city radius as the city grows, something I don't expect to see in CIV3) and you have the ability to extend your boarders via non city methods like forts, which is VERY useful when you need that critical choke point but it's an awful place to build a city.