Assigning Borders

Now, I had a thought recently. What if the player was able to descide borders? Instead of having some mechanic in the game automatically figure them out, you could personally mark these out, creating interesting situations through border disputes. I hardly see how this would be problematic coding-wise. Defining the borders would be as simple as looking at you map and clicking and draging markers where you want them. Hopefully you could also mark them along rivers.

Borders themselves seem a very simple system. Just use a standard Civ style diplomacy, open borders, closed borders, etc. with nations getting angry or happy respectively.

Having different nations descide on this seems fun. I mean, the entire Hundred Years War was largely a very lethargic arguement over who has control of this city and how much land that included. (It only escalated into an actual war with Henry V's invasion of France, though there were a few battles before hand, some bloody enough that they created a moralistic outrage through Europe. Now I'm just shpeeling.)

This could also simplify some of the AI of the NPC Nations. (NPNs?) Instead of having to found SCs through some complicated system, seeing as how that will be more likely determined by size rather than intent, an expansionistic nation (Either through Culture or Leader) would merely claim all the land it could for itself, regardless of usefullness.

Side Note: Before you yell at me that any nation would claim all the land it could, remember that Russia didn't claim Siberia until very late in it's history, simply because they had no reason to.

Great idea. If we include both automatic and manual creations of borders, as well allowing both to copy terrain features as well as setting up artificial straight borders (I think you already said this), it will be a great gameplay mechanic.

Logically, not expanding enough will leave you with little land and resources compared to your neighbours, and expanding too quickly is going to upset them, as well as leaving you with area too big to supply and defend. Also, more fun with setting your borders deep into the territory of an other nation and letting it either accept or wage war, possibilities are endless.

Develop this concept more and I'll stuff it into the Wiki.

Commander Keen wrote:

Great idea. If we include both automatic and manual creations of borders, as well allowing both to copy terrain features as well as setting up artificial straight borders (I think you already said this), it will be a great gameplay mechanic.

Logically, not expanding enough will leave you with little land and resources compared to your neighbours, and expanding too quickly is going to upset them, as well as leaving you with area too big to supply and defend. Also, more fun with setting your borders deep into the territory of an other nation and letting it either accept or wage war, possibilities are endless.

Develop this concept more and I'll stuff it into the Wiki.

Exactly what I was trying, and failing, to say.

I don't really have much else though.

I think that you shouldn't be be able to set up borders. You would have to send a surveyor/scout to the boundries in order to set them up.

Lukas99 wrote:

I think that you shouldn't be be able to set up borders. You would have to send a surveyor/scout to the boundries in order to set them up.

Well obviously you'd need to scout the area first, but I don't think that's what you're saying.

You see, the point here is that there's a difference between having borders and enforcing them. If you have alot of security on borders, than your will will be enforced and you'll know what's going on, but poorly enforced borders will only function in name.

You see, the only point of borders existing is diplomatic. You can do whatever you want whereever you want, but doing it outside your own borders may have diplomatic consequences as you're probably doing whatever it is within someone else's.

All nations claim to have certain borders. We'll need to set up AI so that they act on their own perception of borders, but will make concetions in the face of severe inconvienience or conflict. (likelyhood to give in will be detirmined by other factors as well.) This is a step toward realism and helps gameplay, as well as not having to suffer quite so much when figuring out how to program diplomacy.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Lukas99 wrote:

I think that you shouldn't be be able to set up borders. You would have to send a surveyor/scout to the boundries in order to set them up.

Well obviously you'd need to scout the area first, but I don't think that's what you're saying.

You see, the point here is that there's a difference between having borders and enforcing them. If you have alot of security on borders, than your will will be enforced and you'll know what's going on, but poorly enforced borders will only function in name.

You see, the only point of borders existing is diplomatic. You can do whatever you want whereever you want, but doing it outside your own borders may have diplomatic consequences as you're probably doing whatever it is within someone else's.

All nations claim to have certain borders. We'll need to set up AI so that they act on their own perception of borders, but will make concetions in the face of severe inconvienience or conflict. (likelyhood to give in will be detirmined by other factors as well.) This is a step toward realism and helps gameplay, as well as not having to suffer quite so much when figuring out how to program diplomacy.

No actually I was just trying to point out the need for scouts But you bring up a very good point.

Commander Keen wrote:

Great idea. If we include both automatic and manual creations of borders, as well allowing both to copy terrain features as well as setting up artificial straight borders (I think you already said this), it will be a great gameplay mechanic.

Logically, not expanding enough will leave you with little land and resources compared to your neighbours, and expanding too quickly is going to upset them, as well as leaving you with area too big to supply and defend. Also, more fun with setting your borders deep into the territory of an other nation and letting it either accept or wage war, possibilities are endless.

Develop this concept more and I'll stuff it into the Wiki.

Quoted for truth.

I've always liked your method of drawing and enforcing borders, Rex. Happy to see it reborn. I'd also like to see it fleshed out into a fuller concept that is wiki-able.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

I've always liked your method of drawing and enforcing borders, Rex. Happy to see it reborn. I'd also like to see it fleshed out into a fuller concept that is wiki-able.

What's missing?

Tenebrarum wrote:

What's missing?

How exactly gameplay would be affected, for example. Would every X square kilometers of terriory seized create greater aggresion? Or will just the fact you seized their land bring a war?

Commander Keen wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

What's missing?

How exactly gameplay would be affected, for example. Would every X square kilometers of terriory seized create greater aggresion? Or will just the fact you seized their land bring a war?

Okay, I'm not gonna write the equasions if that's what you're asking.

The biggest thing I'd say here is value of the land. If the land has great worth, than the more an NPN (Non Player Nation) would want it. We also have to consider military size and reputation, different nations' history with the land, any religious claims, culture, leaders' traits... The list goes on. And yes, it's very possible to have wars solely on border disputes.

We need to make sure that if borders stay as they are for long enough, than claiming more, especially if held by another nation, is an anomally. There needs to be insentive to do it other than just the land's worth.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Commander Keen wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

What's missing?

How exactly gameplay would be affected, for example. Would every X square kilometers of terriory seized create greater aggresion? Or will just the fact you seized their land bring a war?

Okay, I'm not gonna write the equasions if that's what you're asking.

The biggest thing I'd say here is value of the land. If the land has great worth, than the more an NPN (Non Player Nation) would want it. We also have to consider military size and reputation, different nations' history with the land, any religious claims, culture, leaders' traits... The list goes on. And yes, it's very possible to have wars solely on border disputes.

We need to make sure that if borders stay as they are for long enough, than claiming more, especially if held by another nation, is an anomally. There needs to be insentive to do it other than just the land's worth.

Okay. So really what we need is a way to calculate what land is worth. I think the best way to do this would be to first not worry about cultural ties. We'll get to that soon. First off, food. Nations need food, and land that is suitable for food production would be more highly valued than land that is not. Then we have things like resources, which will change according to new discoveries and researches.

And then we have the cultural things, which i'm sure you could concept better than me, Rex. Maybe we can make the AI value the city in which a certain religion initially spawned? Things like that?

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Maybe we can make the AI value the city in which a certain religion initially spawned? Things like that?

If you take Jerusalem into pure Muslim hands, wouldn't Christians and Jews go into outrage?

Darkgamma wrote:

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Maybe we can make the AI value the city in which a certain religion initially spawned? Things like that?

If you take Jerusalem into pure Muslim hands, wouldn't Christians and Jews go into outrage?

Okay, culture.

Darkgamma, Jerusalem is a holy city for all three. Though most Christians don't really care right now. Kinda OT comment.

Now, religiously you have a couple issues. If you have some powerful myths tied to a certain place, Mount Olympus for example, than it is holy. If the religion was founded at some point, than places tied to the founder are holy. This would be their birthplace, deathplace, and any place of enlightenment(See Muhammed/Buddha) or miracle working. This means that most religions will have several holy cities, but one particular one depending on the tennants of the religion. Jerusalem is most holy to Christians as Christ's death is the centerpeice of Christianity. It is holy to Muslims as the city containing the Dome of the Roc, but it is not as Holy as Mecca, Muhammed's birthplace, as Muhammed himself, not his actions(As much), are central to the religion. The enlightenment of Buddha is central to Buddhism. The delivery of the Promised Land is central to Judaism.

Basic culture is far easier to do. Cultural value there is based on history. Having it be your capital for an extended period of time. I still don't know how to unravel the Hundred Years War arguement though, so I'll just present it and see what you guys say.

Hundred Years War is a fight mainly over the port city of Bordeaux. The arguement went that as the Kings of England were of Norman descent, they had claim to their former holdings in France. France denied them Normandy, but the English insisted on Bordeaux, as it was a very valuable port. Most of the war was just political arguements of the legitimacy of the claim, amount of the surrounding land included in the agreement, the heritage of the Kings, so on and so on.

While most of Bordeaux's worth is found in the city itself, it wouldn't have been claimed unless there was some sort of legitimate arguement for it.

Okay, I'm going to take some time to think up some ground rules for this but first

Quote :

(NPNs?)

I like that. Adding to abbreviations dictionary.

Tenebrarum wrote:

Okay, culture.

Darkgamma, Jerusalem is a holy city for all three. Though most Christians don't really care right now. Kinda OT comment.

Now, religiously you have a couple issues. If you have some powerful myths tied to a certain place, Mount Olympus for example, than it is holy. If the religion was founded at some point, than places tied to the founder are holy. This would be their birthplace, deathplace, and any place of enlightenment(See Muhammed/Buddha) or miracle working. This means that most religions will have several holy cities, but one particular one depending on the tennants of the religion. Jerusalem is most holy to Christians as Christ's death is the centerpeice of Christianity. It is holy to Muslims as the city containing the Dome of the Rock, but it is not as Holy as Mecca, Muhammed's birthplace, as Muhammed himself, not his actions(As much), are central to the religion. The enlightenment of Buddha is central to Buddhism. The delivery of the Promised Land is central to Judaism.

Basic culture is far easier to do. Cultural value there is based on history. Having it be your capital for an extended period of time. I still don't know how to unravel the Hundred Years War arguement though, so I'll just present it and see what you guys say.

Hundred Years War is a fight mainly over the port city of Bordeaux. The arguement went that as the Kings of England were of Norman descent, they had claim to their former holdings in France. France denied them Normandy, but the English insisted on Bordeaux, as it was a very valuable port. Most of the war was just political arguements of the legitimacy of the claim, amount of the surrounding land included in the agreement, the heritage of the Kings, so on and so on.

While most of Bordeaux's worth is found in the city itself, it wouldn't have been claimed unless there was some sort of legitimate arguement for it.

I know of all that : P
I was asking a rhetorical question

~sciocont wrote:

Okay, I'm going to take some time to think up some ground rules for this but first

Quote :

(NPNs?)

I like that. Adding to abbreviations dictionary.

Hmmm... It's really hard to think of something so culturally and psychologically influenced as a mathematical function that a computer can perform. Urgh.

US_of_Alaska wrote:

Hmmm... It's really hard to think of something so culturally and psychologically influenced as a mathematical function that a computer can perform. Urgh.

Well, get used to it. What else can we do?

Okay borders are defined by a few different things
-geography (land empires will most likely not have complex sea space borders)
-living space (cropland, grazing land, city space)
-resources (where are rivers/mines/forests etc.)
-strength of nation
-borders of surrounding nations

These factors can be set up in two different categories: objective and subjective
Objective border properties will set up borders according to exactly what a country needs- its resources, restricted by geography. They include-
-geography
-living space
-resources

Subjective border properties depend on the governing of nations and their people. They decide who conquers and who gives in. they include-
-strength of nation
-borders of other nations

If you can think of any more, feel free to add them.

We could probably shove "sacred" sites, should the player choose to have them, in with living space/resources.

Though I disagree, and say that farmland (grazing/forage and cropland) should be a resource. Arable, irrigatable soil is not always common. Plus, that way if the society doesn't farm (or doesn't use metal/mineable things) then the location of those specific resources would be moot, and living space is a little more central to the borders. But that's a minor nitpick.

Mysterious_Calligrapher wrote:

We could probably shove "sacred" sites, should the player choose to have them, in with living space/resources.

Though I disagree, and say that farmland (grazing/forage and cropland) should be a resource. Arable, irrigatable soil is not always common. Plus, that way if the society doesn't farm (or doesn't use metal/mineable things) then the location of those specific resources would be moot, and living space is a little more central to the borders. But that's a minor nitpick.

Perhaps they should be joined- they function basically the same way.

I just thought of a good Auto-border method. plot the SCs as points, then use them to create a Voronoi Diagram. Add some noise to the lines on the sides, adjust pressure within the cells to simulate the power of the SC, and you have country borders.

I could see that as a stopgap for now, but later we will need making borders around important natural features (mountains or big rivers, ...)

The voronoi method could cover borders that aren't decided by that sort of thing.

~sciocont wrote:

The voronoi method could cover borders that aren't decided by that sort of thing.

Only as default. Always allow the player to define borders.