Assigning Borders

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.

Tenebrarum wrote:

~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.

Naturally.

~sciocont wrote:

Tenebrarum wrote:

~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.

Naturally.

Also, the AI should be able to bargain, not just set its own wanted borders.

Well, if you include setting borders on natural barriers and places of interest, there isn't much remaining for voronoi...

Maybe it could be used as an approximation of territory of the country, and then borders would be placed along that in harmony with nature.

Commander Keen wrote:

Well, if you include setting borders on natural barriers and places of interest, there isn't much remaining for voronoi...

Maybe it could be used as an approximation of territory of the country, and then borders would be placed along that in harmony with nature.

Actually, you could use a variant of the voronoi game and place a dot on each needed resource and SC, then create a shape connecting them all, and expantd borders from that by the same process that a voronoi diagram uses.

~sciocont wrote:

Commander Keen wrote:

Well, if you include setting borders on natural barriers and places of interest, there isn't much remaining for voronoi...

Maybe it could be used as an approximation of territory of the country, and then borders would be placed along that in harmony with nature.

Actually, you could use a variant of the voronoi game and place a dot on each needed resource and SC, then create a shape connecting them all, and expantd borders from that by the same process that a voronoi diagram uses.

Also, Scio, I think we should have a fair division system while bartering and arguing with the AI. Voronoi can be used to provide the points and likely areas of turmoil, and the most disputed sectors/points could be given the highest priority, probably subject to division themselves. We need to have AI in this, too!
EDIT: It wouldn't be fun to just go Voronoi on it and decide on a compromise.

A system of border assignment could also be used for concessions imo. Imagine: you have a nation with a gigantic trade fleet and a neighbour of yours just lost all of his trade ships in a war. That neighbour also has a huge trade port in a nice strategic position. You should be able to "draw" your borders around the Port and then tell the neighbour "I'll have this port for x years in exchange of a monthly tribute of y currency" in diplomatic negotiations. That would enable your nation to use his port as a base for your fleet and allow the neighbour to have the money to rebuild his own.

Admiral Van Tromp wrote:

A system of border assignment could also be used for concessions imo. Imagine: you have a nation with a gigantic trade fleet and a neighbour of yours just lost all of his trade ships in a war. That neighbour also has a huge trade port in a nice strategic position. You should be able to "draw" your borders around the Port and then tell the neighbour "I'll have this port for x years in exchange of a monthly tribute of y currency" in diplomatic negotiations. That would enable your nation to use his port as a base for your fleet and allow the neighbour to have the money to rebuild his own.

While thats being asked I should add: Have we actually figured out how currency will come about? I know it will be in the tech tree but after its researched are you just given branching options such as: mineral currency I.E. gold, silver, some material from the ground ect. or trading currency I.E. Trading livestock for jewelery (which is a crappy trade but just an example) or will currency also have some evolution system in place?

I think the idea was that the player chooses a resource to use as currency. It can't be to common or else everybody would be rich, and it can't be rare or else only a small part of the population would have access to it.

You brought up an interesting point we haven't discussed yet - diplomatic treaties. Certainly needs a new thread.

Commander Keen wrote:

You brought up an interesting point we haven't discussed yet - diplomatic treaties. Certainly needs a new thread.

Let me think of a good OP and I'll open it tomorrow.