Re: [Freeciv-Dev] Borders

["Claus Leth Gregersen" <leth@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

> Not in SMAC (Alpha Centauri).  In that game the border is a
> neutral gray hash mark overlaid between the edges of the squares.
> Its not a 'physical' object.
> There is no warning given when you cross the border, at least, I
> haven't seen a warning pop up, but I haven't played SMAC that
> much.  In my last SMAC game that I still have a backup for, I
> checked at a very tight border between two cities only 2 squares
> away from one another.  No warning when I moved a unit across the
> border and adjacent to the other faction's city.  I also routinely
> overflew that border area with air units during that game.
> Either the border idea isn't supported by SMAC in a sophisticated
> way, or the AI is more sophisticated in SMAC from the earlier
> games.  The AI for this faction may simply have chosen not to
> object because it was grossly outmatched by my faction at this
> point.  In fact, the AI never violated the border the way I did
> with air units; compare *that* with AI behavior in Civ1.  :-)
>
>
> >
> > So you would see them, even if you couldn't see the cities involved.
>
>
> Exactly.  The border could be as much as 7 (I think) squares away
> from your city, but I rarely saw it out that far.
>
>
> > Personally I think they'd add a real dimension to the game - you could
> > even trade land with diplomacy..
>
>
> Land trading?  That would be *ugly* to code, I imagine.  Early in
> the game the border didn't imply the close proximity of another
> faction, it was simply an indicator of the extent of your empire.
> Since the border is often closer to your cities than 7 squares you
> routinely have to cross the border with your settlers to found new
> cities at a comfortable distance from your existing ones.  If you
> were to implement the border idea the way that SMAC does, you
> would have to garrison the entire border to prevent other settlers
> from crossing.  Not likely to happen early on.  The AI (freeciv),
> I believe, would get desperate and found a city adjacent to the
> border, even if its too close to an existing city.  In this case
> the border would move right out from under the feet of your
> garrison forces.  In SMAC, the presence of military units doesn't
> seem to have any effect on the border.  Like I said, it doesn't
> look like the border idea was implemented in a sophisticated way.
>
Hm, when i played SMAC  i got threats like "You've violated our treaty,
leave or the treaty is cancelled" (if you ignore it you'll get a reputation
drop).

Anyway let's forget about SMAC for a while.

What i think would be nice to do was:
add 5 diplomatic states:
war, siege fire, neutral,  peace, alliance

In war and Alliance borders means nothing.

Hmm, in neutral you'll automatically go to war? (it's your initial state) if
you cross the border.

In siege fire, you'll get a huge reputation drop if you cross the border.
(Reputation should be used by the AI when they decide if they want to make a
siege fire/peace treaty with you).

You can't cross it if you're in peace with the nation. But you can declare
war on the enemy nation
And cross it next round without a slight reputation drop, or this round with
a major reputation drop.

/Claus Leth Gregersen.