[Freeciv-Dev] (PR#12232) don't allow invasions during peace treaties

["Guest" <rt-guest@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

<URL: http://bugs.freeciv.org/Ticket/Display.html?id=12232 >

Just a Comment.  

  Historically the current behaviour of borders is accurate prior to the
development of the nation-state.  Thet is the border was controlled more
or less by the local cities. This is especially prevalent for example
during the Ancient Greece period of the Athens and Spartan leagues
(allianceS). 

  This occurred again in the New World as Mexico was breaking away from
Spain.  It actively encouraged colonization from other countries ( Maybe
allow a nation to found cities in your territory but receive taxes while
they control production ) to more rapidly develop their territory.  

  In Asia it was forced upon China in Shanghai, Hong Kong, and other
colonies forcibly established by the west.  But was perceived then as an
economic and military threat and China was forced to allow it. Today 
territorial occupation is generally perceived as hostile, although
disputed borders still exist (china india pakistan dispute over Kashmir)
 Maybe border incursion/recognition treaties should exist?


  However when the nation state became more defined notions of National
territory came with it. Why not have the tileset have an owner flag or
state that is checked before a unit can move into peaceful territory?  

  Now this raises the notion of Claims and disputes.  If a unti is
caught in expanding borders make the area 'disputed' To resolve the
dispute opposing military could be used  or the first to build a manned
fortress or city (in min radius distance) in the disputed zone gets
title.  While disputed both sides can treat the area as if it were
unclaimed.   

  Also historically Nations conducted raids to destroy/sabotage or
undermine the claims of others to territory or resources short of
war...it would be interesting to see all this tied into the game.  

Also the Republic of the Athenian League was different from that of
rome, which inturn was different than that of the United states which is
distinct from those of Europe in form.

Maybe we can make more flavors of governments and tie notions of borders
to them?  






> [guest - Mon May 23 03:11:11 2005]:
> 
> > [guest - Tue Mar 01 06:32:56 2005]:
> > 
> > > Why not have a "passing treaty" that lets units enter your land but
> > > not build a city?  This treaty is separate from neutrality, peace or 
> > > alliance.
> > 
> > If units can impose ZoC and get in each others way, then noone is going 
> > to agree to a passing treaty.  On the other hand, if they don't then a 
> > passing treaty is pretty much the same as an alliance.
> > 
> > 
> Why not simply have server settings or preferably ruleset options to
> indicate which type of alliances are alowed for a certain type of game.
> That way it becomes a player choice to play a game, where giving rights
> of building (and improving) can be granted.
> It is of course a matter of trust: you say you're gonna help with the
> infrastructure, if you then build permanent bases (fortersesses or even
> villages) it could be considered a casus belli (but that weak and
> grovelling nation wouldn't dare :P )
> 
> 
>