Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[GlyphGryph]

This seems pretty obvious - civilizations have boundaries, and if you start building cities inside the territory claimed by other groups, well, no matter how friendly you were before thats going to cause some friction. Maybe not guaranteed war, but they should at least be significantly less friendly.

This sort of goes with my last suggestion, since growing a civ through building new settlements eventually means expanding into territory owned by others, especially on small maps.

[Mel_Vixen]

Well in the middle-ages and the renaissance the borders as well as the immigration/settling-rules weren't as rigid and strict as today. Practically you did got to pay taxes and fight for the lord on which land you were settling but most settler groups werent opposed. This was because settlers did bring workforce and by this resources (by food, mined stuff or whatever they did craft) and taxes. Back then were was work for everyone and resources were expensive.

Problems did sprung up from stuff like different religions, claiming land in the name of a foreign forces, fights over rights (there was a "Beer-war" between my hometown and town near be) etc.

[GlyphGryph]

Then again, most settler groups didnt arrive with the express intention of strip mining YOUR claimed mountains and Clear-cutting YOUR forests in the middle ages. As friendly as various groups might be with dwarves, I can understand them not wanting dwarves around.

Also, with the lords and stuff, sure most settling wasn't opposed. But most settling was probably done by pretty similiar groups of people, not complete foreigners. But if a bunch of people who speak a different language, who look different, and who have no intention of paying any fealty or taxes to you as they take everything of valuable from the land you've claimed arrive... well, relationships are likely to get tense.

So perhaps they should allow settling in their territory as long as you make frequent tributes to keep them happy?

[Idiom]

As long as you pay your taxes/tribute, I don't think it should cause any political problems. Personally though, I say yes to this just because I want more action and danger.

[Zulaf]

Building off of the tax/tribute thing.

What if when you settle a fortress, get big enough then get a baron, the area in a certain radius becomes that barons land. If some other settlers settle near they have to pay(or you can choose to let them be) you a tax or tribute, same could go if you settle near a baronized fort/town/tower then you may have to pay a tax. This would probably mean that you aren't necessarily allied with your home site, this could also bring about the multi race forts/towns or at least work with it.

There is also the military aspect, as the baron you settled near may require afew extra soldiers so the filthy benevolent scumbag hero demands asks for some peasants or hunters to be cannon fodder, or he/she could even request what soldiers you have. you could of course refuse, then he could send soldiers to attack, raid or just take prisoners to serve as soldiers. The same could happen in reverse, but i dont know at the moment how this would work..... some where in the last paragraph i lost my train of though....

Also im sure there's a whole cluster fuck of politics in there somewheres.

[chucks]

I don't think that most civ's would notice a minor setup of a tent or two and a wagon when you're first starting out your fortress, but they would once heavy construction sets in.  Frontier fortress would definitely see more fierce battle, but the Mountainhomes could choose to subsidize and send reinforcements as your dwarves are lost to attrition.  The more successful and strong your bordering fortresses, the more you can begin sending settlers and frontiersdwarves deeper into enemy territory.

Also, with the frontier settlements taking the brunt of the military might, a Mountainhome deep within the safety of the dwarven national borders could seriously crank up resource production to fund and equip remote fortresses at war with bordering nations.

I suspect a lot of these types of scenarios and interactions with other civs will begin to take more place during the Armies arc of development.

[Pilsu]

It'll suck pretty hard to discover that the only good spot to settle is smack dab next to the enemy capital

[Craftling]

How pissed off would the French be if the Spanish built a city 2km from their city and started to take resources/men/land off the French. It doesnt matter when, if you steal something from someone, they are going to be annoyed.

[Silverionmox]

How pissed off would the French be if the Spanish built a city 2km from their city and started to take resources/men/land off the French. It doesnt matter when, if you steal something from someone, they are going to be annoyed.

It depends though. If you do it early enough after worldgen, it's more like colonizing a new continent. The colonizing powers did colonize a bit haphazardly, and negotiated/conquered later on to get a contiguous territory.

[GlyphGryph]

It'll be pretty awesome to discover that the only good spot to settle is smack dab next to the enemy capital

It depends though. If you do it early enough after worldgen, it's more like colonizing a new continent. The colonizing powers did colonize a bit haphazardly, and negotiated/conquered later on to get a contiguous territory.

So maybe the boundary of a civs "territory" should extend further beyond their cities the longer worldgen runs?
Or at the very least, they should try to build cities lying further out and then connect them together? Ev3en in the early days though, someone building their own city next to your capital would not be all that popular.

[Silverionmox]

Trying to build a city near their capital will be very difficult: the capital already is the local center, so you'll have to do pretty well to become more than a village. And they will consider it threatening, of course.

Claiming territory is all fine and dandy, but if you can't hold on to it, borders don't mean anything. In the big empty world we start out with, it's just much easier to settle empty land than to patrol the wilderness, just in case someone might think of settling there.

[sonerohi]

Also, if you're inside their land, they would probably try to stop wagons from supplying you (works since the caravan arc is in). Wagons would probably be halted and a small convoy of pack animals would sneak in until you have enough militiary might to fight through to your borders and setup roads and patrol points and militiary convoys to guide wagons in.

[Nivim]

So maybe the boundary of a civs "territory" should extend further beyond their cities the longer worldgen runs?

 Use the "legends" ability on a world and select the map. Then look through the ages. You will find that each civilization starts with their "capital" then their area of influence expands (in which they will put new settlements). The problem I have noted, is overlapping areas of influence when the civilizations are at peace. The areas should run into each other, but instead they just keep going till maximum size is reached.

 Well, the quantity of trouble you get from the neighbors should be relative to your size and military strength. As was said before, if you just have a small group of dwarves with a wagon and some pets, perhaps with a little dank cave, the nearby power won't care about your existence unless it has a specific reason (religion, at war, civilization is generally aggressive). Of course, once you increase in size, such as after the first immigration wave, the nearby power will take note. Probably by demanding that you pay taxes for living on their land and using their resources. This would probably be handed with the trade depot; where tax-collectors come and demand a certain amount of trade value (likely a percent of your fortress value) and you pay it or they get uphappy and leave, then send a different kind of tax collectors (that might actually take that quantity of value). Of course, I doubt any player is actually going to pay taxes, as there is no benefit. Instead, I am sure everyone will come up with more interesting means to state their refusal.

 Also, most kingdoms did keep a close eye on their land, and the response to groups of interlopers was usually swift (sometimes even without reason, just "hey, we own this land even if we only look at it every few years").

(Thank the post warning.) Yeah, but I am guessing that would only happen after you're at war with them. For such a civilization would want more caravans and wealth coming in so they can tax it. So you would probably get "mandates" on certain trade items that add to the taxes you "have" to pay.

[Silverionmox]

If you keep your allegiance to your own civ when settling in another civs territory, that's just annexation. Counts as an act of war, if (and only if) borders are strictly defined. A zone of influence is not a border. Alternatively, you can swear fealty to the lord of the land you're settling, but then you will do his bidding. It will be fun to play different overlords against each other to get the best tax rate, until you can turn the tables and demand taxes from them.