Alpha Centauri Shrinking borders to close

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  Support and Troubleshooting
  Alpha Centauri Shrinking borders to close

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Alpha Centauri Shrinking borders to close

Orlok posted 02-19-99 02:07 PM ET
The AI should only be able to build citys at
least 4-5 squares away from your city because
I lose valuable Resources....my city drops
to 1 square along one side... this should
be fixed...it was the same in civilization
its a pain trying to build on every single
section of your island trying to keep it yours... then a crummy city plunks down
in the middle of yours making you lose land
which was yours till now...
thanks... Jay
Fix this Please
Arnelos posted 02-20-99 01:46 AM ET
That isn't a problem, that's an asset. The AI is normally not to bright and build cities well spread out. You just build cities around them (thus morphing the borders and winning more land for yourself to build more cities).
It's an integrated part of the game. The one thing that makes this much less effective in SMAC (as it should be) is that you can't build a city *inside* the already established border. So you're forced to build on the edge, thus *moving* the border to corespond to new settlements.
Personally, since I do this all the time (it's the number one way to eat around an AI establishment) I like it. The bottom line is:
If you don't develop a valuable area of land....
Someone else will!
(the problem that many players face is that they make the same mistake the AI does, building their cities/bases too far apart, opening up oportunities for opponents to claim all the unclaimed land you just let sit there).
NotLikeTea posted 02-20-99 10:36 AM ET
This is very true... I had a frantic border war with Lal over the Garland Crater, and all while in a Pact situation.
I sent a colony pod to the crater, but just before it got there he build a colony nearby, and claimed the land. Had to send the pod back.
Then his colony falls to mindworms. I rush my pod back there, and build the colony. It falls to mindworms, and he builds a colony. This falls to the worms, and I finally capture the crater for good.
Now it's my best colony, with mines in almost all squares, producing 20+ minerals per turn and this is stil early game.. no boreholes yet.
See? The border feature is fun!
Orlok posted 02-20-99 12:26 PM ET

Hi Again
my problem wasnt with the borders being Knocked back and I lose territory..I now that
is normal...but when the computer builds a city 2 squares away from my city...and you
know how you city farms 2 squares all the
way around ?!!? ....this gets reduced to 1
Square leaving you with a shortfall of farm
Squares...What if I dont Want to go to WAR
or Cant afford to Buy the base from Him...
this should be fixed by a Patch or something
thanks for Sending
Judge Orlok
Coyote posted 02-20-99 01:10 PM ET
If you can't buy it, and you don't want to take it by force. . . threaten the other guy for it. It worked for Hitler in the 1930's (Chechoslovakia and Austria), and it can work in SMAC so long as you have a strong enough military to back up your threat.
- Coyote
Possibility posted 02-20-99 09:16 PM ET
If there is a border, and you cant cross it or settle on the other side of it, then who can it be upped and moved. I know you can do it in this game. But imagine if the canadians put down a city on our nother border, would you expect the American government to say. "oh, it looks like you need some room around your city, here, have some of our land, you can have Wisconsin" If we are already sharing a border, and he puts down a city closer to that border, then my border should NOT move. If my country has gone through the trouble of setting up a border, then why do they move it back as an enemy makes a city near it. Now that is realistic.
Possibility
ViVicdi posted 02-20-99 11:34 PM ET
I think it should be considered an "act of war" to build a base that redraws the borders such that at least one of another faction's bases loses at least 1 square of its "harvest zone".
Realize that, unlike Civ, the determination of which squares you may harvest in a shared-territory situation depends entirely on the "border system" rather than "first come, first served" Civ system. You may not harvest squares not in your territory, even if they are not in use by the other side.
Recall, furthermore, that in Civ it was an "act of war" to seize any improved square in use by another base. (Caravans or Diplomats could transfer control of a square w/o war, but I think that was an unintended cheat.)
So the natural conclusion is that it would be an act of war in AC to redraw the borders in such a way as to deny a base any of its usable territory, and since borders depend on bases, that would make it an act of war to build a base too close to another faction's base -- even if your intended site is within your territory.
The way the borders currently work is ok, except when they're redrawn it sometimes seems as if I am credited with squares closer to enemy territory while my opponent is awarded squares that seem closer to MY territory. But this problem is far less important than the need for diplomatic protection of bases' usable territory.
To close this thread, click here (moderator or admin only).


Hop to:

Contact Us | Alpha Centauri Home

Powered by: Ultimate Bulletin Board, Version 5.18
© Madrona Park, Inc., 1998.

Author	Topic: Alpha Centauri Shrinking borders to close
Orlok	posted 02-19-99 02:07 PM ET The AI should only be able to build citys at least 4-5 squares away from your city because I lose valuable Resources....my city drops to 1 square along one side... this should be fixed...it was the same in civilization its a pain trying to build on every single section of your island trying to keep it yours... then a crummy city plunks down in the middle of yours making you lose land which was yours till now... thanks... Jay Fix this Please
Arnelos	posted 02-20-99 01:46 AM ET That isn't a problem, that's an asset. The AI is normally not to bright and build cities well spread out. You just build cities around them (thus morphing the borders and winning more land for yourself to build more cities). It's an integrated part of the game. The one thing that makes this much less effective in SMAC (as it should be) is that you can't build a city inside the already established border. So you're forced to build on the edge, thus moving the border to corespond to new settlements. Personally, since I do this all the time (it's the number one way to eat around an AI establishment) I like it. The bottom line is: If you don't develop a valuable area of land.... Someone else will! (the problem that many players face is that they make the same mistake the AI does, building their cities/bases too far apart, opening up oportunities for opponents to claim all the unclaimed land you just let sit there).
NotLikeTea	posted 02-20-99 10:36 AM ET This is very true... I had a frantic border war with Lal over the Garland Crater, and all while in a Pact situation. I sent a colony pod to the crater, but just before it got there he build a colony nearby, and claimed the land. Had to send the pod back. Then his colony falls to mindworms. I rush my pod back there, and build the colony. It falls to mindworms, and he builds a colony. This falls to the worms, and I finally capture the crater for good. Now it's my best colony, with mines in almost all squares, producing 20+ minerals per turn and this is stil early game.. no boreholes yet. See? The border feature is fun!
Orlok	posted 02-20-99 12:26 PM ET Hi Again my problem wasnt with the borders being Knocked back and I lose territory..I now that is normal...but when the computer builds a city 2 squares away from my city...and you know how you city farms 2 squares all the way around ?!!? ....this gets reduced to 1 Square leaving you with a shortfall of farm Squares...What if I dont Want to go to WAR or Cant afford to Buy the base from Him... this should be fixed by a Patch or something thanks for Sending Judge Orlok
Coyote	posted 02-20-99 01:10 PM ET If you can't buy it, and you don't want to take it by force. . . threaten the other guy for it. It worked for Hitler in the 1930's (Chechoslovakia and Austria), and it can work in SMAC so long as you have a strong enough military to back up your threat. - Coyote
Possibility	posted 02-20-99 09:16 PM ET If there is a border, and you cant cross it or settle on the other side of it, then who can it be upped and moved. I know you can do it in this game. But imagine if the canadians put down a city on our nother border, would you expect the American government to say. "oh, it looks like you need some room around your city, here, have some of our land, you can have Wisconsin" If we are already sharing a border, and he puts down a city closer to that border, then my border should NOT move. If my country has gone through the trouble of setting up a border, then why do they move it back as an enemy makes a city near it. Now that is realistic. Possibility
ViVicdi	posted 02-20-99 11:34 PM ET I think it should be considered an "act of war" to build a base that redraws the borders such that at least one of another faction's bases loses at least 1 square of its "harvest zone". Realize that, unlike Civ, the determination of which squares you may harvest in a shared-territory situation depends entirely on the "border system" rather than "first come, first served" Civ system. You may not harvest squares not in your territory, even if they are not in use by the other side. Recall, furthermore, that in Civ it was an "act of war" to seize any improved square in use by another base. (Caravans or Diplomats could transfer control of a square w/o war, but I think that was an unintended cheat.) So the natural conclusion is that it would be an act of war in AC to redraw the borders in such a way as to deny a base any of its usable territory, and since borders depend on bases, that would make it an act of war to build a base too close to another faction's base -- even if your intended site is within your territory. The way the borders currently work is ok, except when they're redrawn it sometimes seems as if I am credited with squares closer to enemy territory while my opponent is awarded squares that seem closer to MY territory. But this problem is far less important than the need for diplomatic protection of bases' usable territory.