Fixed Borders vs. Claimed Land - Alpha Centauri Forums

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Fixed Borders vs. Claimed Land

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Fixed Borders vs. Claimed Land

TheMadStork posted 06-21-99 02:18 PM ET
If the current borders are so flexible, why aren't they just called Claimed Land? The land borders do not spill over into the sea (drat) and the sea borders are a simple ploy to keep that navy close to home.
Why can't every base (land or sea) have a fixed border which includes the area inside the base grid (5x5 with corners cut off)? This border cannot be changed. It could be marked with a solid line in the color of the faction. Then, the borders we currently see, which are temporary, would serve the purpose of allowing expansion, troops, etc. Also, the fixed borders would include sea areas, which would prevent Santiago and Lal from parking a base next to your continent.
I hope I have explained myself properly. Comments welcome.
I go now.
gruedragon posted 06-21-99 08:30 PM ET
Your idea is a good one. Borders could then become something negotiable.
I do wish that the land borders extended into the seas; in my last game Santiago planted two sea bases right next to two of my bases, stealing their kelp farms and condensors. Almost as agravating as an enemy civ planting a city in the midst of your empire in Civ2.
TheMadStork posted 06-22-99 06:33 PM ET
<rant>
Don't even get me started about Civ2's lack of borders. I am just that much happier about SMAC, although I noticed a flaw almost immediately. Playing pod checkers with the b*tch Miriam is not my idea of strategy.
If I found a base with a certain piece of land in mind, it should remain mine unless I choose otherwise. If Miriam decides she wants to use the bonus square, or parts of the Uranium Flats, she should not be able to steal it out from under my nose. Neither should anyone else, for that matter.
Claimed territory is what we currently have.
Fixed borders should be added.
</rant>
I go now.
Krushala posted 06-22-99 07:17 PM ET
I used to put up with it, but no more. Putting a base that close to me is grounds for war. I will conquer that base and either obliterate it or starve it down to a size 1 and prevent growth.
OldWarrior_42 posted 06-22-99 11:06 PM ET
That is exactly how I deal with it Krushala. If they want that space more than me they will have to fight for it because if I conquer them(actually I should say, when I conquer them)they are history.
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: Fixed Borders vs. Claimed Land
TheMadStork	posted 06-21-99 02:18 PM ET If the current borders are so flexible, why aren't they just called Claimed Land? The land borders do not spill over into the sea (drat) and the sea borders are a simple ploy to keep that navy close to home. Why can't every base (land or sea) have a fixed border which includes the area inside the base grid (5x5 with corners cut off)? This border cannot be changed. It could be marked with a solid line in the color of the faction. Then, the borders we currently see, which are temporary, would serve the purpose of allowing expansion, troops, etc. Also, the fixed borders would include sea areas, which would prevent Santiago and Lal from parking a base next to your continent. I hope I have explained myself properly. Comments welcome. I go now.
gruedragon	posted 06-21-99 08:30 PM ET Your idea is a good one. Borders could then become something negotiable. I do wish that the land borders extended into the seas; in my last game Santiago planted two sea bases right next to two of my bases, stealing their kelp farms and condensors. Almost as agravating as an enemy civ planting a city in the midst of your empire in Civ2.
TheMadStork	posted 06-22-99 06:33 PM ET <rant> Don't even get me started about Civ2's lack of borders. I am just that much happier about SMAC, although I noticed a flaw almost immediately. Playing pod checkers with the b*tch Miriam is not my idea of strategy. If I found a base with a certain piece of land in mind, it should remain mine unless I choose otherwise. If Miriam decides she wants to use the bonus square, or parts of the Uranium Flats, she should not be able to steal it out from under my nose. Neither should anyone else, for that matter. Claimed territory is what we currently have. Fixed borders should be added. </rant> I go now.
Krushala	posted 06-22-99 07:17 PM ET I used to put up with it, but no more. Putting a base that close to me is grounds for war. I will conquer that base and either obliterate it or starve it down to a size 1 and prevent growth.
OldWarrior_42	posted 06-22-99 11:06 PM ET That is exactly how I deal with it Krushala. If they want that space more than me they will have to fight for it because if I conquer them(actually I should say, when I conquer them)they are history.