Coastal landbase sea-borders: cast your vote

  Alpha Centauri Forums
  The Game
  Coastal landbase sea-borders: cast your vote

profile | register | prefs | faq | search

Author Topic:   Coastal landbase sea-borders: cast your vote

Ralf posted 04-07-99 02:31 PM ET
I really dont like it then AI sea-colony modules repeatedly decides to found new sea-colonies 1-3 squares away from my coastal landbases. It�s MY doorstep!!! The player shouldn�t being forced to build a sea-colony on an otherwise unattractive spot with no bonus resources, just to get that sea-border.
Why not let coastal land-bases have at least a free 4 square sea-border by default? You can expand that with additional sea-colonies, but the first 4 squares should be free outside each coastal land-base.

Technocrat posted 04-07-99 02:43 PM ET
I agree, except that the border should just be a 3 space radius, and not a 4 (a sea city would at least have an equal control of its surrounding ocean).
Technocrat
Darkstar posted 04-07-99 02:56 PM ET
I agree. I think ALL bases, costal as well as not, should contribute to your faction's coastal sea territory! Most nations claim more than two miles out from their coast. I want my faction to do so as well. :-)
-Darkstar
Chowlett posted 04-07-99 03:09 PM ET
Good point, I agree. At least some sea should be your territory from a coastal base. Patch v4.0? P)
Pyramider posted 04-07-99 03:28 PM ET
I must agree on this point. Given that the ocean has resource and strategic value, including ocean shelf tiles within a few tiles of ones cities is a reasonable idea.
Pique posted 04-07-99 05:01 PM ET
Agree as well. I think the border concept is the best thing to hit this genre in quite a while, and anything that adds to it gets my vote.
Plus, if you are going to have borders, it makes sense that nations would extend them a certain distance from their coastlines.
Pique
sandworm posted 04-07-99 05:13 PM ET
Agree.
Rong posted 04-07-99 05:15 PM ET
Agree.
This is from "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea":
"...The sovereignty of a coastal State extends, beyond its land territory and internal waters and, in the case of an archipelagic State, its archipelagic waters, to an adjacent belt of sea, described as the territorial sea..."
"...Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention..."
Whether other factions respect that territory or not, is entirely another matter.
Travathian posted 04-07-99 06:28 PM ET
I agree, but
After removing voting to remove the UN charter, then its no hold barred, build where you want!
akathisia posted 04-07-99 06:51 PM ET
Agree. Sounds like a great idea.
Downtime posted 04-08-99 01:46 AM ET
Coastal borders are a fine idea. One other change to the border system that I would like to see is fixed borders so that a faction which you have made a treaty with cannot gobble up chunks of your territory by founding new bases right next to your boundries.
master k posted 04-08-99 03:10 AM ET
they sould build no bases at all !!
for serious: they build bases in teir own territory or in nowhereland.
sometimes it makes me angry, but sometimes i am doing it just like them. the game is about to get control over as many territory as you can get, so it is just in the logic of the game, that they act like that.
master k
TBox posted 04-08-99 03:59 AM ET
Ah, the true meaning of Passive Aggressive. . .
Personally, I don't mind when they beat me to filling a void...like, if there's 10 or so squares between us, and they build on their border, pushing it out, okay, I wasn't projecting my force enough. It's when they squeeze a colony into a space with 3 squares that don't overlap another base's that I get annoyed. Lebensraum! :P
Aredhran posted 04-08-99 04:37 AM ET
I must agree. I got very p!ssed off last night because my dear & submissive Deirdre had a couple bases (left) squeezed between my borders and the shoreline, and all of a sudden she decides to found a new base right against my borders, thus stealing lots of ressources (1 bonus nutrient square w/farm+solar, 1 mine+river and 3 forest squares) from Lily Of The Valley. Ok now, it used to be one of he bases I agree, but she had lost it to me fair and square (If beating on someone with Chaos Rovers when they only have synthmetal garrison can be called fair )
So I would DEFINITELY go for these "external borders" or whatever we want to call them. Either they respect them, or it's an act of war. And since my little Deirdre had *surrendered* to me, she should not even have the option to do it.
Just my .02
-Aredhran
Dick Knisely posted 04-08-99 10:26 AM ET
Oh, good <grin>. You guys just picked up on one the hottest, longest debates of the beta testing. Testers were split on the issue but many if not most agreed that land-base-created territories should extend out to sea some amount. Logically it shouldn't just be ports that do this, but that would be okay with me as well.
The flip side of this is part of the reason it doesn't work that way in the game--if land bases extend a boundary into the water, shouldn't sea bases extend a boundary onto land?
Personally, my vote goes to putting a parameter in Alpha.txt that sets the distance that land territories extend out to sea with a default value of 0 and an allowed range of 0-4.
Bossman posted 04-08-99 10:29 AM ET
Count my vote. They always p*ss me off doing their little trick of knicking all my resources when they have surrendered.
Frank Moore posted 04-08-99 10:36 AM ET
I defintely agree that there should be some kind of adjustment made for land bases having sea squares as part of their territory, and vice versa. However, I don't think that the territory should extend past the city boundaries. Also I think that whichever city is founded first, whether it be sea or land, should set this territory that would not change unless a city is destroyed, taken over, whatever.
The flaw in looking at the real world way of handling coastal waters is that there is no such thing as a water base.
Bottom line, I definitely think this needs looked at.
HMFIC posted 04-08-99 10:38 AM ET
I agree, but fix the missles first.
Bossman posted 04-08-99 10:38 AM ET
As always frank youve hit the nail on the head. All we need now is someone to come to this page and see this so that they will do something. in fact i'm off t E-Mail a mate of mine who Beta tested this game. He should be able to get someting done about it for patch V4.0
DeVore posted 04-08-99 10:40 AM ET
Count me in, IMO treaty patners and pact brothers shouldn't be allowed to found cities that uses any squares inside one of your city borders so the effective border would be at least 4 squares away from any city.....sea or no sea.
/Dev - Give me convenience or give me death.
Aredhran posted 04-08-99 10:46 AM ET
The most aggravating part is when you have a city that is actually *using* the squares that the AI snatches from you.
In the example I gave above, I'm running Free Market, so I get peanuts from the Fungus squares, and guess where my workers went once my forests, mines and farms were stolen from under their virtual little feet ? Bingo. Fungus ! Beautiful little icon, this �...
That should not happen. Even if we don't have any "extended boundaries", the very least would be for a newly founded base to be incapable of stealing resource tiles from another player's already existing city.
-Aredhran
Bossman posted 04-08-99 10:48 AM ET
Stop using Free Market then and go to Green economics then maybe you should be able to survive with the fungus unless the mindworms dont get you!
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: Coastal landbase sea-borders: cast your vote
Ralf	posted 04-07-99 02:31 PM ET I really dont like it then AI sea-colony modules repeatedly decides to found new sea-colonies 1-3 squares away from my coastal landbases. It�s MY doorstep!!! The player shouldn�t being forced to build a sea-colony on an otherwise unattractive spot with no bonus resources, just to get that sea-border. Why not let coastal land-bases have at least a free 4 square sea-border by default? You can expand that with additional sea-colonies, but the first 4 squares should be free outside each coastal land-base.
Technocrat	posted 04-07-99 02:43 PM ET I agree, except that the border should just be a 3 space radius, and not a 4 (a sea city would at least have an equal control of its surrounding ocean). Technocrat
Darkstar	posted 04-07-99 02:56 PM ET I agree. I think ALL bases, costal as well as not, should contribute to your faction's coastal sea territory! Most nations claim more than two miles out from their coast. I want my faction to do so as well. :-) -Darkstar
Chowlett	posted 04-07-99 03:09 PM ET Good point, I agree. At least some sea should be your territory from a coastal base. Patch v4.0? P)
Pyramider	posted 04-07-99 03:28 PM ET I must agree on this point. Given that the ocean has resource and strategic value, including ocean shelf tiles within a few tiles of ones cities is a reasonable idea.
Pique	posted 04-07-99 05:01 PM ET Agree as well. I think the border concept is the best thing to hit this genre in quite a while, and anything that adds to it gets my vote. Plus, if you are going to have borders, it makes sense that nations would extend them a certain distance from their coastlines. Pique
sandworm	posted 04-07-99 05:13 PM ET Agree.
Rong	posted 04-07-99 05:15 PM ET Agree. This is from "United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea": "...The sovereignty of a coastal State extends, beyond its land territory and internal waters and, in the case of an archipelagic State, its archipelagic waters, to an adjacent belt of sea, described as the territorial sea..." "...Every State has the right to establish the breadth of its territorial sea up to a limit not exceeding 12 nautical miles, measured from baselines determined in accordance with this Convention..." Whether other factions respect that territory or not, is entirely another matter.
Travathian	posted 04-07-99 06:28 PM ET I agree, but After removing voting to remove the UN charter, then its no hold barred, build where you want!
akathisia	posted 04-07-99 06:51 PM ET Agree. Sounds like a great idea.
Downtime	posted 04-08-99 01:46 AM ET Coastal borders are a fine idea. One other change to the border system that I would like to see is fixed borders so that a faction which you have made a treaty with cannot gobble up chunks of your territory by founding new bases right next to your boundries.
master k	posted 04-08-99 03:10 AM ET they sould build no bases at all !! for serious: they build bases in teir own territory or in nowhereland. sometimes it makes me angry, but sometimes i am doing it just like them. the game is about to get control over as many territory as you can get, so it is just in the logic of the game, that they act like that. master k
TBox	posted 04-08-99 03:59 AM ET Ah, the true meaning of Passive Aggressive. . . Personally, I don't mind when they beat me to filling a void...like, if there's 10 or so squares between us, and they build on their border, pushing it out, okay, I wasn't projecting my force enough. It's when they squeeze a colony into a space with 3 squares that don't overlap another base's that I get annoyed. Lebensraum! :P
Aredhran	posted 04-08-99 04:37 AM ET I must agree. I got very p!ssed off last night because my dear & submissive Deirdre had a couple bases (left) squeezed between my borders and the shoreline, and all of a sudden she decides to found a new base right against my borders, thus stealing lots of ressources (1 bonus nutrient square w/farm+solar, 1 mine+river and 3 forest squares) from Lily Of The Valley. Ok now, it used to be one of he bases I agree, but she had lost it to me fair and square (If beating on someone with Chaos Rovers when they only have synthmetal garrison can be called fair ) So I would DEFINITELY go for these "external borders" or whatever we want to call them. Either they respect them, or it's an act of war. And since my little Deirdre had surrendered to me, she should not even have the option to do it. Just my .02 -Aredhran
Dick Knisely	posted 04-08-99 10:26 AM ET Oh, good <grin>. You guys just picked up on one the hottest, longest debates of the beta testing. Testers were split on the issue but many if not most agreed that land-base-created territories should extend out to sea some amount. Logically it shouldn't just be ports that do this, but that would be okay with me as well. The flip side of this is part of the reason it doesn't work that way in the game--if land bases extend a boundary into the water, shouldn't sea bases extend a boundary onto land? Personally, my vote goes to putting a parameter in Alpha.txt that sets the distance that land territories extend out to sea with a default value of 0 and an allowed range of 0-4.
Bossman	posted 04-08-99 10:29 AM ET Count my vote. They always p*ss me off doing their little trick of knicking all my resources when they have surrendered.
Frank Moore	posted 04-08-99 10:36 AM ET I defintely agree that there should be some kind of adjustment made for land bases having sea squares as part of their territory, and vice versa. However, I don't think that the territory should extend past the city boundaries. Also I think that whichever city is founded first, whether it be sea or land, should set this territory that would not change unless a city is destroyed, taken over, whatever. The flaw in looking at the real world way of handling coastal waters is that there is no such thing as a water base. Bottom line, I definitely think this needs looked at.
HMFIC	posted 04-08-99 10:38 AM ET I agree, but fix the missles first.
Bossman	posted 04-08-99 10:38 AM ET As always frank youve hit the nail on the head. All we need now is someone to come to this page and see this so that they will do something. in fact i'm off t E-Mail a mate of mine who Beta tested this game. He should be able to get someting done about it for patch V4.0
DeVore	posted 04-08-99 10:40 AM ET Count me in, IMO treaty patners and pact brothers shouldn't be allowed to found cities that uses any squares inside one of your city borders so the effective border would be at least 4 squares away from any city.....sea or no sea. /Dev - Give me convenience or give me death.
Aredhran	posted 04-08-99 10:46 AM ET The most aggravating part is when you have a city that is actually using the squares that the AI snatches from you. In the example I gave above, I'm running Free Market, so I get peanuts from the Fungus squares, and guess where my workers went once my forests, mines and farms were stolen from under their virtual little feet ? Bingo. Fungus ! Beautiful little icon, this �... That should not happen. Even if we don't have any "extended boundaries", the very least would be for a newly founded base to be incapable of stealing resource tiles from another player's already existing city. -Aredhran
Bossman	posted 04-08-99 10:48 AM ET Stop using Free Market then and go to Green economics then maybe you should be able to survive with the fungus unless the mindworms dont get you!