Expansion Discussion - Borders/Territory

Distant Worlds is a vast, pausable real-time, 4X space strategy game which models a "living galaxy" with incredible options for replayability and customizability. Experience the full depth and detail of large turn-based strategy games, but with the simplicity and ease of real-time, and on the scale of a massively-multiplayer online game. Now greatly enhanced with the new Universe release, which includes all four previous releases as well as the new Universe expansion!

Moderators: elliotg, Icemania

User avatar
Data
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 4:43 pm

RE: Expansion Discussion - Borders/Territory

Post by Data »

Good point, and we should also have demilitarized zones after wars....like the neutral zone from TNG for example.
...Igniting stellar cores....Recharging reactors...Recalibrating hyperdrives....
flap
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:30 am

RE: Expansion Discussion - Borders/Territory

Post by flap »

I could very well see organic borders depending on local strength, that too empires could decide to fix through a treaty (thus power behind the line doesn't change border anymore).
Registered55
Posts: 52
Joined: Sat Jul 31, 2010 9:28 pm

RE: Expansion Discussion - Borders/Territory

Post by Registered55 »

I can't believe how happy I am that a territory system is going to be done (borders)

there will be teething problems for sure, but 10 stars for doing it,

I'm well over the moon, I would get the expansion just for that feature alone,
as it's such a real life element that empires would not be able to survive without it.

User avatar
Data
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 4:43 pm

RE: Expansion Discussion - Borders/Territory

Post by Data »

well over the moon? any guardians or shakturi near by? [:)]
...Igniting stellar cores....Recharging reactors...Recalibrating hyperdrives....
Dhanun_slith
Posts: 10
Joined: Sun May 29, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Brazil

RE: Expansion Discussion - Borders/Territory

Post by Dhanun_slith »

To be frank, I don't find borders that important in this kind of game. In 4x like civilization, ok, but space 4x, it's difficult to create something good with borders. Usually it end up a mess of colors in the map. But if it's possible to implement borders fixed by treaties and with "romulan neutral zone" DMZs like Data put it, I'd more then enjoy this feature. [;)]
User avatar
J HG T
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 4:06 am
Location: Kiadia Prime

RE: Expansion Discussion - Borders/Territory

Post by J HG T »

I'm still on the fence about the border system. Leaning towards the borders side but still firmly on the fence.
I've always liked DWs way of having no borders to restrict your empires expansion or ships movements.
But, TBH, in larger games with lots of empires the map can get batshit crazy with every empires systems and tradelines scattered all over the friggin' galaxy.
If border system can limit this in a good degree, I'm all for it. As long as we can still colonize outside of our borders, accepting the risks and penalties which it brings, it should be just dandy. 

Borders and territories always make more sense on planets than in vastness of space if you think about it a bit.
Nothing is impossible, not if you can imagine it!
"And they hurled themselves into the void of space with no fear."
flap
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:30 am

RE: Expansion Discussion - Borders/Territory

Post by flap »

ORIGINAL: J HG T

Borders and territories always make more sense on planets than in vastness of space if you think about it a bit.

That's a point often raised. However having ten systems, with their bases and potential threat that it causes, totally mixed with yours, and thus always very close would be considered as a much greater danger by leaders than having some relatively clear border. It is less surface to defend (and thus army would be less widespread) and the average distance of the danger to your planets would be greater.
So I still feel that territories would apply in space. Maybe a bit like we have archipelagos and territories in the pacific ocean.

By yeah, it would be good to still have freedom to go everywhere, and see which diplomatic damages it causes ;-)
solops
Posts: 1066
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Central Texas

RE: Expansion Discussion - Borders/Territory

Post by solops »

Borders in space are a non-sequitur. If you want borders that control what a player can do, play a land based game, but stay away from sea and space games. If the border implementation is simply a visual aid to show a player where his assets are, fine. As an artifice restricting his options, it is unwarranted and unsupportable. The mixing of assets between empires is already addressed in DW by the way mixed colonies in a system effect diplomatic relations. If the "borders" thingy for the expansion seeks to expand on that, fine....probably a good thing. If it is more than that, it could really mess the game up and needs some options to tone it down or eliminate it from game-ply during the game set-up phase.
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.-Edmund Burke
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; if it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.-Judge Learned Hand
User avatar
Data
Posts: 3909
Joined: Mon Jan 03, 2011 4:43 pm

RE: Expansion Discussion - Borders/Territory

Post by Data »

eliminate it from game-ply during the game set-up phase.

Agreed, I also consider this a must. I'd enjoy playing it either way but I'm also 70% for lack of borders as in space they can only be political in nature.
...Igniting stellar cores....Recharging reactors...Recalibrating hyperdrives....
User avatar
Igard
Posts: 2282
Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2010 2:43 am
Location: Scotland

RE: Expansion Discussion - Borders/Territory

Post by Igard »

ORIGINAL: solops

needs some options to tone it down or eliminate it from game-ply during the game set-up phase.

This was the thinking behind my idea. It would still give the player or AI the option to colonise, just with a penalty. Or you can set it to different sized areas of effect, or even switch it off if you like. It would just be a littel bit complex for coding and balancing.

Seems like there are quite a few who would prefer to keep the current system. I'd like to see them catered for also.
User avatar
WoodMan
Posts: 1345
Joined: Wed Jun 02, 2010 1:22 pm
Location: Ol' Blighty

RE: Expansion Discussion - Borders/Territory

Post by WoodMan »

Hopefully the borders will pose no physichal restrictions whatsoever.  You should still be able to send your ships to any part of the galaxy you want.  But they should provide some diplomatic friction.  To be honest I get fed up with another Empire being built on top of mine because its taking all the desert worlds and I can't colonize them yet [:@]

They should be able to do this yes... but they should get a reputation hit for doing it (and therefore not do it if they are a race that cares about this kind of thing).  You should take less rep hit for attacking an enemy colony/mine/ship or something inside your territory.  It would then be possible to identify the agressor and defender in wars too by whose territory is the fighting taking place in [:)]

Anyway, thats my hopes[8D]
"My body may be confined to this chair, but my mind is free to explore the universe" - Stephen Hawking
User avatar
Kayoz
Posts: 1516
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:55 pm
Location: Timbuktu
Contact:

RE: Expansion Discussion - Borders/Territory

Post by Kayoz »

ORIGINAL: solops

As an artifice restricting his options, it is unwarranted and unsupportable. The mixing of assets between empires is already addressed in DW by the way mixed colonies in a system effect diplomatic relations.

I'm not sure what they have in mind, but I expect that crossing the border of your neighbour with military ships, will trigger a negative response - both for your relationship with them, and with your other neighbours who will expect the same behaviour to be directed at them. To properly implement this, the following needs to be considered:

- exclusion areas - so that fleets will path-find their way to objectives while excluding the prohibited areas
- an interception method, so you can intercept, pull out of hyperspace, and force a confrontation with trespassers
- proper responses to "violations of space" - is attacking a pirate base in someone else's territory, an offensive act? Is chasing a hostile fleet - which has chosen an escape trajectory which places it within a 3rd party's borders, something that should invite a response? How about the case of empire C having territory between A and B, which are at war - if A sends a fleet at B, but it's path crosses through C's territory - is A creating a hostile situation with C?
- in the case of a shared system - does the shared system allow for free access? Or in the case that one sharer of the system dominates the area and controls all systems around it - can the system be effectively cut off, forcing the other sharer to violate borders to supply or defend the planet?
- toll charge$ - buying passage with $$$?

As you implied, it's not a trivial task. Well, not if it's to be done well.
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
J HG T
Posts: 1093
Joined: Fri May 14, 2010 4:06 am
Location: Kiadia Prime

RE: Expansion Discussion - Borders/Territory

Post by J HG T »

Woodman, what I've understood, the wished border system would be something like that. No restrictions on movements. Bonuses on own territory and penalties on foreign territory. Owned planets project and expand territory. Planets would probably need to achieve certain level of development before they would count towards territory.

That's how I would be happy with it.

Interesting to see what Elliot has done with the borders system.
Nothing is impossible, not if you can imagine it!
"And they hurled themselves into the void of space with no fear."
solops
Posts: 1066
Joined: Thu Jan 31, 2002 10:00 am
Location: Central Texas

RE: Expansion Discussion - Borders/Territory

Post by solops »

You would need the technology to detect any interlopers for an incursion to be registered as an affront. After all, if a tree falls in the woods and there is no one there to hear it, does it make a noise?
 
And as Woodman said: "To be honest I get fed up with another Empire being built on top of mine because its taking all the desert worlds and I can't colonize them yet." I feel the same way, BUT...even though YOU are ticked off, why should anyone else be? Makes no sense for nation X to take a rep hit galaxy wide for offending you, especially with your enemies or people with whom neither of you has contact. 
All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing.-Edmund Burke
Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women; if it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it.-Judge Learned Hand
User avatar
Hanny
Posts: 422
Joined: Tue Jul 05, 2011 3:29 pm

RE: Expansion Discussion - Borders/Territory

Post by Hanny »

I'm not sure what they have in mind,

Self evident from your posts content.
but I expect that crossing the border of your neighbour with military ships, will trigger a negative response - both for your relationship with them, and with your other neighbours who will expect the same behaviour to be directed at them. To properly implement this, the following needs to be considered:

Ok, you do know that you start with, what is already present in game right?.
- exclusion areas - so that fleets will path-find their way to objectives while excluding the prohibited areas

Already exists in game for auto controlled units.
- an interception method, so you can intercept, pull out of hyperspace, and force a confrontation with trespassers

Already exist in game.
- proper responses to "violations of space" - is attacking a pirate base in someone else's territory, an offensive act? Is chasing a hostile fleet - which has chosen an escape trajectory which places it within a 3rd party's borders, something that should invite a response? How about the case of empire C having territory between A and B, which are at war - if A sends a fleet at B, but it's path crosses through C's territory - is A creating a hostile situation with C?

Game already prevents all your posits by pathfinding around settled stars when on auto, only a player can cause violations.
- in the case of a shared system - does the shared system allow for free access? Or in the case that one sharer of the system dominates the area and controls all systems around it - can the system be effectively cut off, forcing the other sharer to violate borders to supply or defend the planet?
- toll charge$ - buying passage with $$$?

Yes it does, as it is shared by factions all have access to it regardless.
As you implied, it's not a trivial task. Well, not if it's to be done well.

Given you have no grasp of the current game mechanisms i find you should refrain from posist about what is not in the game.
To strive, to seek, to find, and not to yield.
flap
Posts: 37
Joined: Sun Nov 14, 2010 11:30 am

RE: Expansion Discussion - Borders/Territory

Post by flap »

ORIGINAL: WoodMan

Hopefully the borders will pose no physichal restrictions whatsoever.  You should still be able to send your ships to any part of the galaxy you want.  But they should provide some diplomatic friction.  To be honest I get fed up with another Empire being built on top of mine because its taking all the desert worlds and I can't colonize them yet [:@]
(...)

That's exactly the way I see borders too : limiting empires mixing through diplomacy.(with the diplomatic option to bite the others territory for planet of high interest to you, but low for him)
User avatar
Kayoz
Posts: 1516
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:55 pm
Location: Timbuktu
Contact:

RE: Expansion Discussion - Borders/Territory

Post by Kayoz »

ORIGINAL: Hanny
I'm not sure what they have in mind,

Self evident from your posts content.

More personal attacks? Or is this another example of the divine wisdom you've been mysteriously imbued with. Was it aliens who gave you your psychic powers, or did you get it from a pair of divinely powered stones?
ORIGINAL: Hanny

Ok, you do know that you start with, what is already present in game right?.

There are, in fact, no borders in DW. Crossing a "border" is not the same as entering a foreign-owned system. Or that's not how I understand Erik's hint on the expansion pack.

Is this another case of your "wisdom"? Are you able to read Erik's mind as well as my own?
ORIGINAL: Hanny
- exclusion areas - so that fleets will path-find their way to objectives while excluding the prohibited areas

Already exists in game for auto controlled units.

Pardon? There is no path-finding in DW. Ships go in a straight line to their objective. They don't need to find a path around an obstacle.

reference:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pathfinding - "the way in which a moving entity finds a path around an obstacle". Please indicate an "obstacle" in DW - aside from a black hole, you can go ANYWHERE.

And what are you on about with exclusion areas and automated units (auto controlled? Do you mean "automated"?)? There's no such thing. You cannot, in any place in DW, specify to your automated ships, NOT TO GO to a certain place. If I'm wrong - please enlighten me. As it stands, it seems you're talking bollocks.
ORIGINAL: Hanny
- an interception method, so you can intercept, pull out of hyperspace, and force a confrontation with trespassers

Already exist in game.

BS. It doesn't. You can give chase. You can't force them to stop and give combat.

At best, you can catch up to them when they stop, and do battle there. At worst, you'll play ping-pong - chasing them to and fro but never succeeding in catching up (ex: target faster than pursuing fleet).

Again, I challenge you to provide proof to your claim. SHOW ME. Set it up in a save-game and upload that save. Demonstrate that it - as you state it does - already exists in the game.
ORIGINAL: Hanny

... yadda yadda yadda

I think that's enough to go on at the moment. We can address your other statements once you've explained the ones above. No sense in dragging out the point, is there?

“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens
Shuul
Posts: 133
Joined: Wed Feb 16, 2011 6:48 am

RE: Expansion Discussion - Borders/Territory

Post by Shuul »

I support Kayoz, coz he is right.
User avatar
Kayoz
Posts: 1516
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:55 pm
Location: Timbuktu
Contact:

RE: Expansion Discussion - Borders/Territory

Post by Kayoz »

The deafening silence.

Hanny afraid to defend his statements?

Could it be ... is it possible... that he's gotten psychiatric help?
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens
User avatar
Kayoz
Posts: 1516
Joined: Sun Dec 19, 2010 10:55 pm
Location: Timbuktu
Contact:

RE: Expansion Discussion - Borders/Territory

Post by Kayoz »

Demonstrating your ability to back up your arguments?

Image
“That which can be asserted without evidence, can be dismissed without evidence.” ― Christopher Hitchens
Post Reply

Return to “Distant Worlds 1 Series”