Matrix Games Forums

Good point, and we should also have demilitarized zones after wars....like the neutral zone from TNG for example.

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).

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.

well over the moon? any guardians or shakturi near by? [:)]

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. [;)]

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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. 

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.

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)

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?

I support Kayoz, coz he is right.

The deafening silence.

Hanny afraid to defend his statements?

Could it be ... is it possible... that he's gotten psychiatric help?

Demonstrating your ability to back up your arguments?