Sorry this is long guys. I had to throw in my two cents here. And I feel this can be done in a reasonable way, that isn't gamey, and isn't extreme on the coding side either. I had to put this out here, despite its length.

I'm not sure why something like borders should be hard to code, separately from influence. Borders just need to be a specified radius around a planet. Your borders are what you own, physically, ie. land. In other words, if you own the planet, then you have a claim to a certain radius around the planet. This can be two parsecs, or eight, for all I care. And it could even be a startup option, to add more choices to the game. And to be clear here, star bases have no effect, they are ships without engines, not territorial claims (that requires ownership of land). Your borders are nothing more then a radius around your planets, which should be very easy to code.

And the UP can even vote to let the races decide exactly what size should be the internationally (galactic) accepted zone size. Just as our UN and current international law recognizes three miles of ownership out into the ocean.

Now, that just does not seem remotely difficult to me to be able to code. But then it leaves the next question, of how to handle it when someone enters your territory without a right of passage treaty. And that doesn't have to be too terribly complicated either.

Simply, if they are in your territory, we can have multiple options for solving the issues. If I attack someone within my territorial borders, I get a pop up with two choices, 1) attack (declare war), or 2) diplomatic ejection (i.e. that ship gets teleported back to their home or nearest planet). This isn't exactly unrealistic. Nations eject diplomats, or deport people, or whatever the case may be all the time. Calculate the time it would have taken to make the journey and wait that amount of time before making it available again. It's part of the price you pay for getting caught, and it keeps it more realistic (we are simulating that it was deported and had to travel back).

Now, we can try to run the blockade, so to speak. And the other side has to actually catch us to stop us. Yet we can be caught and ejected, or it could possibly even start a war. We have options, not restrictions. And that's for both sides involved in the issue. Perhaps a planet we own requires us to "run the gauntlet" because its deep behind the lines within another's territory. And different AI personalities can have different tendencies for their response (of course balanced if they simply can not win a war).

And then you could expand the right of passage with more flavors. Full right of passage, or just trading rights of passage. Or if we "really" wanted, only rights of passage through the borders of a specific set of planets. Or, even better, another right of passage for specific types of star base construction. Again, more options makes for a better game and I'll bet others can be creative and come up with more variations, that really wouldn't be too much more to code.

Continuing on, we now can have disputed zones where two planets have overlapping radius zones. In disputed zones, you can't diplomatically eject the other side any longer. You either attack and declare war, to decide who really owns it, or you acknowledge their right to be there. Simply, if it's a disputed zone, you can't diplomatically eject them any longer. I can park on their doorstep and they can't eject me (because I do have as much claim to be there as they do). But it might be that they don't like that and are willing to fight as a remedy.

The gamey things are lame. And I wholeheartedly agree that simply teleporting them 100 parsecs or artificially slowing them down degrades the game, rather than enhances it. And I don't feel those are "minor degradations" either.

We are adding layers of play to the game this way. Cloaking comes to mind, when thinking of even more ways to add options and playability here.

One last point here. With borders being a simple radius around your planets, we have added an additional layer of game play by making that radius adjustable in the options or by UP vote. Some of us like to put influence star bases near other races planets. All of a sudden, depending on how large that radius is, those star bases may not be buildable up close and personal. Make it so you can't build a star base in someone else's territory, without a forced declaration of war, or star base right of passage. This brings in more playability, such as what happens if you have a star base somewhere (with right of passage), but the territory it's in changes ownership? The other side can ignore our star base, or attack (giving the option of 1. attack, or 2. force owner to sell it off, or 3. capture it with troops). And why not make all star bases capturable, for that matter.

This is adding simple, yet significant playability options, and it keeps it reasonably realistic. And it seriously should not be hard to code a radius or number of parsecs outward from a planet, to determine territory. Please consider some of this.

I think the issue is people want this, but in a "realistic" way.

Concerns: In cases of vast cultural influence, people will not be able to reinforce their planet.

Realism concerns.

First one- I'd make the suggestion that any sector you have a planet, you can travel across that sector regardless. Or maybe within sensor range of that planet- whichever is easier to code.

I think in cases of closed borders, the AI can attack ships within the borders without declaring war. Freighters would avoid the territory- though would not get a commerce bonus for doing so. Would take a relations hit for each attacked ships. Ships in enemy space can defend themselves but not attack without declaring war. When space is closed, there would be an option to autopilot out of the area without being attacked. This can be cancelled but your ship would be attacked in that case. Having ships in closed space is a relationship penalty. Closing space would hurt influence with that civ.

I believe that the AIs do get a diplomatic bonus on suicidal already...

The obvious solution to this is to allow ships without an attack rating to cross without a war declaration. After all, its the possibility of attacking that is the key issue. I would also think blocking off any truly sizable amount of space would be ridiculously expensive in both of time and starports.

Ships without an attack rating

Build Hulls, Build Constructor, get influence, upgrade all ships, sneak attack.

Profit.

About sneak attacks and Declaration of War:

I favor a graduated ZOC ruleset. For instance, at the "border" there would be a grey area, where there is a ZOC of none. If there are two ZOC in the area, then the area would have to be at least 2/3 influenced, or be grey. 3/4 for 3 ZOCs, etc.

This would factor into the DOW as allowing a neutral zone or no man's land, depending on the state of war between the ships' owners. Attacks within the grey area would be an act of war, where an attack within the attacker's ZOC could be allowed by treaty. (But this would be a SERIOUS diplomatic issue.) Intrusions into the defender's ZOC would be considered provocation, if the relations are bad enough. Trade routes should allow waypoints (automatically adjusted?) to avoid enemy ZOCs.

Any "sneak" attack (such as attacking when not provoked) would imply a DOW, HOWEVER, this would be a diplomatic hit with ALL AI, unless allied with the attacker or already at war with the attacked. Even evil races, while they might admire your style, would have to become more wary of you. This would be in proportion to your standing WITH THE ATTACKED race.

Bad bad idea.

1. As someone said, too many fakey limits. Sneak attacks are a valid strategy, they happen. Making them impossible due to a broken game mechanic is not fun.

2. Suspension of disbelief is crucial to games. Most people don't want to be constantly slapped in the face with "this is only a game" reminders. There is absolutely no reason why suddenly wormholes would appear and teleport all your ships hundreds of parsecs, and this ruins any kind of immersion you have going...

I think the UP rule against sneak attack is a nice thing. And occasionally vote for it, but how it SHOULD happen is that all ships would be force to fly in the straightest line OUT of enemy territory without the ability to enter back until all ships of both players are out or 5 turns have passed. Then you are allowed to reenter the enemy territory. Fights in contested/free zones are valid until then... This would be enforced by the UP.

And if there is no up rule in place... sneak attacking someone should simply tag a "sneak attacker" flag on you so that the AI of other species would be highly hostile towards having your ships in their territory.

You got me. Damn upgradeability. Though this would still make it more expensive than is currently the case.

Let's add another rules change, then..the inability to upgrade a ship without an attack rating?

Sneak attacks would be a valid strategy if they there were other, equally valid tactics, but there are not, and sneak attacks are not particularly difficult to pull off in the game as is.

And though i somewhat value 'realism', i would trade a pound of it for an ounce of good gameplay.

outside of your controlled space.

Personally I think that cultural borders should be different from the influence borders. Just make the cultural borders extend a certain set distance from the planets you own. So lets say that you have one planet, the cultural border would extend say 5 parsecs out from it in a circle unless it comes in contact with an alien border.

You could also make it a bonus that if you have all the planets possible in a solar system you get a larger circle originating from the star, say 15 parsecs instead of the 5.

In this way I don't think ti would be unbalancing if the you implemented the UN deal for all wars but only with relation to cultural borders instead of influence borders.

sorry this is what i meant

Problem- too artificial.

I want sneak attacks to remain in the game, but at a serious diplo penalty.

Open/Closed borders is a great idea if done right- it's hard to do right though.