Demian and I were rediscussing the best approach to territories. As some of you may know, we want borders to be more fluid than those in most strategy games (especially at the beginning of the game). As such, we talked about dynamic provinces that can grow and shrink. There are, however, multiple ways to implement them that we are considering. We'd like to hear your thoughts on the subject (and possibly your own ideas as to how the system should be approached).

To introduce both models, we'll need some shared assumptions. The map is divided into tiles (hexes). Those hexes are then aggregated into territories. Each territory contains at most a single settlement (you can think of settlements as cities in Civilization. They're the main hub of population in any given territory). Settlements can then exert control over other territories forming more complex structures. Here, we'll call these structures "provinces". These aggregations will be dynamic in either model.

Our two models are what I'll call a "dynamic" and a "static" model. In the latter, territories are predefined, like they are in, say, Endless Legends or Humankind. Whereas in the "dynamic" model territories would gain and drop tiles depending on the hold they have on them. 

Now, before you immediately say "Well, that's easy, I want more dynamic stuff!", the choice isn't as simple as that. Static regions have a lot more going for them than may meet the eye. 

In no particular order, they simplify pathfinding a lot, allowing for much more efficient path caching and direct usage of algorithms superior to A* (such as HPA*). They would also allow us to store animal pops directly on them, removing the need to recalculate accessible animal populations for each territory with each monthly tick. 

They also prevent issues with possibly excessive border gore in situations where a decaying coastal settlement could get squished into a thin line by two neighboring coastal settlements. There are some countermeasures we could take against that but they generally increase code complexity (which is *not* a good thing in an already complex simulation).

And, lastly, they're much easier to implement and maintain. Though, that's a bit less of a consideration (but it may open using them to bootstrap the simulation with the goal of replacing them by a dynamic model later on).

I think their issues are much easier to spot(rigidity, lack of adaptation to evolving terrain so they'd need to be based on terrain profile more than biomes, etc). If you can think of other issues or advantages (for either model), or a different model entirely, let us know. Otherwise, share your thoughts on the subject below.

With the static model, could there be an option to still be able to edit the borders of a province. Say there are 3 provinces that share a border, but it would make more sense to organize the borders of the provinces differently. Could this be possible with the static model? The idea is that 90% of provinces would not change and remain as they were when they were made, but in cases where you want to tweak the borders you can and the game will know to update the pathfinding with the new "static" layout.

It's not just pathfinding but also any other type of cache we may come up with (as well as them being the same as regions used to store animal data). If they could be redrawn, we'd lose out on these optimizations.

I still personally think that the benefit of dynamic territories outweigh potential costs. Subdivision of land is a thought invention, and subdivisions need to be able to change in order to reflect the ways sapients view their society and the value of local regions.  If not, how will situations like the arbitrary borders of European colonies in Africa versus the geography-based borders of Europe be represented?

What I want to know is if if territories will be associated with geographical regions, or if they are randomly made. (Think rivers and mountains define borders for the first, and the post-WWI borders that still trouble Africa and the middle east today). Are the regions limited to one city? Are other factions able to build a city in that territory or region and cause conflict or cooperation based on Culture? If it is forced to one city, then its static and easy to manage. If other cities  can be settled in that region from other cultures/factions then it becomes dynamic, which is more elaborate but more realistic. 

I like the Endless legends large territories for easier management of areas, but Civilizations is more immersive to me.

In a mix of the two, a faction would have an influence over a region and the more influence the more control over people and resources from that region. While other civilizations can settle or grow their territories (like in Civilization) into that region causing power struggles over resources. But if that region is foreign (like Egyptians in Norway), then they get negatives on them. It also hinders empires from just taking everything around them. Their influence will be too foreign or savage to the natives thus causing it to be weaker in farther away regions and recently conquered regions.  

I think Influence is a major part of territories as well. You can't control where people go, and so you receive people from other places, maybe unsettled wild-land nomads in the earlier start, but large amounts trade bringing in people from around the globe talking highly of their home in the later game. 

Are there similarities between the mountain people and the plains people for them to work together? Maybe they may be too different, and the mountain people  don't accept the ways of others in your empire and so it becomes more difficult to expand in that region. All these would have an effect of how easy it is for your empire to grow.  Do the surroundings like you and want to be part of you? Or do they resist you like the Gauls with Rome? 

I see total war games as static as they are unmoving territories, but are restricted by the fact that reference existing places, they don't create new maps like Civilization does, even in their Total War: Warhammer games they stick to what was already built.  I think their games make a good reference with public order and religious/cultural influence, but I don't think much else be applied to Songs of Eons d/t that SoE's philosophy is much closer to Civilizations style. 

In summary I like the static Territories for geographical reasons and managing simpler areas with multiple mechanics. Like city builders, or Total War games, Endless Legends.  But I prefer dynamic for territories and constantly changing worlds with influence and expansion mechanics, like Civilization games, Endless Space.

I love extra small coastal(sea/lake or river) city states, I like how they make a map a lot more alive and interesting. One of the largest reasons I'm waiting for Sote is being able to play as mayor of small city in large dynamic world with a lot of events that directly or indirectly influence you. And if territories will be quite large, states like Frankfurt, Lubeck, Hamburg, Bremen will lose their chance to be in game.

To give an update, we went with static territories/provinces.

They'll be on average the size of irl Luxemburg (the country, not the city).