View Full Version : How to defend your afriendly city state from AI attack, without diplo consequences


Alexfrog
Sep 22, 2010, 10:39 PM
In a recent game one of the AIs went to war with a couple of my friendly/allied city states. But I didnt want to go to war with that AI.

I was able to easily defend the city state by getting a couple units there first and merely making a wall with them in front of the city state. The AI melee units couldnt easily attack the city, they had to go around me, suffering fire from the city state each turn, and then when they got to the back of the city to attack it they were weak.

A couple of my units guarding the front side of a city state was enough to enable the city state to defend itself from attacks of 6-7 units, and the city state had a mere 1 unit for itself, garrisoned in the city.

Trickster7135
Sep 22, 2010, 10:44 PM
If you have the troops to spare, why bother? Just attack the invaders, gain a fat ally bonus from the city-state, and use that skirmish to quickly conquer a few border cities, then call it a day with a peace treaty. Hmm, kinda like real life...

Alexfrog
Sep 22, 2010, 11:29 PM
If you have the troops to spare, why bother? Just attack the invaders, gain a fat ally bonus from the city-state, and use that skirmish to quickly conquer a few border cities, then call it a day with a peace treaty. Hmm, kinda like real life...

This was about how to do it without attackign the AI civ. For example, maybe you have ongoing trade agreements and research agreements with them, and a small military. Dont want to declare war on them in that situation.

chongli
Sep 23, 2010, 03:24 AM
I think you're missing the point a little bit. One of the main reasons city states were added to the game is to stir the diplomatic pot. They force you to make a tough decision: which relationship is more important to you - the city state or the rival civ?

If you can circumvent this situation, I find that very disappointing. I hope in the future they will patch it so that the other civ can demand that your units move out of the way.

kaltorak
Sep 23, 2010, 03:33 AM
You can ask the civ to stop attacking the city state. If he doesn't want to, than it is clear you to have either attacking him, or let him attack.

Sounds both logical and fun to me.

chongli
Sep 23, 2010, 03:50 AM
You can ask the civ to stop attacking the city state. If he doesn't want to, than it is clear you to have either attacking him, or let him attack.

Sounds both logical and fun to me.

That's not what he's doing here. He's effectively making a blockade to keep the other civ away from their enemy and the other civ is not getting angry about this.

kaltorak
Sep 23, 2010, 04:14 AM
If he just wants it to not be destroyed...
But that won't count like helping the city state, although you are.

chongli
Sep 23, 2010, 04:25 AM
It's basically an exploit.

kaltorak
Sep 23, 2010, 04:34 AM
It's basically an exploit.

I don't see it that way. The other day I was watching a tv episode, and a guy that was beeing pursued by the police, entered another countries consulate. The consulate was protecting him, while not at war with the country they are in.
The police couldnt catch the guy without declaring war to the consulates country.

In wars its the same. You can protect somebody with your army without declaring war. So if the other wants to destroy him, he has to declare war on you.

Looks like a mechanic and not an exploit

Cyberian
Sep 23, 2010, 05:03 AM
Something to do your those scouts in mid-game. Camp near my allied Civs cities.

goodolarchie
Sep 23, 2010, 05:31 AM
Human-shielding is pretty lame and can be done anywhere, not just to block aggressive city-state takeovers. Case in point: open borders and go Night-the-Roxbury-dancing on their workers/military. I hope they fix it.

kaltorak
Sep 23, 2010, 06:56 AM
What would you do if another civ did that to you? Declare war.

Maybe the AI isn't programmed to do it, and then it would be an exploit. But if it can recognize your units are hindering them even at peace, they could give a warning telling you to retreat, and if not, declare war.

That would seem better to me than trying to fix it other way.

zac007
Sep 23, 2010, 12:23 PM
In a recent game one of the AIs went to war with a couple of my friendly/allied city states. But I didnt want to go to war with that AI.

I was able to easily defend the city state by getting a couple units there first and merely making a wall with them in front of the city state. The AI melee units couldnt easily attack the city, they had to go around me, suffering fire from the city state each turn, and then when they got to the back of the city to attack it they were weak.

A couple of my units guarding the front side of a city state was enough to enable the city state to defend itself from attacks of 6-7 units, and the city state had a mere 1 unit for itself, garrisoned in the city.

I had the same situation, all I did was pull up the diplomacy screen for the AI and politely asked him to make peace, he said no problem anything for you. Then he immediately made peace, no coersion or anything. Seems in Civ V if you are at good terms with a civ they will do more for you.

WuphonsReach
Sep 23, 2010, 12:37 PM
It's one of the flaws with the 1 unit per tile design. Unless you massively increase the number of tiles (cities 10 tiles apart instead of only 5, for instance), blocking tactics become easy.

Not sure what sort of fix this will require. Possibly we'll see more of a "only can put N points worth on a tile", or "enemy units that you're not at war with can coexist", or "workers can coexist with military units on the same tile". So instead of a hard "1 per tile" rule, we'll see the 1UPT only taking effect in combination where it makes sense.

WuphonsReach
Sep 23, 2010, 12:38 PM
It's one of the flaws with the 1 unit per tile design. Unless you massively increase the number of tiles (cities 10 tiles apart instead of only 5, for instance), blocking tactics become easy.

Not sure what sort of fix this will require. Possibly we'll see more of a "only can put N points worth on a tile", or "enemy units that you're not at war with can coexist", or "workers can coexist with military units on the same tile". So instead of a hard "1 per tile" rule, we'll see the 1UPT only taking effect in combination where it makes sense.

Mannu
Sep 23, 2010, 01:11 PM
That's cheese.

I asked a friendly civ that attacked one of my city states to make peace with them. He did for free.

He later attacked again and now he won't consider peace at all. I'm going to have to teach him a lesson. That's well designed fun, not cheese.

rah
Sep 23, 2010, 01:52 PM
Yes, it's an exploit created by 1up. You can choose to use it or not. (just like some that reload to get better hut results or better starting land)
I put a couple of units next to the CS but for a different reason. I actually want the AI to conquer the CS, so I can liberate it. (with the city defense at 50% and no bombardment, it's quite easy) and then they're your friend for a couple hundred turns for free.

Bluetooth
Sep 23, 2010, 02:05 PM
It's definitely not an exploit, that's how it works with 1UPT and Zone of Control. Blocking units will certainly be a part of my military strategy. In Civ 2 I used Zone of Control to block narrow parts of a map for example.

rah
Sep 23, 2010, 02:14 PM
If you surround your neighbors first city with enough units, they can't get a settler out. You wouldn't see that as an exploit?

Bluetooth
Sep 23, 2010, 02:31 PM
In theory yes, but you don't know what they are building in their cities so it won't happen.

King_Ford
Sep 23, 2010, 04:02 PM
Why couldn't you gift the City-State fighters so they could defend themselves? This would make them stronger (help with future attacks as well) and would weaken the attacking force to where you could attack them yourself if you wanted.

thk123
Sep 23, 2010, 04:36 PM
It is an exploit, not because of the strategy, but because the AI isn't sophisticated enough to detect this as a deliberate attempt by the player to hinder them. As someone said earlier, if someone did it to you, you would declare war.

ytswy
Sep 23, 2010, 04:52 PM
It is an exploit, not because of the strategy, but because the AI isn't sophisticated enough to detect this as a deliberate attempt by the player to hinder them. As someone said earlier, if someone did it to you, you would declare war.

This. And possibly this is how the issue could be resolved; a diplomatic option to request a tile be vacated. Possibly at two levels, one a request for when the AI would just prefer to have access to the tile, without real consequences for refusing. Two a demand for when the AI has a definite plan that requires it to move through the tile in question. The second would generally result in war if refused.

r_rolo1
Sep 23, 2010, 05:13 PM
Seems a fac simile of the settler blocking of civ III. I could see this coming ... but it looks that a avid player/modder of civ III like the lead designer of civ V was couldn't remember that :/

Earthling
Sep 23, 2010, 05:22 PM
It's basically an exploit.

It's called 1 unit per tile though. Combined with traditional unit blocking like in civ3 which was mostly universally hated and no one remembered that as rolo rightly points out

rah
Sep 23, 2010, 05:28 PM
It is an exploit, not because of the strategy, but because the AI isn't sophisticated enough to detect this as a deliberate attempt by the player to hinder them. As someone said earlier, if someone did it to you, you would declare war.

FTW, yes a diplo option would resolve it. And I wish there was one because with 1up there are quite a few blocking situations that happen. A critical mountain pass may be blocked for a millinium by an AI worker. I've see CS workers blocking hexs in AI city ranges when I'm attacking and it makes thing more difficult.

Demartus
Sep 24, 2010, 06:47 AM
Blocking someone's workers or settlers would be very difficult to do. They can still move through your troops, as long as they don't end their movement on your troops (and they're not at war). So you'd need two layers of troops to effectively block a worker or settler, or catch them in a large forest or something.

Blocking their city would require open borders, and something like 6-12 units (depending on terrain, coast, etc.). I think they'd probably get their workers/settlers out before that happens.

thwump
Sep 24, 2010, 06:59 AM
The AI did this to me last night. I have no idea if it was intentional or not but there were two scouts standing by a city state on a peninsula. I ended up farming the city state units for xp while waiting for research agreement to come up. Then eventually went to war.

Tomice
Sep 24, 2010, 07:37 AM
You could surround another civs capital to prevent him from bringing spaceship parts there :crazyeye:


EDIT:
I guess the AI could be programmed to recognize a bunch of units around a city. It could count the number of units in the cities "inner circle" and complain.

"your troops are blocking our city" or "your troops disturb our military actions"

It would be much harder to make them recognize blocked chokepoints.

effexop
Sep 24, 2010, 07:39 AM
Blocking settlers, workers, ANYTHING is a not so fun reality in this game, because its so easy to do. HIlls/forest/rivers cost 2 movement, so you just need a choke point on a hill, one or tow units, and nobody will get through you. Its not really fun this way. Stacking in this game should be more flexible. Workes and settlers of other civilizations should be able to stack with non hostile military units.

Mannu
Sep 24, 2010, 07:43 AM
Why couldn't you gift the City-State fighters so they could defend themselves? This would make them stronger (help with future attacks as well) and would weaken the attacking force to where you could attack them yourself if you wanted.

I did this and the CS successfully held off the invaders (on very low difficulty level). I kind of wish I hadn't though. I could have liberated it and used the free influence...

I really wish though, that the AI would simply DOW the player in an instance where they are blocking their movement. That's what I would do if another player were doing that to me...

TheMeInTeam
Sep 24, 2010, 07:46 AM
It's basically an exploit.

Scrub theory emerges early in gaming :lol:.

1upt is a big factor of civ V, and creative applications of it have merit.

r_rolo1
Sep 24, 2010, 08:01 AM
[Civ IV TMIT mode]

Bah, this was foreseeable since the moment the game was designed for 1 upt. Aparently someone forgot to think this could be done .. I blame this on lack of beta testing :p

[/Civ IV TMIT mode]
^
|
Irony ;)

Ahriman
Sep 24, 2010, 08:07 AM
Why couldn't you gift the City-State fighters so they could defend themselves?
Because they will use them suicidally to rush off into enemy territory and get bombarded by the enemy cities.

You could surround another civs capital to prevent him from bringing spaceship parts there
You'd need a ton of units to do this, because they can still move "through" your units. So if they're on a railroad, you'd have to block all the railroad tiles a looong way out to stop them movnig into their city in a single turn.

The moving through is also important if you're trying to block-protect a city state. You need to be right next to the city state.

MasterDinadan
Sep 24, 2010, 08:20 AM
Maybe 1 unit per tile should instead be 1 unit per civ per tile, so two non-warring civs can stack their units on top of each other. The only way to block someone is to declare war. Which makes sense.
"I'm going to station my army in your fields and not allow any workers to enter. But don't worry, this isn't an act of war."
When civs go to war, their units can once again block each other. If someone else is at war with both of the people stacking and tries to attack the stacked units, he gets to choose who he attacks.
Maybe someone will make a mod like this.

padlock
Sep 24, 2010, 08:21 AM
A simple fix would be to let civs at peace share tiles.

In other words, turn 1UPT into 1UPTPC (1 Unit Per Tile Per Civ).

edit: D'oh, I was ninja'd!

Ahriman
Sep 24, 2010, 08:26 AM
Maybe 1 unit per tile should instead be 1 unit per civ per tile, so two non-warring civs can stack their units on top of each other. The only way to block someone is to declare war. Which makes sense.
This has exploits too: what if Civ A and I form a pact to declare war on Civ B. Now, Civ A and I can share tiles during the war (we are at peace with each other), and have 2 units per tile vs the one unit of CivB?

Thats a horribly broken military advantage, and opens up the old stacking questions (which unit defends? when that tile is attacked).

There's really no way around some kind of exploit in a 1upt system. Its the price we pay for ending stacking.

rah
Sep 24, 2010, 08:29 AM
Generally I like 1up except for the annoyance when you're doing go to commands. I.E. when a unit is moving on a road and it has a fraction of movement point left but not enough to get by the unit in the next square on the road. It leaves the road on that last fraction which slows it down getting back on the road to start the next turn. It would be nice if it was smart enough to realize it should just eat that last movement fraction and stay on the stinking road.

BSmith1068
Sep 24, 2010, 10:33 AM
If you surround your neighbors first city with enough units, they can't get a settler out. You wouldn't see that as an exploit?

No. Because you would have to make a massive expenditure to do so in building units and carrying their associated maintenance costs. Also, the AI would most likely ask you to move your troops that are on their border, and when you didnít would likely get the message and start preparing for war Ė not expansion.

Wing
Sep 24, 2010, 05:52 PM
I had a situation like this in my game.

I was at war with Bismarck, and I was allied with a city-state (I forget which, let's call it Bob). Eventually I got peace with Bismarck. Then I tried to get Bismarck to make peace with Bob, but when hovering over Bob in the "make peace with" menu in trade, it said Bob had declared permanent war on Bismarck, and so it was impossible.

My only option to save Bob seemed to be to wipe Bismarck off the map, however I had just made peace with him and so I could not declare on him until the treaty was over. By that time, I'm sure Bob would have been conquered (again). So, I put six units around Bob's city. Bismarck shelled Bob every turn with artillery and had a ring of units two deep around my units, around Bob's city. It was impossible for Bismarck to conquer Bob, and impossible for me to do anything other than sit there in his way.

The permanent war feature doesn't feel right to me. Maybe if I'm allied with Bob I should be able to get him to call off the permanent war.

Also, the AI needs to be smart enough to know that it has to kill you to get to Bob. This gameplay felt pretty degenerate to me.

Venereus
Sep 24, 2010, 07:04 PM
I had a situation like this in my game.

I was at war with Bismarck, and I was allied with a city-state (I forget which, let's call it Bob). Eventually I got peace with Bismarck. Then I tried to get Bismarck to make peace with Bob, but when hovering over Bob in the "make peace with" menu in trade, it said Bob had declared permanent war on Bismarck, and so it was impossible.

My only option to save Bob seemed to be to wipe Bismarck off the map, however I had just made peace with him and so I could not declare on him until the treaty was over. By that time, I'm sure Bob would have been conquered (again). So, I put six units around Bob's city. Bismarck shelled Bob every turn with artillery and had a ring of units two deep around my units, around Bob's city. It was impossible for Bismarck to conquer Bob, and impossible for me to do anything other than sit there in his way.

The permanent war feature doesn't feel right to me. Maybe if I'm allied with Bob I should be able to get him to call off the permanent war.

Also, the AI needs to be smart enough to know that it has to kill you to get to Bob. This gameplay felt pretty degenerate to me.

Perma war is definitely broken. It triggers against warmonging civs, effectively suiciding city-states.

EmperorFool
Sep 24, 2010, 07:15 PM
I had a few units stationed on Hiawatha's border (open borders, sour relations), and he complained about so many units close to his borders. Said I should do something with them or leave. I don't know if all these "suggestions" from the AIs or my responses have any effect, but it clearly was programmed to detect it.

There's no reason the AI couldn't be programmed to detect when your units are hindering its advances on a third player and react accordingly.

r_rolo1
Sep 25, 2010, 05:31 AM
Well, EF, proximity and blocking are not exactly the same thing :p

effexop
Sep 25, 2010, 03:03 PM
This has exploits too: what if Civ A and I form a pact to declare war on Civ B. Now, Civ A and I can share tiles during the war (we are at peace with each other), and have 2 units per tile vs the one unit of CivB?

Thats a horribly broken military advantage, and opens up the old stacking questions (which unit defends? when that tile is attacked).

There's really no way around some kind of exploit in a 1upt system. Its the price we pay for ending stacking.


There is a simple solution for that, just make the stacked unit that got there later a civilian unit until it de-stacks. If the tile get attacked, one unit defends, and if it loses, both units are gone.

EmperorFool
Sep 25, 2010, 03:24 PM
Well, EF, proximity and blocking are not exactly the same thing :p

I never said they were the same thing, but they are similar. My point is that since Firaxis programmed the AI to detect proximity they might be able to program it to detect blocking.

For example, they have a target city just like they have their own border. They just need to detect "too many" of your units in the proximity of the city. Plus with the path-finding algorithm it shouldn't be too hard to have it return the player that is blocking their access if there's no path to their target.

I also experienced the permanent war problem in my current game. Monty is in North America and I'm in South America, and my ally Monaco is surrounded by Monty on three sides. Early after allying with Monaco Monty attacked them. I gifted two Bowman and a Pikeman which Monaco used to fend off the attack, but of course then sent them with 2 HP into Monty's land to die. I asked Monty to stop the attack and he accepted without anything in return. Sweet.

Then some five hundred years later I noticed that Monty had a bunch of units sitting in Monaco's borders, but they weren't doing anything. All of a sudden Monaco started shelling the units, but again Monty wouldn't attack. Monaco had gotten impatient with the trespassing I guess and entered a permanent war. This continued for some time until finally Monty had had enough himself and started fighting back.

While Monty is way behind in tech (Archers and Spearmen to my Infantry), I only have three cities and four land units because I'm going for a cultural victory. I cannot DoW yet, so I built and gifted a single Infantry which Monaco used to kill every one of Monty's units and take one of his cities. :lol: He sent it on again with 1 HP this time to die. Why doesn't the AI understand how to heal their units?

Anyway, it's been rather amusing watching their little pillow fight . . . and then handing one of them a sledgehammer.

MeteorPunch
Sep 25, 2010, 03:31 PM
This needs to be fixed. Let the AI go through you, or have harsh penalties for blocking. "Peaceful" military units shouldn't be anywhere near a war zone anyway. If you move inside a war zone, you should be flagged as hostile and attackable without consequence (oops, collateral damage), or be given a warning to move...or else.

MyOtherName
Sep 25, 2010, 03:39 PM
Scrub theory emerges early in gaming :lol:.

1upt is a big factor of civ V, and creative applications of it have merit.

Maybe, but there is still room to improve the game. Would you prefer a game with a stupid AI who can't recognize when they're being blocked, or would you prefer a game with a less stupid AI who can recognize it and takes steps to deal with it? I would expect the latter to be a better game.

Bibor
Sep 25, 2010, 06:13 PM
In my last game I had a one-tile island city-state (friendly, not allied) surrounded by a dozen of French caravels/frigates. For turns and turns.

Then I gifted the city-state a submarine.

Then I planted a destroyer near its borders to watch the show every turn. Who says turns are boring? :D

Sofar Sogood
Sep 25, 2010, 06:25 PM
I think that a fix to this could be relatively easy (assuming the correct fix is to have the AI consider this a semi-hostile action).

The way I figure it, the AI could just check if it's got a high-end target (i.e. the City State) and if all available tiles that would allow the AI to reach that target are occupied. It would then ask you to move your units, with refusal equivalent to grave disrespect.

i.e. you (U) have some units parked on all six hexes outside the City State (C), and the City State's enemy (E) has melee units right outside.

UU E
UCU E
UU

There's no way in, so:

"Your forces are blocking the path to our enemies. We request that you move them quickly."
-"Sure."
-"Make like a tree and leaf."

WuphonsReach
Sep 25, 2010, 07:06 PM
This needs to be fixed. Let the AI go through you, or have harsh penalties for blocking. "Peaceful" military units shouldn't be anywhere near a war zone anyway. If you move inside a war zone, you should be flagged as hostile and attackable without consequence (oops, collateral damage), or be given a warning to move...or else.

The concept of a war zone has merit and might actually be possible to code I think. Modifiers for:

- in your own territory
- in civ X's territory (based on how civ Y feels about X)
- in neutral territory
- in city-state territory
- within 3 units of one of our unit, harsher for within 2 and within 1 unit if we're at war

Detecting blocking is much more difficult, unless the unit keeps track of where it wants to go and how long it's been stuck at X distance from its goal.

EmperorFool
Sep 25, 2010, 09:22 PM
I built and gifted a single Infantry which Monaco used to kill every one of Monty's units and take one of his cities. :lol: He sent it on again with 1 HP this time to die. Why doesn't the AI understand how to heal their units?

Watching this for many, many turns with various units, it appears that City State units cannot heal. Has anyone else noticed this? Monaco parked a tank with 1HP in its city, but it never healed at all. The only time its units healed is when it used the instant-heal promotion.

crossclayton
Sep 27, 2010, 10:11 PM
I think that a fix to this could be relatively easy (assuming the correct fix is to have the AI consider this a semi-hostile action).

The way I figure it, the AI could just check if it's got a high-end target (i.e. the City State) and if all available tiles that would allow the AI to reach that target are occupied. It would then ask you to move your units, with refusal equivalent to grave disrespect.

i.e. you (U) have some units parked on all six hexes outside the City State (C), and the City State's enemy (E) has melee units right outside.

UU E
UCU E
UU

There's no way in, so:

"Your forces are blocking the path to our enemies. We request that you move them quickly."
-"Sure."
-"Make like a tree and leaf."

ok, seems weird to me. Firstly: All the people who want time wasted on programming a fix for this, all seem to agree that it is some kind of exploit and that you should not be able to block. If this is the case, dont do it then, the AI doesn't do it, so you just need to fix yourself and not use the exploit.

Secondly: For the people who want some kind of diplo fix for this, such as the example given above, whats the point. Think about it, if they did a diplo fix, your going to be asked to move your troops and you are either A going to agree or B not going to agree which would then lead to you being declared war on. If you disagree and do not move your units then you are declared on, this kind of makes it pointless to block the city in the first place, you should just come to the aid of the CS to begin with cos you end up in war against the attacking civ anyway. And if you do agree to move your units, you are basically not using the exploit, so just dont do it in the first place.

There is your fix, dont need to waist time programming it in, if you dont like it, dont do it, if you wanna "cheat" then go right ahead.

ignite
Sep 28, 2010, 02:44 AM
It is an exploit, not because of the strategy, but because the AI isn't sophisticated enough to detect this as a deliberate attempt by the player to hinder them. As someone said earlier, if someone did it to you, you would declare war.

You wouldn't even have to declare war. Make a unit, attack with that unit from safety of city. Assuming the other guy wants to block you and not destroy your city, what's the difference? I don't see this at all as an exploit.

If someone is surrounding a city with units to prevent that city from moving workers and settlers, the fact is that they've already won. The same is true if you're surrounding a city state to prevent the AI from attacking it. Could the AI declare war on you to get to the city state? Sure. Is it programmed to do that? I don't know, I guess not. But that's not my fault.

There's no difference between being at war with the AI and having them attack an allied city state and you defending that city state by surrounding the city with your units, versus the situation in the paragraph above, where the AI isn't at war with you, but is attacking the city state. Why is the first situation an exploit and the second one isn't? The only difference is that in the first scenario, the AI doesn't want to attack you.

EmperorFool
Sep 28, 2010, 09:48 AM
If a powerful AI were able to detect that you were blocking them and declare war, it might make you think twice about blocking them. Thus, you're exploiting a weakness in the AI code.

Is this morally wrong? Hardly. Is it cheating? There's no rule against it. Is it against the spirit of the game? That's very subjective.

Is it cheesy? You betcha! But no one goes to hell for being cheesy. :D So far I've managed to resist the temptation to go that route and instead gifted units to the city state, including a GDR at the end.

Zhahz
Sep 28, 2010, 11:01 AM
It's basically an exploit.

Yes, i'ts an exploit. The player is taking advantage of game mechanics (1upt) to hinder the AI, who would never do such a thing. There is nothing strategic about exploitation.

It's circumnavigating the intent of the game, which is that you fight to defend the city state or gift it those units so it can fight itself (often times city states ask for units and gifting doesn't hurt you diplo-wise).

The AI needs to be coded to declare on you for being a cheesebag or to back off because it can't handle you.

HedgeLeether
Sep 28, 2010, 11:03 AM
Another way to defend allied City-States is to "gift" military units. It takes three turns for the units to appear but it can definitely turn the tide! The attacking AI Civ doesn't appear to hold it against you.

I gifted three units to a City-State that was under attack. They had no military left and their city was about to fall. When the new units popped up, they immediately fought back and drove the attackers across the border or destroyed them completely.

Ahriman
Sep 28, 2010, 11:33 AM
There is a simple solution for that, just make the stacked unit that got there later a civilian unit until it de-stacks. If the tile get attacked, one unit defends, and if it loses, both units are gone.

How is that simple? How would the AI understand it?
And how is it logical? A rifleman moves onto the same tile as a cannon, the cannon is attacked and killed and the rifleman auto-dies?

acm2033
Sep 28, 2010, 12:34 PM
If you surround your neighbors first city with enough units, they can't get a settler out. You wouldn't see that as an exploit?

Can't the neighbor just declare war and have at you? I guess that's the real problem... the way the AI is deciding *not* to declare war.

I agree with someone above. The AI should send a stern "hey, move it or lose it" message, then if you don't move, declare war and blow your units away (if he can).

Krikkitone
Sep 28, 2010, 01:15 PM
The related problem is the City-State 'perma-war'

Making it so the city state will never have positive relations with a particular player is good.

Making it so your city-state ally is locked in a war state when you Want them to be at peace is bad.

Basically, you should have the option of offering a "Protection Pact" to an allied city-state, even if they are at war.

That would stop the city state from declaring at war on anyone.
The city-state would be at peace with everyone.
It would mean anyone that attacking the city-state would have to declare war on You.

EmperorFool
Sep 28, 2010, 04:14 PM
Basically, you should have the option of offering a "Protection Pact" to an allied city-state, even if they are at war.

That would stop the city state from declaring at war on anyone.

Except the main reason a city state declares perma-war is because a player has started killing off other city states. It's a check on your ability to take out any city state you choose (that isn't being protected by another player).

In my current game, I took out one city state at request of another. Then two city states requested I take out a third. I couldn't resist this second possibility to gain two allies so easily, so I did it. Sure enough, two other uninvolved city states declared perma-war on me for my poor treatment of city states in general.

I like that it works against me there, forcing me to defend forever against a pitiful attacker. It's not so good when an ally city state of mine declares it against a powerful AI with whom I want to maintain good relations. But I don't know how much of a problem that is yet (too soon).

Krikkitone
Sep 28, 2010, 04:26 PM
Except the main reason a city state declares perma-war is because a player has started killing off other city states. It's a check on your ability to take out any city state you choose (that isn't being protected by another player).

Well if the purpose is to deter people from attaking too many city states, then.
City-States getting "Protection pacts" with actual civs is likely to better defend them than going to permanent war against the offending player. (especially if they start offering Influence for Protection Pacts)
It should also prevents the aggressor from getting any influence with those city-states ever.
(essentially allow the 'permanent war' to go 'cold')


I like that it works against me there, forcing me to defend forever against a pitiful attacker. It's not so good when an ally city state of mine declares it against a powerful AI with whom I want to maintain good relations. But I don't know how much of a problem that is yet (too soon).

It would probably be better if those 2 city-states offered their services to some other power that would defend them... essentially 'declaring perma-war' should be like asking for liberation in advance.

DalekDavros
Sep 28, 2010, 04:39 PM
Think of it as UN Peacekeeping forces: they won't initiate conflict, but they won't let you attack either. Just because you aren't at war with someone doesn't mean you can't try to hinder their efforts. If they don't like it, they can declare war.

It's possible that the AI isn't sophisticated enough to understand this, but it seems to station units on chokepoints, etc. too, so I imagine that it does understand. It would be stupid to design a 1upt game and not consider this issue.

EmperorFool
Sep 28, 2010, 08:43 PM
Well if the purpose is to deter people from attaking too many city states, then.
City-States getting "Protection pacts" with actual civs is likely to better defend them than going to permanent war against the offending player. (especially if they start offering Influence for Protection Pacts)

I like this idea a lot. Right now you can declare to the world that you are protecting that city state, but AFAICT this has zero effect on the game. Instead, give it some teeth:


DoWing the city state forces the protector to DoW the attacker.
Protector earns +5 (or so) influence per turn up to some cap (up to Ally level? further?)

This way you can't just start the game and offer to protect every city state you meet to gain Ally status with them all. It would take some time before you gained the benefits. Perhaps allow this agreement with only a few city states per player.

I still don't fully understand the competitiveness aspect to buying influence where you outspend another player. Do they lose the Ally benefits immediately? It makes sense that only each CS can have only one Ally.

WuphonsReach
Sep 28, 2010, 09:23 PM
Another way to protect against abuse would be to make it more and more expensive to add or maintain positive relations (friendly-plus) with the remaining city-states.

Which is basically what the always-war option does after you kill your Nth city-state, but I'm not sure how that "N" is balanced.

TomW
Nov 21, 2010, 04:55 AM
I just a tried single city challenge on a diety pangea game because I understand that setup is the most challenging and I am wanting to see if Civ V can offer a challenge to an experienced civer like myself. With an easier setup, the game is fun; though it is only a matter of going through the motions of any Civ-type game and victory can be had almost certainly without any real plan or strategy. So when I try a challenge, I have to figure out how to stretch every bit of my ability to win. When I aimed for the "moon", I discovered that the moon is just a big piece of cheese.

"Oh my favorite city-state has just gone to war; time to send my workers in to defend." I don't like the smell of stinky cheese; but it is that kind of mentality that is required to win. You can say, "Well just don't do it." It is like saying I should develop rules to limit myself. I should develop my own game. Hey why do we even have rules? We could just have units with unlimited movement points; if you think that it is cheesy to explore the entire map on your first turn, "Well just don't do it."

So about this idea of having only one civ's units per tile, it doesn't really make sense in any concept of the real world. I mean, when we have stacking units, we are saying that the units are small enough and the tiles are big enough so that more units can fit on a tile. So when units can stack so long as they are not belonging to the same civ, what does that mean? Do the same civ's army and marines get into some kind of fight so that they cannot be close to each other?

It doesn't matter, the 1UPCPT isn't a solution anyway as pointed out earlier, multiple countries at war with a single country get a far superior and unfair advantage. So the discussion goes on about making a second arriving unit to become civilian and not be able to defend. Okay fine, in the real world, they are out of formation as they are passing through another troops' formation. But the civilian thingy, although a good brainstorm sugesstion, still doesn't solve any problem. If they are civilian then they cannot attack. So still they are blocked from attacking a city for example when the city is encircled by a ring of non-active units. If they are allowed to attack, then although they may be greatly weakened by the attack, the defender of the tile they likely remain in can be a full-strength unit of an ally or other nation at war; still there is far superior unfair aadvantage.

Okay so what about if the AI declares war if it thinks you are blocking. So now the exploit changes to one where my goal is to get the AI to DOW me. Signed research agreement, check. Sold 30 turns worth of all my resources for cash, check. Used that gold to bribe his allied city states to be allied to me instead, check. Formed my defensive pacts, check. Okay, now buddy I am driving you mad with blocking. Don't like it, just DoW me. C'mon, I dare you. It is just like culture bomb without using up a great artist.

Maybe units at war can exert some kind of force to push non-active units out of the way. Or maybe there can be collateral damage from nearby fighting causing loss of some hit points making you to want to move. Maybe the pushing can cause some collateral damage too. Anyway, I'm sure those soldiers in real life are not going to be detered from reaching a city because of some wimpy boys building a pasture.

Maybe this or maybe that, what I know for sure is that the 1UPT in Civ 5 has not been fully developed. So we pay developers for a game and then have to suggest to them how it might be developed. Either that or we develop our own rules about what is fair play without any way to enforce the rules other than the honor system. I really don't like heavy dependence on the honor system in multi-player gaming.

timtofly
Nov 22, 2010, 01:41 PM
From my experience you can only get an AI to make peace with a CS one time, After that it is greyed out.

Peacefully Blockading A CS you have spent thousands of coin on from an AI you are at peace with is not an exploit, but a friendly reminder that you are protecting your interest. The AI does notice this, since they will pop up and give you a choice on how to react to them "accidently" attacking your ally.

Gifting Units may work, but if you are a peaceful empire builder, then you probably are not paying maintenance on units to have around just for that occasion. The units you do have probably are veterans, and those are needed to keep the peace where you need them, not for some CS even if it is an ally. Usually the AI will make peace after a few turns if it thinks there is too much effort involved. Come to think of it, if you are an empire builder and are allied with all of the CS's then you can just buy new units and gift them.

If anything is broken, it's the AI and how it handles CS in general. It seems to me that an AI will take a CS just to have the land and nothing else. They do not "exploit" the ally status. If they do ever become allies with one, and you out buy them, they do not counter ally with more money. Has an AI ever allied CS's to win a Diplomatic victory? If anything maybe an AI will attack your allied CS just so you will DoW them, and then they don't have to ruin their AI status if they DoWed you. CS's are diplomatic tools; to use them as just another city in your empire would be foolish IMO.

EscapedGoat
Nov 23, 2010, 09:07 AM
From my experience you can only get an AI to make peace with a CS one time, After that it is greyed out.

There's permanent war on the third aggression i believe - therefore it's greyed out.

If they do ever become allies with one, and you out buy them, they do not counter ally with more money.

The AI only seems to actively pursue city states at Deity level. It may be tied to the AI completing the city state tasks but it may also be tied to the obscene amounts of gold the AI makes at that level. I've been "outbid" on city states several times on Deity by the AI (most recently by Darius I in my last deity game bidding for Helsinki :) ). Even at immortal, the AI sometimes allies City states, but does not do so consistently.

Arsenic Steel
Nov 23, 2010, 02:33 PM
If this was a war game and passive resistance was not allowed then I could see the tactic as an exploit.
Since this is still Civilization then the tactic is just taking a page from real examples of how to use military force without fighting(SHOCK) regardless if the AI is programmed to recognize it. The AI does not being to behave abnormally when presented with blockades.

EmperorFool
Nov 23, 2010, 07:02 PM
If this was a war game and passive resistance was not allowed then I could see the tactic as an exploit.
Since this is still Civilization then the tactic is just taking a page from real examples of how to use military force without fighting(SHOCK) regardless if the AI is programmed to recognize it.

It's not passive resistance if the AI doesn't know that you're resisting it. Instead, the path-finding algorithm simply isn't programmed with historical knowledge to realize that it has not been able to move to its target for X turns due to civilization Y's units blocking it.

I would be happy if the AI could realize it was blocked and declare the area a free-fire zone. It would publicly declare that anyone entering the area would become a target of its military and considered to be an aggressor. You'd have to choose to suffer the damage or declare the area a free-fire zone yourself to be able to fire back. This would of course be a DoW on the CS.

DaveGold
Nov 23, 2010, 07:13 PM
More than once I've asked what my AI ally wanted to stop attacking my friendly city state. They said they would take the deal as it was, i.e. offer peace for nothing. Great!

Next turn they apologised and said "I hope you don't mind me attacking your city state". Erm, actually no.
Next turn they declared they were protecting the city state. Erm, thanks!
Next turn they cancel a pact of secrecy
Next turn they cancel pact of co-operation

With this sort of crazy behaviour going on, any tactics for dealing with the problem are papering over the buggy AI. I can't be bothered to deal with it until after the next patch.

Arsenic Steel
Nov 24, 2010, 03:37 AM
It's not passive resistance if the AI doesn't know that you're resisting it. Instead, the path-finding algorithm simply isn't programmed with historical knowledge to realize that it has not been able to move to its target for X turns due to civilization Y's units blocking it.

I would be happy if the AI could realize it was blocked and declare the area a free-fire zone. It would publicly declare that anyone entering the area would become a target of its military and considered to be an aggressor. You'd have to choose to suffer the damage or declare the area a free-fire zone yourself to be able to fire back. This would of course be a DoW on the CS.

The path finding algorithm is not there to determine the reason there is something blocking the path.
The AI not responding the same way a human would in any given circumstance does not make those instances exploits if the AI is still functioning within its' parameters and not somehow more vulnerable.

As it stands a player deciding to hinder an AI at war with a CS is still making a decision and they have to suffer by using units that have either been built/purchased and are part of the cost of unit maintenance for something that is neither war or immediate defense of their empire.

A free war zone...more war options in civV greeeaat. Having less war in civV, is that so bad?

Botzarelli
Nov 24, 2010, 06:49 AM
Think of it as UN Peacekeeping forces: they won't initiate conflict, but they won't let you attack either. Just because you aren't at war with someone doesn't mean you can't try to hinder their efforts. If they don't like it, they can declare war.

It's possible that the AI isn't sophisticated enough to understand this, but it seems to station units on chokepoints, etc. too, so I imagine that it does understand. It would be stupid to design a 1upt game and not consider this issue.

This is a sensible view. Just as you have decided that you like the CS but not quite enough to go to war with the AI civ on its behalf, the AI civ doesn't want the CS enough to go to war with you over it. Perhaps this could be tweaked by making this a more conscious decision on the part of the AI so that there was a chance that it would use it as a pretext for declaring war against you.