Reason for saying 'Don't settle cities near us'?

[Sherlock]

Is there ever any benefit to this?

Does it make the Civ more or less likely to settle or not settle cities by you?

Does it make them like you more? Be afraid of you more? Get ready to attack you more?

Any thoughts or experiences with this you can share?

[thecrush19]

I only do this when there is an AI that I strongly dislike. I usually don't get to see what happens afterwards because i wipe them out though, so i am not sure about them still settling near you.

[CoolLizy]

I do it purely out of spite, especially when they spring up out of nowhere and settle right next to my capital. -_-

[Ajuga]

Usually they get mad at me, telling me that they have all right to settle what lands they please and get gives a negative modifier to diplomacy as far as I know.
Rarely I find them to agree and say stuff like: 'I'll refrain from settling near you for now, perhaps in the future you will want to be a more friendly neighbor.' or at least something akin to that.

When they agree they seem to not settle near your borders but not sure about diplomacy. (You need a much bigger army than them in order for them to agree though.

[smallfish]

Originally Posted by CoolLizy

I do it purely out of spite, especially when they spring up out of nowhere and settle right next to my capital. -_-

^^ this.

Also whenever you are doing it on a prelude to a denouncement/DOW.

It could even be during friendly times when your own continent, already crowded and in the midst of being unified by yours truly, is suddenly disturbed by the presence of six Aztec settlers. You tell them politely (you imagine politely) not to do that, but then Monty goes "HOW DARE YOU BELIEVE ME WEAK WILLED". Before you know it, all pretense of friendliness goes out of the window and the occasional "just thought to note your army is on the weak side" messages will pop up with the irritating hostile. At that point one should just denounce him repeatedly and hope he gets put out of his misery or something (eventually his own continent's runaway did).

[theguy8882]

Originally Posted by Sherlock

Is there ever any benefit to this?

Does it make the Civ more or less likely to settle or not settle cities by you?

Does it make them like you more? Be afraid of you more? Get ready to attack you more?

Any thoughts or experiences with this you can share?

It usually doesn't work for me. But once in a huge game I had the largest military and Polynesia had the smallest. I saw a couple embarked settlers coming my way and I told them not to send more cities near me. The settlers turned around and went back home (well they disappeared into fog, but i imagined they went home).

[FeiLing]

Originally Posted by Sherlock

Is there ever any benefit to this?

Does it make the Civ more or less likely to settle or not settle cities by you?

Does it make them like you more? Be afraid of you more? Get ready to attack you more?

Any thoughts or experiences with this you can share?

If it has any effect apart from them disliking you more, then it most likely is ONLY when they are afraid of you. That's the only circumstance where I could see the programmers make the AI actually less likely to settle new cities near you. But in that case they're super weak anyway, so it doesn't really matter.

[joncnunn]

Originally Posted by Sherlock

Is there ever any benefit to this?

Does it make the Civ more or less likely to settle or not settle cities by you?

Does it make them like you more? Be afraid of you more? Get ready to attack you more?

Any thoughts or experiences with this you can share?

#1: Not unless you want to make them mad at you.

#2: No affect on the AI city placement plan. If you don't wish them to found cities near you you actually need to to carpet with units the area in which they intend to found the city. (Or in rare instance in which they could only reach the tile if they have open borders, deny it.) Note that you might just displace by one tile where the AI wants to found it; so this only works if the placement of existing cities has already limited down to only a few tiles where they can found a city in that area.

[TheKingOfBigOz]

I really hate the hypocritical AI in this game.
They demand stuff and they expect you to give it to them
You demand stuff they get offended by this

They demand us not to buy land near them, and settle city near them, and expect them to say yes
You demand them not to settle near them, they get offended

They ask for a Decleration of Friendship, you can say yes
I ask for a DoF, they never seem to say yes.

They want gold/stuff for Open Borders, they expect you to agree
I want their gold/stuff for Open Borders, they seem to be offended.

Like C'MON!

[apocalypse105]

Originally Posted by TheKingOfBigOz

I really hate the hypocritical AI in this game.
They demand stuff and they expect you to give it to them
You demand stuff they get offended by this

They demand us not to buy land near them, and settle city near them, and expect them to say yes
You demand them not to settle near them, they get offended

They ask for a Decleration of Friendship, you can say yes
I ask for a DoF, they never seem to say yes.

They want gold/stuff for Open Borders, they expect you to agree
I want their gold/stuff for Open Borders, they seem to be offended.

Like C'MON!

If you want a DOF you have to trade first the best way I found to make decleration of friendships is to trade away luxuries for halve the price.

So if you want to be friends with persia for example sell them you're cottom for 100 , Or give a free resource Remmeber that you need to keep trading Or else they don't see any point into continuing the DOF

Most AI's arel likly to sign DOF if you do this except warmongers oda and so on..

However it is still a hypocrite AI I agree with that declaring more then 2 times and even sometimes whiping out a civilizations and calling you a warmonger :d

[smallfish]

Originally Posted by TheKingOfBigOz

I really hate the hypocritical AI in this game.
They demand stuff and they expect you to give it to them
You demand stuff they get offended by this

I have to say that demand and request are two different things. It's a shame that we don't have a request menu in Diplo screen; instead of making the AI go into rage mode with demands, with request you get your allies and friends to understand your civ's needs better and engage you much more effectively.

[krc]

Originally Posted by smallfish

I have to say that demand and request are two different things. It's a shame that we don't have a request menu in Diplo screen; instead of making the AI go into rage mode with demands, with request you get your allies and friends to understand your civ's needs better and engage you much more effectively.

How does a "request" differ from proposing a trade where they give you something in return for nothing?

[smallfish]

Originally Posted by krc

How does a "request" differ from proposing a trade where they give you something in return for nothing?

Well, for one, it would help give them a cue that your civilization is not some pompous upstart who needs to be whittled down (through war), that you have real concerns they can respectfully accept or decline instead of black box demands that only serve to antagonize them.

And of course, it can also help tell you if this friendly civ is really interested in friendly relations and mutual co-existence and all that jazz.

Example: you start off next to Gandhi and Oda Nobunaga. Both appear friendly to you, so you try and request something from each of them that you need at the moment (gold, luxes, iron etc.) Gandhi is willing to help you by sparing 2 irons for free, while Oda would only give you a lump sum of 13 gold and nothing else. More importantly, Oda has settled a chain of cities in your direction. I imagine there would also be a dialogue/barter mechanic here that would add more flavor than just straight up requests, including random chitchat that might just give you positive modifiers with Oda (he likes your personality!) so he might not necessarily DOW you at all, or in Gandhi's case, he might ask you why you really need that iron for urgently and thus may not give in, but that's a little off the scope for this.

[krc]

Originally Posted by smallfish

Well, for one, it would help give them a cue that your civilization is not some pompous upstart who needs to be whittled down (through war), that you have real concerns they can respectfully accept or decline instead of black box demands that only serve to antagonize them.

And of course, it can also help tell you if this friendly civ is really interested in friendly relations and mutual co-existence and all that jazz.

Example: you start off next to Gandhi and Oda Nobunaga. Both appear friendly to you, so you try and request something from each of them that you need at the moment (gold, luxes, iron etc.) Gandhi is willing to help you by sparing 2 irons for free, while Oda would only give you a lump sum of 13 gold and nothing else. More importantly, Oda has settled a chain of cities in your direction. I imagine there would also be a dialogue/barter mechanic here that would add more flavor than just straight up requests, including random chitchat that might just give you positive modifiers with Oda (he likes your personality!) so he might not necessarily DOW you at all, or in Gandhi's case, he might ask you why you really need that iron for urgently and thus may not give in, but that's a little off the scope for this.

I understand the example. But when you open trade talks (by clicking "Trade", not "Demand"), you can put something you want onto the AI's side of the trade box and leave your side of the trade box empty. You can then click "Propose". (I do this all the time to ask civs to make peace with my CS allies. Most of the time, they agree.) How would using the current interface to do this differ from what you are calling a "request"?

[smallfish]

Originally Posted by krc

I understand the example. But when you open trade talks (by clicking "Trade", not "Demand"), you can put something you want onto the AI's side of the trade box and leave your side of the trade box empty. You can then click "Propose". (I do this all the time to ask civs to make peace with my CS allies. Most of the time, they agree.) How would using the current interface to do this differ from what you are calling a "request"?

The trade screen is for normal bargains and bartering, request screen would be different than that. Akin to Demand screen, but instead of the leader just shaking his head or gesturing violently, he will be listening intently, perhaps with a hint of sympathy.

To break the similarities between the two, one could also add more dialogue options to break the monotony, or to mirror how AI requests happen only when you are friends with them, the option for bringing up the screen appears only when a DoF is in effect.

And anyways, civs that make peace with you will automatically make peace with your CS allies the next turn.

edit: I figure giving it a diplomatic penalty or two would help balance things out. Say the leader you successfully made request to now asks you in turn and you decline. That would carry more weight than just refusing a normal request.

[spekas]

You promised not to settle near AIs lands. After how many turns you can settle again?

Thanks for answers

[Biologist]

The other side of the coin is the rather buggy way in which the AI makes demands about your own expansion. I recently settled a city on an island in the middle of the ocean on a Pangaea map during my current game. The next turn, Augustus teleports to my throne room to announce that I am expanding into lands that he considers to be his. Except.... he doesn't even have a city within 50 hexes of the island I settled on. His entire empire is on the opposite side of mine from that island, and is even farther away going in the opposite direction.

I also get notices about betraying or honoring land-buying or settlement agreements that I know I never made with the AI. Hopefully this gets patched out soon.

[joncnunn]

Biologist, "too close to us" is defined as a city closer to the AI capital than yours is by the crow flies. (Even if only by one hex; appears to have been coded that way on purpose)

Speakas, for the rest of the game; in fact if you capture somebody's city closer to their capital than yours; you will be considered to have broken your promise.

Distance from current empire is actually what triggers "land envy" (AI coveting your lands); that is largely number of hex based, but resources are also a factor.

[Biologist]

Originally Posted by joncnunn

Biologist, "too close to us" is defined as a city closer to the AI capital than yours is by the crow flies. (Even if only by one hex; appears to have been coded that way on purpose)

I suppose I could measure exactly how many hexes it is from that island to each of our capitals. At first glance it doesn't seem likely that he's closer though; my capital is one tile away from the coast (to the east), while his is much further inland (and definitely too far away if starting at his capital and heading east).

[apocalypse105]

Its usefull if you are allready have settled you're core cities but there is still some open space near you which a Ai can settle if you have a weak neighbour (you have more advanced troops lets say rifleman against medieval units).

and you are going for a science or culture victory and didn't atack him you can demand that he doesn' settle near you he will accept if you didn't they may just settle a city behind and be like haha