How fast can you expand without the AI getting angry?

In my last game on Immortal/Standard/Standard/Continents, I was playing Gandhi. I wanted to get my four cities up quickly, so I waited until my capital was size five, then hard-built three settlers. Fairly soon I had my four cities down and was happy to just build up and build up.

I noticed many nearby AIs had a "We feel you're building new cities too aggressively!" negative diplomacy modifier, and soon enough I had a war declared against me, which later ended up with me fighting three civs, which cost me the game. (another human player got his spaceship off before mine)

So, my question is, how fast can you expand without the AI getting that initial negative modifier? I'm hoping there's something concrete like, "The AI won't like you building two cities within ten turns of each other" or "The AI doesn't like it if you have more than three cities by turn 60". What are the rules here?

I hate this modifier. In concept it is reasonable but in practice it plays out just like you said - you get into war with everyone and never get RA's just because you wanted to grow a handful of cities together. The game already makes it way harder to play 4-6 city start versus 2-3 (happiness, building costs with no river gold, defense), now you can't trade or research either.

In answer, I dunno. I paced myself really really evenly on a recent Liberty game and founded my 5th city in Renaissance, grabbing the Aggressive Expansion modifier with neighboring Carthage, who DOW'd me ten turns later - and who also had founded 5 cities!

Going to war over contested borders is fine but that's not what the calculation is here. The AI feels that filling the map at the same slow pace it is going is too fast. That's WRONG.

My 5th city, for the record, was on the other side of the continent, a whale harbor backed by mountains that no one had scouted yet. Ughh.

I don't think anyone actually knows the mechanics. Maybe I need to test it. Some people think it's related to frequency of city founding rather than the actual number, so maybe spacing out the settlers would help instead of hard-building three in a row. I got hammered by unhappiness this way anyway.

I'm fairly certain it pertains to how close you are to the AI and how much land is available. I've gotten the message when I settle an island late in the game. I assume then it is because the available city locations was quite low. Other times a close AI has given me the modifier after my 2nd or 3rd city if they are close.

I've no idea what triggers it exactly, but I know I got that modifier playing as Venice, after buying two 15+ pop CS within 30 turns (Marathon).

I've also got it with some AI when buying my first 10+ pop puppet CS.

I don't think I've got it for buying more modest CS.

The AI were also welcoming me on the Diplo screen with variants of "Welcome friend. While you are here I will let you know that my Advisors are worried about your recent expansion", with or without the diplo modifier present.

It makes me wonder if this isn't calculated by # of cities alone, but if speed of population growth isn't part of the equation.

As long as I don't exceed AI growth by more than 50% I never get this modifier.

When they have 4, I have 6 and no complaints. When they have 8 and I have 12, still none.

I know I get it if I have double their cities (like 6 when they have 3), but it seems that their settlers in queue are considered somehow... so if I plop down my second while they're building a settler, they don't complain... but if I manage to horde enough gold to outright buy a settler as soon as I hit pop 2 and expand before they've grown enough to start building their settler, then they'll get annoyed (this I've mainly noticed when I was tweaking game pace by upping growth rate dynamically, it's near impossible to pull off in default game modes).

Can't be sure, but from what I've learned:

- AI thinks you're expending aggressively if you settle two cities on the same turn or one city then second city next turn. Someone might look into codes, but it might be population based (on cities other then capital\preview city?)

- If you have more then half number of cities they have like the user above me said.

but honestly, I would rather get that diplo hit and have cities placed on good locations, then fight, then wait and allow AI to drop HIS cities on the same spots, only on some idiotic tiles (like one tile away from coast and river) then fight anyway, because they want my land.

Keep 2-3 AIs for RA and trade, beat up the rest.

Ps. They will never attack if you have bigger military. They will get cranky, but never dow.

In my recent game, I got attacked by Rome and Celts on the same turn for aggressive expansion. Celts had huge military but they didn't do much since I had mountain\coastal cities with Great Wall, with only one tile accessible to my cities due to mountain\coast. Rome was on the other part of the map, so by the time his legions arrive through the jungle and swamp, I was already using gunpowder units. (with Great Wall).

I think it's to do with the number of cities they have versus the number of cities you have. Cities gotten through war counts as well.

njmfff said:

Ps. They will never attack if you have bigger military. They will get cranky, but never dow.

Click to expand...

Actually there is a chance they will. Several times I've had empires an era or two below me in tech and with 1/3rd or less my pointy sticks DoW me... the diplo screen that pops up usually comments on them not standing a chance but having to strike now or something along those lines (last ditch effort of desperation).

Barghaest said:

(this I've mainly noticed when I was tweaking game pace by upping growth rate dynamically, it's near impossible to pull off in default game modes).

Click to expand...

Unless you're playing Spain - then I'd say you have about a 35-40% chance of being able to buy a settler within the first ten turns or so

I don`t check modifiers and all that guff, I just play like real life. What I mean is, I do what seems logical rather than just peer at numbers.

Anyway, I got a warning from expanding 1 city!

Barghaest said:

Actually there is a chance they will. Several times I've had empires an era or two below me in tech and with 1/3rd or less my pointy sticks DoW me... the diplo screen that pops up usually comments on them not standing a chance but having to strike now or something along those lines (last ditch effort of desperation).

Click to expand...

huh, strange. I only see AI dows you if you have small number of units compared to his army, because it AI doesn't seem to take into account what era\type of units you have... So he will rush you with bunch of longswords and crossbows on your rifles\cannons and naturally get shredded. It's even more hilarious when he attacks with huge military but gets annihilated by GWB and artillery, while not having GWB\Fighters\Artillery on his own.

but... I've never seen AI attacks you while he has smaller army then you (in numbers). Teaming up, maybe, but still, results are the same. They will get eaten alive because they are simply outteched.

in one of my recent games, Huns attacked me with largest army I have ever seen in any of my games. Too bad it was Attila's knights and cannons vs my (modern) bombers, infantry and artillery. If we were fair tech-wise, I would probably have to retire.

fair advice: never stop checking on Attila if they are your hostile neighbors and you had several wars before.

GhostSalsa said:

I hate this modifier. In concept it is reasonable but in practice it plays out just like you said - you get into war with everyone and never get RA's just because you wanted to grow a handful of cities together. The game already makes it way harder to play 4-6 city start versus 2-3 (happiness, building costs with no river gold, defense), now you can't trade or research either.

In answer, I dunno. I paced myself really really evenly on a recent Liberty game and founded my 5th city in Renaissance, grabbing the Aggressive Expansion modifier with neighboring Carthage, who DOW'd me ten turns later - and who also had founded 5 cities!

Going to war over contested borders is fine but that's not what the calculation is here. The AI feels that filling the map at the same slow pace it is going is too fast. That's WRONG.

Click to expand...

This. A recent Morocco game - beautiful desert start, lots of awesome city locations - nearly went south because my 3 neighbours all declared war after I built my 4th city (in fairness, Elizabeth declared because I refused to stop settling near her). I managed to fend them off but my early game ground to a halt because of the need to drop everything and churn out units. I captured London (she had 3 other cities) and that led to the rest of the map hating me for being a warmonger(!). And of course the AIs all had the same number of cities as me. Yet another example of 'one rule for the player, but the AI can do what it likes'. Not a fan and frankly I'd be happy to see the modifier go altogether - it adds nothing to the game.

I get this a lot when I'm on a conquering spree, but frankly if I'm strong enough to conquer several cities I don't care. However, I don't usually found more than three cities until mid-game but I still see this modifier in some civs some of the time, and I agree there is a level of 'hypocrisy' at play.

I discovered a very irritating AI flaw regarding this. If the AI makes a city very close to your borders, then is defeated in war by another AI and that city close to your borders become their capital, the AI will not realize that it was their capital that changed places, it seems that the game will only check something like "human cities close to capital = true" and then you get the AI popup of the leader asking you to stop settling near him. It gets worse if you have several cities in that same area, because even if they were all made before the AI made their city, you sometimes get a message several turns later saying that you broke your expansion promisse.

Go and rough up that AI.

anyway, if playing Tradition, I'll grab three cities fast (since there won't be time\good space left if you wait for too long) then move on to fourth city later one, probably when more important strategic resources are discovered and I don't have them around my first 3 cities.

If playing Liberty, I'll want to grab land fast, usually 5 cities in a short amount of time. You'll be at disadvantage compared to Tradition empires, so better grab as much land as you can. Later on, if allowed, I'll drop several more cities, especially if playing domination game and I get most important techs (bombers\artillery), then tech penalty isn't all that terrible, since you'll have land\luxuries\gold\culture and army size advantage.

maybe even in Cultural games, I'd go for 5-6 cities Tradition, since in cultural games, tech is not that important after you hit Modern with Radio and Refrigeration. (Radio for Eiffel, Ref. for hotels). You can always bulb a GS to quickly grab techs that you need, and it's better that you have few extra cities that can pump up more tourism... and grab land if there are landmarks nearby.

I mean, Internet will just speed up your victory, but it won't help much if your tourism is already low.