You broke your promise to move your troops away from the border

Status
Not open for further replies.
dexters said:
But if you do that, you essentially escape responsibility.

Hence my suggestion we can have that option but the penalty is the same (everyone notices you told another Civ to mind their own business and hates you) or better yet double the penalty if you tell them to mind their own business, so lying seems good by comparison.

The whole 3rd option thing is essentially about not having to worry about lying. We might as well remove the whole mechanic and make it 'passing through' & 'mind your own business' because no one will use the lying option. Which is why the suggestion is IMHO insidious. If the 'mind your own business' option doesn't record a penalty equal in weight to the lying option, what's the point of ever lying.

It's why you have to have the dilema of choosing what your true intentions are. And with regards to changing of circumstances where you tell them passing through then decide to attack later. Totally understand that, but it can't be 20 turns later or 10 turns later. That's nothing in Civ terms. They can lower it 30 turns, which is the duration of a trade. But that's debating whether the cat should be black or white in the context of this discussion.
Click to expand...
I do agree with what you say here, but I don't think the length of the promise is irrelevant to the discussion - quite on the contrary, I think this is an extremely central part to this. I do buy your argument why the 3rd option might not want, but I definitely think that the duration of 50 turns is a key point, when you compare to other game aspects like a peace treaty that lasts for 10 turns (lol?).
 
dexters said:
^ read my updated post above yours.


Also I'm not into tit for tat 'feeling sad' this isn't some sort of group therapy.

I'm sad that you can't appreciate strategic choice and living with your decisions. I'm not sure what you're getting worked up about. Instead of reading 90% of what I wrote, you chose to focus on the last bit, which I assume you take as an insult. :( I think you need a break.
Click to expand...

+1

Totally understand your point. I don`t get the logic of some.
 
The 50 turns duration is the problem, particularly because the duration is so opaque. With current "warmonger" mechanics that give very little warmonger points for declaring war, it seems like declaring war even when you literally are just "passing through" might be superior to accepting 50 turns of forced peace, because DoW'ing and then peacing out only results in 10 turns of forced peace. That's a very odd result.
 
Dogmouth said:
The 50 turns duration is the problem, particularly because the duration is so opaque. With current "warmonger" mechanics that give very little warmonger points for declaring war, it seems like declaring war even when you literally are just "passing through" might be superior to accepting 50 turns of forced peace, because DoW'ing and then peacing out only results in 10 turns of forced peace. That's a very odd result.
Click to expand...

I am in agreement there should be a tooltip saying 'promise made' X turns remaining to fullfill.

I suspect though they were left opaque for a reason, and that is to test how genuine people's intentions were.

But as this is a game, it is unavoidable that people will actively want to 'game' the system and manipulate it. Which is why I am against softening the mechanics outside to better information and maybe shorter duration.

But in hindsight if we're going to give people a countdown clock, 50 turns isn't that unreasonable now.
 
Matthew. said:
I did get it after moving my units to that location. Perhaps the check has something to do with unit movement? Maybe if I moved one unit at a time or something, it wouldn't have gone off.

It also only seems to happen when I have a significant military power edge over my opponent, so maybe it works off a similar system like their afraid status.
Click to expand...

Let me make sure I understand correctly. The screenshot is not showing your unit placement when you got the "passing through or DOW" message? You moved them after this, and then you got the message?

If so, well that's completely different. In particular, the screenshot is all but useless.

In my experience, anytime you have 2 or more units outside your borders and 1 tile away from the AI's borders, that's when you get that message.
 
I just moved the units to that location, got the message, then took the screenshot. I moved them from the West; just got done taking a couple of Swedish cities and had military standing around doing nothing. Wanted them in a more central location. No plans to DoW anyone else for the time being, but no point in keeping everything on the Swedish coastline away from everything.

The reason I posted this particular one was because I was purposely trying to avoid the message. Not because I really was secretly planning to attack the Maya, but because I honestly wanted to just keep my northern army in that location without being bound by 50 turns of peace.

The northern Lsword was purposely placed on the gems because a barb camp kept spawning on that northern coastal tile and ninja-pillaging. The southern Lsword was specifically placed one tile towards the Maya on the forest, if I remember correctly because I wanted to already be in the forest tile rather than move on to it (Iroquois only get movement bonus if tile is in borders). In retrospect I suppose I could have kept that one on the road tile. Random side-note, the CB on the west is moving towards the captured city. Pretty sure I went Honor and wanted the garrison bonus.

Anywho, I specifically kept my guys 4 tiles away from the Mayan city--in other words, trying to play by the AI's special rules--and I still got the diplo screen.

It probably is partially based off of military strength. I'm sure if I had those swords in the same exact locations and the Maya had a relatively equal military strength, probably wouldn't have got the screen at all.

Seems silly that four tiles away isn't far enough when that is the same distance cities could be. If city minimum distance was farther, I wouldn't be too bothered by needing to keep my guys away from enemy borders. With such short distances it is practically impossible not to be near enemy borders.
 
I think the AI just gets spooked by big long lines of military units. Hell, if I was playing against that big line of Longswordsmen, I'd be spooked too. I really don't find this particularly annoying; whenever I've got the message it's usually just an 'urp, you caught me' situation so I DoW immediately. I find the loss of initiative to be actually kind of preferable anyway, it's much easier to grind up an enemy army within your own borders, so I kind of just lure them in through a choke point and decimate them before I actually go conquering. If I'm not fighting a war, I'll place my troops in such a way that wouldn't scare a human (ie. i hide them behind a forest or something if our borders are close), might as well form good habits. All it really does is change the length of time for a 'sneak attack' to actually get set up from one turn to two. And if the AI asks you to DoW or GTFO during the single turn that you're setting up for the attack, then well, good on it for paying attention.
 
Matthew. said:
It isn't being calculated correctly, thus broken. At the very least, give us a clear set of rules so it doesn't seem so random.

If you want to be technical and say it is working by design, great. Doesn't make it any less of a terrible system.
Click to expand...

Giving a clear set of rules is a horrible idea. Then you just learn how to exploit the coding and is makes the game feel very cheap. You seemed to ignore my point that the AI was perfectly justified in calling you out on units close to their border. As I said, it's a perfectly valid response when so many units are bunched up in a small space and there aren't any others near by. If I were the AI in that situation I'd assume you were gearing for war with me too. I've never had the AI randomly accuse me of having lots of units near their borders when they didn't; I don't think there's any major calculation error at all. If it exists it's not demonstrated in your screenshot.

Matthew. said:
50 turns is too long and it doesn't solve what it is supposed to do, which is prevent the human player from trying to cheese the AI. If that is your intention you can either just take the diplo hit and declare war on that turn, wait a few turns and sign peace, then declare war again 10 turns later on any terms you like. It isn't like the AI is coded to properly defend that weak point, so nothing changes in those 15 turns.

It is a poor attempt to help the AI with its poor ability to execute tactical combat by punishing the player for not playing by special rules.
Click to expand...

I agree that 50 turns is too long, and I do believe that the human player should be able to do the same thing the AI can, but the concept itself is perfectly sound. It'd be ridiculous to perfectly position your military units right on the AI border and for them to say or do nothing about it. It's a good concept, and the coding works pretty well in my experience, but the implementation I agree is off. 50 turns is far too long and the human player should be able to accuse the AI of amassing units near their borders, but it does at least partly do what it intends to, that is, to hinder the human player so that you can't have the perfect formation before DoWing, thus making conquest harder. It's not like if you choose to DoW at that point that the AI will just let you to continue making your formation without any resistance.
 
dexters said:
You did break your promise.

I believe it is effective for 50 turns.
Code: 
<Row Name="BORDER_PROMISE_TURNS_EFFECTIVE">
			<Value>50</Value>

Even if you didn't know it was 50 turns, declaring war after 10 turns was essentially a lie. Most deals last 30 turns in this game.

The irony of course is you were preparting to attack all along but you just wasn't ;ready. I'm glad the game caught you out on it :p
Click to expand...

if there some mod that you can ask AI the same question? Because I find rather annoying that AI prepares for attack, moves his units around you boarders, but it either attack after 20-30 turns or it never attacks. :mad:

In one of my games I had Askia just keep moving his units around my boarders for like 100+ turns, but he never attacked. (he did made regular threats tho). We were isolated neighbors, so I guess he wanted to attack but for some reason decided not to do it. He finally moved his units and declared war on China, who dropped few cities near his territory.... and of course, he lost badly (Askia has never been the brightest AI)
 
mrwho said:
Giving a clear set of rules is a horrible idea. Then you just learn how to exploit the coding and is makes the game feel very cheap.
Click to expand...

I recall they attempted to do the same thing with all diplo modifiers, and was regularly one of the biggest complaints upon release. I don't know. Good game-play to me is when there is a clearly defined set of rules. If the AI cannot play by those rules, the problem is with the AI, not with having mysterious unknowns to attempt to prevent gaming the system.

I'm sure you wouldn't be too happy if we sat down to play Risk and at some point I declare you must abide by a special set of rules, else be penalized.

You seemed to ignore my point that the AI was perfectly justified in calling you out on units close to their border.
Click to expand...

Nope. Good job for the AI for noticing I had military units near my capital. We should all feel proud.

Then what does the AI do? Does it reinforce a weak border? Naw. Just throws out special rules as a back-up defense.

I don't think there's any major calculation error at all. If it exists it's not demonstrated in your screenshot.
Click to expand...

Suppose it comes down to what is considered acceptable. Sure, one can get by with a single CB sitting in garrison since the AI is so terrible at tactical combat, but the game allows you to build an assortment of different units and combine them together. Keeping a couple of treb's and few swords near one of my cities doesn't seem unreasonable to me. Especially when it was the Maya who were the ones who chose to settle so close to my capital.

A bit backwards. Enemy forward settles on top of you and expects you to not keep any military near that area. Yep. Everything is working as intended, great strategy game. No room for improvement at all.

I agree that 50 turns is too long, and I do believe that the human player should be able to do the same thing the AI can, but the concept itself is perfectly sound.
Click to expand...

Concept, sure. Like I said, have the AI demand 10 turns of pause while it rallies a border defense. Sweet. I'd actually be extremely happy for the AI to react like that. Instead we get 50 turns and an AI that will still just leave a single pike sitting on a forward settled city.

I'm not at all against some sort of check, but the way it is implemented is so backwards. We have players end up declaring war just to get it over with and deal with a 10 turn peace treaty than be bound by a 50 turn agreement.
 
dexters said:
There's no benefit for choosing "We're only passing through" over "Our troops go where they please"; you've structured it such that it's 'better' to DoW if you really wanted war, or just take the diplo hit with 1 Civ and still keep your options open to DoW.

The "We're passing through" option is meant to have a heavy penalty if not lived up to precisely because its a well known exploit by humans to march an army right up, gather for war, pretend to be friends, even trade with them, then strike. Striking deep into enemy territory because the troops have been placed precisely for it. Often taking the capital on the first few turns.

The cool down is to avoid bold faced lying.

The only 'balancer' I can see for the 3rd option choice is if you told them "Our troops go where they please" they will denounce you + DoW you and the world gets to know about it and you still get global penalties.

Slightly different penalties, but still global, still a risk.

Otherwise If the sole purpose of adding a 3rd option is to avoid global penalties for behaving badly and minimizing risk of the human player, then it's not really fixing anything that's broken but a license to cheat and exploit the system.
Click to expand...

Again, not everyone who fortifies a border or moves an army around a civ is planning to go to war. If you're not going to war then choose "only passing through" and take no diplo hits unless you break it. "Mind your own business" gives you the diplo hit REGARDLESS if you declare war or not, and taking this option it's very likely you will be. I see it as you can lull them into a more relaxed state at the cost of huge diplo penalties globally if you DoW, or isolate them to that particular nation plus the regular warmonger penalties.

Ulthwithian said:
Xichael: Then you just changed gaming the system. Really.

Replace the AI with a human. Ask yourself if you would believe another Civ if they had an army at your gates when they say they are 'just passing through'.

I certainly wouldn't. So if you make it that the AI relaxes its guard if you tell them you're just passing through, sure there's an incentive, but it's not realistic and also unnecessary because the current system isn't broken.

IF you would implement this, instead of a binary 'if you do this, the AI will do that' implementation, you should have the AI keep track of your honesty as a separate tracker than your diplomatic relations. (Your honesty would certainly impact your relations, though.) In that way, the AI has a gauge to determine whether or not you do keep your word, and knows how to react appropriately.

This being a game, though, the AI should act like another human, IMO. And humans playing 4X games are notoriously untrustworthy.
Click to expand...

I said relax, not just leave themselves wide open. They would obviously take into account your history of truthfulness, as would future civilizations. If you chose "mind your own business" then the AI would heavily reinforce their border in preparation for an attack. But if you don't mind being a warmonger and everyone hating you, then you can lie and catch them in their normal state of security. So it's a choice between face tough resistance but minimize diplo hits or take huge diplo hits to blitz your opponent.

I think something definitely has to give, I do believe the current system is broken and the minimum fix would be to allow the human player the same option, when the circumstances arise much like how you tell the AI to stop spreading their religion to you.
 
Can we all at least agree there's no logical reason that the undertaking you give not to attack when the AI thinks you're massing on its borders should last five times as long as a formal truce?
 
Depravo said:
Can we all at least agree there's no logical reason that the undertaking you give not to attack when the AI thinks you're massing on its borders should last five times as long as a formal truce?
Click to expand...

yeah. I don't want another option but the turn time is way to long.
 
Thanks for all the info and suggestions.

I like the idea of the 'third option' to just get a diplo hit from the civ I am crowding, but that means effectively I get no additional diplo hit if I am going gto DoW anyway. I guess that may be OK, though In game mechanics).

My major beef was the diplo hit I was getting even from Civs that I had not met at that point. I guess they get told. Kill 'em all, or none at all seems to be the way now.

In future I'll hold back or DoW immediately on being asked. I agree with the post that you can mop up a lot of AI units as they idiotically swarm towards your line of well-defended troops & backup ranged units :lol:!
 
Matthew. Your biggest mistake is allowing the AIs to settle right next to your capital, I never let this happen. If this happens, raze the city to the ground. It's much better that way than be dinged for massing troops in your capital as one of your rallying points for expeditions.

If I plan to attack a civ and he caught me.. I declare war.

If not, I just say I'm passing through even when my 100+ warships headed to their real target.
If the sight of such a large armada makes the AI squirm and cry to their mommies.. so be it. Even if it means they denounce me from being driven insane with fear.. so be it.

I won't denounce them, I'm not that petty. I got real targets to burn. They can stare at my armada and cry, denouncing me even when I said i'm just passing through will just make me laugh. Cuz that's the AI selfdestructing.

I hope you take this lesson to heart and never let AIs settle a city next to your capital anymore xD
 
dexters said:
You did break your promise.

I believe it is effective for 50 turns.
Code: 
<Row Name="BORDER_PROMISE_TURNS_EFFECTIVE">
			<Value>50</Value>

Even if you didn't know it was 50 turns, declaring war after 10 turns was essentially a lie. Most deals last 30 turns in this game.

The irony of course is you were preparting to attack all along but you just wasn't ;ready. I'm glad the game caught you out on it :p
Click to expand...
I looked into the game files with intention of trying to mod this a bit. It turns out that as far as I can see, the entry above is not related to the promise we are talking about, but rather the promise not to buy tiles near them. The promise we talk about here seems to be called MILITARY_PROMISE:
Code: 
		<Row Name="OPINION_WEIGHT_BROKEN_MILITARY_PROMISE">
			<Value>40</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="OPINION_WEIGHT_BROKEN_MILITARY_PROMISE_WORLD">
			<Value>15</Value>
		</Row>
		<Row Name="OPINION_WEIGHT_IGNORED_MILITARY_PROMISE">
			<Value>15</Value>
		</Row>
One way we can see this is that the MILITARY_PROMISE has a "WORLD" entry which means a modifier which you get with all third party civilizations.

Curiously, the MILITARY_PROMISE does not have a duration entry (at least not in the GlobalDiplomacyAIDefines.xml file, where the others are located), which means that we can't see directly from the game files how long this promise is active, and - more frustratingly - we can't mod it. :mad:
 
Matthew. said:
I'm sure you wouldn't be too happy if we sat down to play Risk and at some point I declare you must abide by a special set of rules, else be penalized.
Click to expand...

This isn't analogous at all. If you turn in cards and plop down 30 reinforcements next to a neighbor in Risk, he asks you if you're going to attack him, you tell him no and then you do, the other players won't trust you.

The mechanic is fine as is, though I agree that you should be able to do it to the AI, there should be a record of how long it lasts, and it should be fewer than 50 turns if it is in fact 50 turns.
 
Lexicus said:
This isn't analogous at all. If you turn in cards and plop down 30 reinforcements next to a neighbor in Risk, he asks you if you're going to attack him, you tell him no and then you do, the other players won't trust you.

The mechanic is fine as is, though I agree that you should be able to do it to the AI, there should be a record of how long it lasts, and it should be fewer than 50 turns if it is in fact 50 turns.
Click to expand...

and if he plops down reinforcements next to me I can be like "hey you coming after me?" creating a similar situation.


even though honestly no one is dumb enough to trust anything I say in a game anyway.
 
Chiatroll said:
even though honestly no one is dumb enough to trust anything I say in a game anyway.
Click to expand...

Correct. I prefer the AIs to roleplay some crazy bastard like Hitler rather than some obscure leader known for building some monuments and buildings anyway.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

usadefcon1
(7-42) Promise Not to Attack Applies to Both Parties (Troops Near Border)
Replies
10
Views
482
azum4roll
A
Jet
Jet's v94 games
Replies
9
Views
699
Jet
Jet
J
Just finished my most thrilling game
Replies
0
Views
1K
Jdoug312
J
L. Vern
My 4.5 Playtest Report + Feedback
Replies
5
Views
744
azum4roll
A
GeneralAmadeus
  • Locked
(3-NS) Stop sending missionaries trade option.
Replies
11
Views
906
Recursive
Recursive
Top Bottom