"I see you have a lot of units near my borders..."

FeiLing said:

No, I want to attack him in like 5 turns so all my units except 2 random ones are 4+ tile away from their border. And then it's just plain annoying if it pops up. As said, the rules need to be clearer.

Click to expand...

As another poster pointed out, if it were made clear then it would be too easy for the human to circumvent the system, thereby defeating its purpose. As you have admitted, in your case the warning was totally warranted, which shows that it is working as it should.

Anyway I highly doubt you had only two units on the border in your example. If you look at the way it is coded, you generally need at least 3 units on the AI's border to trigger the message - more if the units are stationed in your own territory.

This was in Vanilla (but I haven't noticed/read of any change in this mechanic):
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=11371778&highlight=units+border#post11371778

FeiLing said:

Also if my border is next to his border any complaints about me having units within my border are insane.

Click to expand...

So apologies for any ambiguity, the above is exactly the situation I was describing. The troops were all in my land, protecting my land - the other civs had forward settled.

The lack of parity bugs me (AI can message but not the player), but if it's the case that I'm heading off to war and I'm "rumbled" that doesn't seem so unreasonable.

This mechanic seems to be from the same stable as the one where the player has a CS ally, the AI declares it is offering protection to the CS one turn then the next turn informs you that you are 'getting a little friendly' with a CS in it's influence. Broken IMHO.

Anyway, nice to know that it isn't just me who finds this a fault

I can believe people are actually arguing the OP.
The border system is broken no matter how you look at it and here is why...
1. Players can't warn off potential attackers, even if they are just flexing their muscle to send message.
2. If want to line my entire border with my fiercest and most advanced units, its my border.
3. Maybe I am planning on attacking, in 3 or 4 more turns...maybe I NEED a build up of troops ecause the AI has other advantages I don;t already, add to that I am technically behind and yes that "extra" tile before the edge of my border could make the difference between a close call win or a very costly retreat.
4. And finally the biggest problem, if I say I am just passing through (my own territory) and then attack the diplomatic penalty is global and permanent. If I attack immediately when the call me on it it may very well be to my detriment because I am not prepared. And who goes to war unprepared if they are the aggressor?

I don't like this mechanic at all, because I can't do the swame to the AI, and the diplomacy hit is unrecoverable.

I always try to keep my defensive armies back off the borders a bit. Rather than placing them where they make strategic sense, I just put them usually a few tiles on the opposite sides of my cities (preferably near roads). It seems if you keep them far enough off the borders, they won't be threatened by them. You may lose a few turns getting in place if they do attack, but that usually isn't a big deal.

Frdmlover said:

I can believe people are actually arguing the OP.
The border system is broken no matter how you look at it and here is why...
1. Players can't warn off potential attackers, even if they are just flexing their muscle to send message.
2. If want to line my entire border with my fiercest and most advanced units, its my border.
3. Maybe I am planning on attacking, in 3 or 4 more turns...maybe I NEED a build up of troops ecause the AI has other advantages I don;t already, add to that I am technically behind and yes that "extra" tile before the edge of my border could make the difference between a close call win or a very costly retreat.
4. And finally the biggest problem, if I say I am just passing through (my own territory) and then attack the diplomatic penalty is global and permanent. If I attack immediately when the call me on it it may very well be to my detriment because I am not prepared. And who goes to war unprepared if they are the aggressor?

I don't like this mechanic at all, because I can't do the swame to the AI, and the diplomacy hit is unrecoverable.

Click to expand...

No one's arguing against the OP on point 1 and hardly anyone is arguing on point 2. Points 3 & 4 are your problem, though, and boil down to "the AI is mean because it won't give me forever to build up an invasion force to destroy them." That's where the BS side of this argument sneaks in.

in my game, when a neighboring country started building and deploying their unit near my border, friend or foe civilization, I always assert that they will strike. As a countermeasure for an upcoming war, I execute my favorite defensive maneuvers. find its weaknesses, secure alliance with city states, declare war, lure and strike back. A civilizations weaknesses are always its sources of happiness(luxury) and military(strategic resources). Execute covert-operation. 1. know where these sources' origin and location and send mounted units near it, but not to close to arouse suspicion. after declaring war, these are the first unit to enter enemy territory/space to sabotage the sources, hence increases damages inflicted to enemy unit, also first fatalities for good cause. 2. secure alliance on city-states, at the beginning of the game whenever you meet a city state, pledge to protect them. doing so, any civilization who would try to bully your city-state will ask permission from you. deny their request as possible. give gift and provide what a city state ask for. 3. after building defensive unit make a trap formation in the city, to ambush your enemy. and declare war. 4. lure them inside your territory by sending worker in the field as a trap. any enemy unit who captured it is dead. 5. when the enemy wave is gone, time to strike back and conquer only one city, because conquering a city will affect the status of your civ happiness. over loneliness will kill your troops in the battlefield.

remember, the more your civilization grow, the more the enemy will perceive you as a threat. your only trusted ally are the city-states because they do not expand their territory to compete with your civilization. more happiness the more you create opportunities. more culture, the more you adopt policies to control the game.

Name a country who has borders with another and has not a substantial military presence near.
Maintaining an army at mutual borders acts as a deterrent on its own.
You don't have presidents asking each other every new years eve if they are going to war.


(now they are going to tell me this is a game)

IMHO this mechanic is unrealistic, annoying and its reprocutions too severe. There should be an optional diplomatic discussion about military build ups on both sides, but as is right now, no. It should be reworked (if not outright scraped) and replaced with something more viable and workable.

I think the game should be more clear about what you can do to get out of this situation without declaring war or making peace with the person for the rest of time. This took me a while to figure out how this mechanic worked, but after I read some forums and discovered it, I really like it now.

Basically, the idea is that you can't build up an army next to an opposing player and get the first strike without severe punishment. I think that's absolutely fine, because usually when I get called out on this, I am preparing to attack them. If you keep the majority of your army more than 2 tiles away from their borders, you'll be fine.

The way this is unclear is that the AI is not just asking you not to declare war, they are also asking you to move troops away from their borders, and until you do that, the promise isn't going to go away, no matter if you wait 10 turns or 50. I think I read that if you move your troops away from their borders though and keep them that way for a time, you can actually fulfill your promise to them. The counter doesn't start until you do this though, and that could be made a little more clear.

I would like the ability to say the same thing to the AI though. "Ok Montezuma, I see your 500 artillery on my borders, are you actually friendly with me or not?" If the AI lies (same formula to determine if we lie), they should face the same punishments we do for the rest of the game.

I wish I had a diplomatic response of F.U. available to me when ever someone contacts me. No matter what the request is. Diplomacy in this game needs some work!

The only thing that annoys me is that I can't use the tactic against the AI. Sometimes an enemy will come at me with a really big force, and I'll want to pre-empt them, but I know I can't unless I want the diplomatic hit from being "the aggressor", so I have to wait until they've already taken out units before I can act.

Either that or let them launch right up to my capital with those ominous looking catapults I could have been smashing.

This just means that the diplomatic system in Civ 5 is awful.

- Units near borders could become a negative modifier on diplomacy.
- The question should be "can you move your units away"
- It shouldn't last 50 turns or whatever because the situation can easily change dramatically much sooner than that
- All the permanent diplomatic penalties should be removed. I understand that spying isn't amusing, but if I stole something a thousand years ago, and kept my promise not to do it again, it's time to get over it.
- Denouncing someone should not make yourself stand more negative towards them. It's the result of that negativity, doesn't make sense that it compounds on that.
- Protecting a city state under your protection should have positive repercussions on those NOT harassing that city state (as it means you follow through on your word)
- We NEED a casus belli system of some sort.

If this was made into an expansion that would really make the game so much better

Guys, the promise is considered fulfilled if you don't attack within the next 20 turns (I've tested it myself). I think that is perfectly reasonable and it certainly doesn't not force you to be peaceful to that civ for the rest of the game.

Yeah, I wish we could pull this stunt on the AI, as I can't count the amount of times they've asked me about my army on their border, which is only there because THEIR army is there giving me the stink eye. However, the most annoying case of this is in my current game. Askia has settled THREE HEXES from may capital, and then whinged that my forces (which hadn't moved since he poped that city) are "too close"

Fortunately, this doesn't make me rage quit, it just drives me on a revenge quest to kill all who annoy me, Askia being top of that list (needless to say he died 20 turns later)

However, the AI has caught me out a few times, before I was ready to attack. This creates a dilemma, attack now without all my forces and struggle for a bit, or attack later and take the diplomatic hit, which will likely make everyone hate me for this side of eternity. I'll often launch the attack if I was really thinking about attacking them

I agree with some of you that it should be possible to build up a force when you know you neighbour is building up his own force. This could be a force they're building for an attack on you or another civilization. I could build military units just in case of an enemy DoW or for the purpose of not being the weakest player in the demographics screen.

If I can't ask my neighbours if they will attack me or not (and face the consequences if they still do), I must be able to prepare myself without getting asked the same question. The question implies that I either must attack or I may never attack without being a warmonger.

All because of the neighbour building up a possibly threatening force and not a decision I made.

Have a look at this screenshot. It's rather obvious that the Soshone are going to DOW me, right? Now, see that tiny defense force along Gades? That alone prompted Pocatello to be "I see your units, stop hiding you coward". With me LITERALLY having no intentions to attack whatsoever (Pocatello not only has his huge swathes of land, he also has the Great Wall so attacking him now would only mean a crazy slogfest). But evidently, the Comp Bow and Galleass both stationed IN the city borders and the horseman protecting my worker were enough to prompt his fear. At that point, all I could see was a swordsman in the forest his Comp Bow now stands.
Now, I have to wait for his attack and just let it come to me, because I cannot DOW him without the whole world hating me. Thank you, system.

As another poster pointed out, if it were made clear then it would be too easy for the human to circumvent the system, thereby defeating its purpose. As you have admitted, in your case the warning was totally warranted, which shows that it is working as it should.

Click to expand...

Making the rules nebulous is not the correct way to make a game more difficult. That is very much fake difficulty. In this case, not only are the rules nebulous, but they're also unevenly applied. Such a setup is not logically defensible.

No one's arguing against the OP on point 1 and hardly anyone is arguing on point 2. Points 3 & 4 are your problem, though, and boil down to "the AI is mean because it won't give me forever to build up an invasion force to destroy them." That's where the BS side of this argument sneaks in.

Click to expand...

You're turning the BS around. The BS is the mechanic. Human players don't even get the option to request units to back off (even in an identical situation!) and there's no reason most of the rest of the world should care, especially if extenuating circumstances are what changes the "just passing through". Rather than whine at the human player and be able to cause a ridiculous global + permanent diplo hit, the AI should call the human player out and reinforce its border.

The only BS thing here is that the AI is able to effectively force a DoW or a very serious Non-Aggression Pact.

remember, the more your civilization grow, the more the enemy will perceive you as a threat. your only trusted ally are the city-states because they do not expand their territory to compete with your civilization. more happiness the more you create opportunities. more culture, the more you adopt policies to control the game.

Click to expand...

What point are you trying to make, in relevance to OP's discussion? What I'm quoting appears unrelated to the specific issue of unit border tension.

- All the permanent diplomatic penalties should be removed. I understand that spying isn't amusing, but if I stole something a thousand years ago, and kept my promise not to do it again, it's time to get over it.

Click to expand...

+1. No positive or negative should be absolutely permanent.

Have a look at this screenshot. It's rather obvious that the Soshone are going to DOW me, right? Now, see that tiny defense force along Gades?

Click to expand...

Crystal clear evidence of a broken mechanic . Especially because if he piles on someone else...let's say your ally...you actually receive a diplomatic penalty for declaring on him...even with your ally! But would your friend forgive you for not helping in a war due to this absurd out-of-thin-air NAP?

The mechanic doesn't belong in the game in its current form.

Rohili said:

Guys, the promise is considered fulfilled if you don't attack within the next 20 turns (I've tested it myself). I think that is perfectly reasonable and it certainly doesn't not force you to be peaceful to that civ for the rest of the game.

Click to expand...

That's 20 turns from whenever you move your forces back, right? So if you keep them there forever, the promise is never fulfilled?

I'd be okay with this system existing if 1)The AI wasn't extremely sensitive about it and 2)we could do it to the AI if they were being blatant.

Our strategic/tactical advantage is our biggest and indeed only advantage over the AI. Letting the AI do literally whatever it wants while allowing it to complain about units that you have inside your own territory is pretty ridiculous. It's especially egregious when the AI citadel bombs you and then complains about the troops near his borders.

I always come back to this situation I had in one of the old Deity Challenges. I was curious how far Darius would walk to setup his attack:


What was my recourse here? Attack him, receive a diplomatic penalty and possibly entice the Romans to come after me as a result. That just stinks to high heavens.

Although spoilers, Rome would have probably attacked me anyway