Better to make a promise then break it, or just tell the AI to go away?

For a lot of actions, you can either tell the AI that you promise not to do a certain action, or you can basically just tell them that you don't care what they think and that they should go away.

For instance, this happens if you settle a city early in the game too close to the enemy AI.

Which option is best? I used to use the "Promise" option, but sometimes I break the promise, and then they get pissed because of that. But they get pissed if I tell them to go away, anyway.

Doesn't matter much if you're going dom. Once you take a few of their cities, especially the capital, they'll hate you forever anyway. If you're not going dom you should probably try to keep the promise or tell them to go away if you don't intend to. They probably still won't like you for a long time though. At least when ideologies hit they may forgive and forget if you choose the same ideologies.

With BNW, the promise is for 50 turns. If you'd just break it, from a diplomatic standpoint better to say you'll do what you please.
But if you weren't planning on breaking it, it's a plus to promise and keep it. But note that settling a city close to the AI makes war likely even if they don't complain.

Most promises don't matter too much, but I would rather not make them than break them. But never lie when a civ asks you if you're about to declare war on them, that'll ruin your reputation with every civ on the map.

Yeah I learned all this the hard way. At first, I always Promised not to do the thing I was accused of anymore, but I would break them about 50% of the time. It pissed everyone off.

Now when I settle cities early on, I tell the Civ to go away, because I don't actually know if I have stopped settling near them or not.

Also, in my current game, I settled one city close to a Civ and that Civ and another teamed up on me. Actually, according to the Diplomacy hover text, it looks like they were both pissed that I expanded my cities too rapidly, not because I was settling too close to them.

There really isn't a way to stop getting the "You are expanding cities too rapidly" penalty, is there? Besides not settling anymore, of course, which I would never do; I don't settle THAT much anyway. I usually play TALL, so I settle about four to five mega-cities at about 20 pop each if possible.

My old style in Civ IV was to play wide, but I learn that this is more difficult in Civ V for a number of reasons, such as increasing Research and Social Policy costs, especially.

If you're going for the sitting duck non domination victory then the deals matter. As for going for domination, the deals matter more in level 8 while the deals matter less in level 1.

reddishrecue said:

If you're going for the sitting duck non domination victory then the deals matter. As for going for domination, the deals matter more in level 8 while the deals matter less in level 1.

Click to expand...

this. It's all contextual. And if you are gonna win soon or wipe that civ out who cares? Avoid the one about troops on the border though. For some reason it ticks the entire world off forever and can kill your trade deals and stall your warmongering.

Promising not to settle near the AI is only worth doing if you're finished settling. I've had them complain about being in "their territory" when I settled on an empty continent nowhere near the other AI's cultural borders.

happyturtle said:

Promising not to settle near the AI is only worth doing if you're finished settling. I've had them complain about being in "their territory" when I settled on an empty continent nowhere near the other AI's cultural borders.

Click to expand...

I saw something similar to that in my previous game. But the city I had founded twenty turns ago was rather close to that AIs border, but they didn't complain until I founded my last city that was in an empty island no where near them. (As is on the far side of my capital)

Mr. Grieves said:

Most promises don't matter too much, but I would rather not make them than break them. But never lie when a civ asks you if you're about to declare war on them, that'll ruin your reputation with every civ on the map.

Click to expand...

As a general rule of thumb , i just say : always tell them the truth. Its not like they can tell if : your trying to be clever in some way. Any possible value in being secretive , is far outweighed by the global diplomatic penalties.
Besides , ambush attacks don't work anyway ,because , the stupid game moves all the troops outside the cultural boarders at the first turn after DOW, so , there really is no harm in : denouncing a few turns before moving in , and , declaring the war while your forces are still a couple of plots away.

happyturtle said:

Promising not to settle near the AI is only worth doing if you're finished settling. I've had them complain about being in "their territory" when I settled on an empty continent nowhere near the other AI's cultural borders.

Click to expand...

Yeah , "near" is subjective. After all , anywhere on the same planet is near in galactic terms. I tend to think : they always have the next spot picked out , even if : they are several turns from having the next settler ready. They could also be thinking ahead on the boarder growth of this next spot,so , if your future boarders are going to intersect with their theoretical future boarders....... Considering that : "near" could cover a massive area since : city boarders cover a lot of area , and , the maps aren't actually that big.

Nobody cares if you promise to stop converting or settling and do it anyway, except for the AI who's asking for favors. I'd say always tell the truth about peaceful stuff, unless you're in the position to do otherwise. Maybe you'll taunt them enough for them to attack, saving you some warmonger penalty.

I was moving my troops in place to go to war with Siam, when he asked if I was going to war. I was about to say 'Yes' until I realized I would lose access to several trade routes and 3 luxury resources. I said 'Just moving through' and went to conquer the Mayans instead.

Once I was done with the Mayans, I had solved my happiness problems, so I turned back to Siam. And got dinged diplomatically, because I had told them fifteen turns ago that I was just passing through.

Even if I tell them "I'll do what I please" and settle near them, they still claim I broke my expansion promise. This is really annoying for me. Does this happen to anyone else?

For diplomatic modifiers, breaking a promise is +20, while refusing a request is +15. For reference, Denouncements are +35 each.

My own experience is a bit different from what most people are saying here. I almost always promise things to AI, even though I'm not going to keep the promise. The only type of promise I keep is about troops on borders for reasons stated above several times.

My choice comes from the fact that I may actually uphold my bargains sometimes and it also buys me some time. When you refuse, you get negative modifier outright but when you agree, there will be some time to strengthen your relationship with the target civ or at least to proceed with your plans without AI interference until you're finished with what you intended.