troublmaker
Warlord
I always line up my guys one tile from his border. For some reason he just never catches on to this.
You broke your promise to move your troops away from the border
- Thread starter Anarchist
- Start date
- Status
I just got that message in a game where Casmir III was about to take Ravenna and I had open borders with Rome. I surrounded the city with my troops so his melee's could not attempt the final capture and Casmir gave me that message.
I'm in Rome, dammit but he still asked me to DOW or "just passing through". I lied and said passing through even though I DID intend to DOW on him soon, he caught me by pure accident.
It seems the message happens when your troops are WITHIN SIGHT of his border vision. So if you have troops 2 tiles away with open land between them and his border, then he can see them and they count toward the "army massing on our borders". If there are trees/mountains in between, then his border vision can't see the troops and they don't count. I think if he has a mountain on his border with a soldier on it, it then becomes a 3 tile zone. Also if he is invading a country and he has troops "scouting" for his border, then troops within 2-3 tiles of his border become visible and count.
To the point of shuffling on your borders: I ran through a few reloads testing different situations. I found that when they show up on your borders and start shuffling, it seems they are actually scouting your defenses. If you look vulnerable, they will DOW. If you rushbuy or move a enough units into their sightline, they will shuffle for a long time before moving on. I like trying to bribe them to attack someone else when this happens because I know they are out for blood and it should be easy to convince them to attack that juicy country over there.
I'm in Rome, dammit but he still asked me to DOW or "just passing through". I lied and said passing through even though I DID intend to DOW on him soon, he caught me by pure accident.
It seems the message happens when your troops are WITHIN SIGHT of his border vision. So if you have troops 2 tiles away with open land between them and his border, then he can see them and they count toward the "army massing on our borders". If there are trees/mountains in between, then his border vision can't see the troops and they don't count. I think if he has a mountain on his border with a soldier on it, it then becomes a 3 tile zone. Also if he is invading a country and he has troops "scouting" for his border, then troops within 2-3 tiles of his border become visible and count.
To the point of shuffling on your borders: I ran through a few reloads testing different situations. I found that when they show up on your borders and start shuffling, it seems they are actually scouting your defenses. If you look vulnerable, they will DOW. If you rushbuy or move a enough units into their sightline, they will shuffle for a long time before moving on. I like trying to bribe them to attack someone else when this happens because I know they are out for blood and it should be easy to convince them to attack that juicy country over there.
headcase
Limit 1 Facepalm Per Turn
What's the point. People are upset because they do take a diplo hit for essentially lying because they wanted to attack, but NOT YET!
If you say you're passing through and then attack, it's a diplo hit with everyone.
It would be nice to reply "none of your business" or "we're keeping our eyes on you", get a big diplo hit with the one civ (and for it to prepare defenses), but not actually go to war then and there.
The good news is it can often be avoided by making sure that less than 3 units are 2 tiles from their borders.
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.
At the end of the day though, we have lots of 'I'm annoyed by this mechanic' but all the examples given tends to point towards agressive posturing or an intention to attack eventually, just not right now, which is exactly what this mechanic is there to fish out. OP was exposed for example for essentially being a liar about his intentions and he was rightly penalized
So I'm really not that concerned it's that big of a problem.I rarely encounter this. I understand certain map configurations can make it more common, but I'm fairly certain the AI also calculates its own forces. They tend to be most finicky when your massing near an undefended border.
NotSure
King
- Joined
- Jul 21, 2011
- Messages
- 712
I've never appreciated this mechanic either. Even if the mechanic has a valid purpose (I think dexters convinced me that it does), the fact that the player can't prevent or lessen the damage from a deep attack into his borders by using the same option makes it a horrible mechanic. 50 turns is way too long, promises should be recorded somewhere for the player to reference, and the player should have the same diplomatic options available to the AI.
I got stuck with this negative modifier for the entire game in into the renaissance mode, playing as byzantium. I had some troops on my east border, close to the ottomans, just as protection, and he asked if i was gonna to attack, to which i said no (i never had the intention). Then like 15-20 turns later he dropped a crap city halfway in my territory, so i declared war. got the negative modifier for the remaining 80-100 turns
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.
At the end of the day though, we have lots of 'I'm annoyed by this mechanic' but all the examples given tends to point towards agressive posturing or an intention to attack eventually, just not right now, which is exactly what this mechanic is there to fish out. OP was exposed for example for essentially being a liar about his intentions and he was rightly penalized
I rarely encounter this. I understand certain map configurations can make it more common, but I'm fairly certain the AI also calculates its own forces. They tend to be most finicky when your massing near an undefended border.
I'm sorry I just don't agree. There are people who do actually intend to pass through and not DoW, i've gotten this notification when moving armies around the globe to get to other civs. I think the misconception you have is you call it the "lying option". It really isn't lying if you don't intend to attack them, which half the time is the case with me. Three options makes sense.
"We're only passing through" - No diplo hits, but if you break it then huge diplo hits with everyone.
"Declare war" - Obviously you're at war and take a diplo hit with the the target civ.
"Our troops go where they please" - Diplo hit with target civ, and they prepare defences accordingly.
So if you don't intend to go to war, you can keep your promise and take no diplo hits. If you do intend to go the war, you can tell them to mind their own business and take a diplo hit and they prepare defences. Lastly, you can straight up declare war and still have some semblance of surprise assuming you're prepared enough.
The AI knows it's 50 turns, but the player isn't given that info when they're asked to make the choice. That part bugs me. Players shouldn't have to google it or find out what they promised the hard way.
Penalties for breaking a promise, OK. Being asked to promise peace for a mystery period of time is silly, especially when it turns out to be much longer than most would expect when peace treaties and trade deals go 10 or 30 turns.
Ulthwithian
King
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2012
- Messages
- 733
Xichael: Dexter's point is that no one who plans on going to war will EVER select the first option if the third option is available, and therefore the entire 'broke your promise' penalty will never occur, and you've just circumvented the entire mechanic.
(As others have pointed out, if you plan on going to war, the diplo hit from option 3 is rather moot, is it not?)
Because of the above, no one would ever select Option 2, either.
(As others have pointed out, if you plan on going to war, the diplo hit from option 3 is rather moot, is it not?)
Because of the above, no one would ever select Option 2, either.
They might if it means the AI relaxes their guard. Surely if the third option were implemented the AI would have a formula for deciding defence priority. If you tell them to mind their own business, they assign defence against you as a higher priority than if you selected passing through.
Declare war immediately only gives you the regular war negative.
Passing through is no penalty unless you attack, then huge penalties with everyone.
Mind your own business is a huge penalty with target civ.
It may be worth lying about your intentions if the AI reinforces defence on your border heavily if you tell them to mind their own business, but they don't if you lie.
Ulthwithian
King
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2012
- Messages
- 733
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.
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.
Wodan
Deity
You got it for that (shown in the screenshot)? I have trouble believing it. AFAIK, I've never gotten it for:
- 1 troop on his border, outside my borders
- any number of troops inside my borders, even if they're on his border
- any number of troops more than 1 tile outside his borders
SammyKhalifa
Deity
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2003
- Messages
- 6,308
Then it's helpful if you're trying to goad them to attack you. It's almost like no penalty at all.
Maybe (if it's even viable at all) "mind your own business" should come with a small "we think you're a warmonger" penalty with all civs (but less than if you lied).
You'll note the AI city is undefended and he has a pike on the edge augmenting his field of view.
Matthew claims his war is over with another Civ and the units are there to protect the capital, yet he parks his whole army within range of the undefended city with a GG, in a line. There's no major enemy force in sight.
I don't know how else the AI could take it?
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.
Ulthwithian
King
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2012
- Messages
- 733
dexters: I guess the real question is, "Do you want your AI to even attempt to pass a Turing Test?"
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. Obviously I've had games where I've moved a composite bow or two all around enemy borders and they don't care.
Maybe the moral of the story is if you have a large military, no matter where it is located, you basically need to accept crappy relations with everyone. Don't really like how black and white the AI has always been with war-mongering; always seems to end up as an all or nothing deal.
What do you guys do with your units? There is a mountain range on the other side of that city. I wanted my guys on the enemy side of the river. I left my GG with my guys rather than leave him off alone. I don't have a screenshot of it, but south I had a couple of CB's, two trebs, and I think another two Lswords if I remember correctly.
dexters: I guess the real question is, "Do you want your AI to even attempt to pass a Turing Test?"
No, but it should be able to spot things like what some players are complaining about.
There are false positives sometimes, but if the intentions are true, it should be a non-issue.
People are mostly complaining because they don't get a license to do whatever they want whenever they want. But as it's a highly exploitable situation, I prefer this mechanic to no mechanic at all.
I think those of us who played Civ3 , know the ROP exploit and is justifiably weary of allowing it in future Civ games. The Civ5 mehanic is by far the 'smartest' the AI has been at it. Note that most of the complaints are not about false positives, it's about the penalties being too harsh. Or the cooldown being too long (a fair point) but that's about the only point I am willing to concede. 30 instead of 50 turns makes sense.
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.
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.
Ulthwithian
King
- Joined
- Apr 25, 2012
- Messages
- 733
dexters: Well, I for one think that 'passing a Turing Test' is a fine goal for any AI. 
Those who are against the current implementation seem to not want the AI to act in a human manner at all.
Those who are against the current implementation seem to not want the AI to act in a human manner at all.
The difference is in the outcome, yes? AI gets spooked, 50 turns of special rules.
Say it worked differently. For example, the AI brings up the concern of major troops near by. You lie and say you are totally not going to attack. If you do so within the next 10 turns, massive diplo hit. HERE IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART: Within those 10 turns, the AI actually reacts by moving extra protection to the area of concern.
Doesn't work like that, though. He only has a single pike? Hell, just stick it out with a single pike. We got 50 turns of protection, just because.
Sure, you can still game the system and it needs to be done correctly. In SC2 you can beat the highest level AI by keeping a few harass units near its borders and any time it moves out, you can harass its base which forces the AI to move its military back. Rinse and repeat for as long as you want until maxed out at 200/200.
Civ5 is quite a bit different though. You are not realistically going to set-up a large military force, make the AI move extra protection there, then magically jump to the other side of his empire and grab unprotected cities, all within 10 turns. Especially not with the unit spam it has on higher difficulties.
If the AI wants a few turns to "prepare" to help with its inability to wage war, sweet. I'm all for it. Needing to adapt my entire gameplay for 50 turns because a line of code decides I have one too many units sitting near my capital, nope.
- Status
Similar threads
- Poll
