Sovereign territory

W

Walter R

Great Engineer
Joined
Mar 8, 2013
Messages
713
Location
England
I'm sure you are all familiar with this:
I settle a city. An AI civ tells me that it was in their 'sovereign territory' - but it's nowehere near them!
Now if I forward settle, fair enough; but if I settle in an area clearly adjacent to my existing territory (and away from them) it just seems silly.
So just how does the AI view sovereign territory? Within so many hexes of them? Somewhere they wanted to settle? Anywhere on the map? Are they all the same or are some more possessive?
It doesn't bother me unduly, but I thought I'd ask if anyone knows.
 
I think the formula is just the count of hexes between capitals. It is not too unusual for a good spot to be clearly adjacent to your existing territory (and pretty far them) but still closer to their cap than yours -- so the dialog is triggered. Prolly that is your last city in that direction, at least for a while, so acquiesce to the demand unless you are already prepared for a DoW.

I would guess that one of the traits/flavors is related to this, but I have no idea which one, and in my experience all the AI are virtually the same about this.
 
Or the civ in question has no real desire for peace at the point in time it asked you not to settle cities near them. Ask the AI the same question and almost all of the time that will make that civ mad. Since the AI doesn't differentiate between the AI and human player it probably wants to make you mad.
 
I wondered about this in my current game. I settled a city fairly close to China and probably double that distance to England, but, for some reason, China did not warn me and England did. Seemed very strange since I always thought it was based on distance between the new city and the nearest ai city.
 
AI's are programmed to be rude, crude, obnoxious, greedy, and thinks YOU are a squatter; to be taken out with the other trash .
Thus, it considers where you stand, to be HIS turf .
 
reddishrecue said:
^^I agree.. some ai activity is difficult to understand.
Click to expand...

Just think of AI behavior as terribly rude human one (so bad that he'd quickly get black listed by many players) and you'll understand it.
 
^^Yeah, rude behavior but from ai sometimes. I was trying to say something similar.
 
joncnunn said:
Just think of AI behavior as terribly rude human one (so bad that he'd quickly get black listed by many players) and you'll understand it.
Click to expand...

I've concluded the devs tried to emulate a typical 9 year old gamer when they designed the AI diplomacy. He doesn't have much of a clue about winning the game (and even less of a clue about real diplomacy) so his behavior is entirely driven by feelings and guided by elementary school playground norms. You built a wonder I was thinking of building. I hate you. You settled a spot I liked the look of. I hate you. You're beating me so I'll call you a rude name. I think I'm beating you so I'll call you a "looser".

I call this nineyearoldism. I think it is an explanation for AI behavior at least equal to obstaclism.

As to the OP, I'm sure I've got that nonsense from Shaka when I settled further from him than my OC.
 
qemist said:
I've concluded the devs tried to emulate a typical 9 year old gamer when they designed the AI diplomacy. He doesn't have much of a clue about winning the game (and even less of a clue about real diplomacy) so his behavior is entirely driven by feelings and guided by elementary school playground norms. You built a wonder I was thinking of building. I hate you. You settled a spot I liked the look of. I hate you. You're beating me so I'll call you a rude name. I think I'm beating you so I'll call you a "looser".

I call this nineyearoldism. I think it is an explanation for AI behavior at least equal to obstaclism.

As to the OP, I'm sure I've got that nonsense from Shaka when I settled further from him than my OC.
Click to expand...

I think you've sussed it! :goodjob:
 
qemist said:
I've concluded the devs tried to emulate a typical 9 year old gamer when they designed the AI diplomacy. He doesn't have much of a clue about winning the game (and even less of a clue about real diplomacy) so his behavior is entirely driven by feelings and guided by elementary school playground norms. You built a wonder I was thinking of building. I hate you. You settled a spot I liked the look of. I hate you. You're beating me so I'll call you a rude name. I think I'm beating you so I'll call you a "looser".

I call this nineyearoldism. I think it is an explanation for AI behavior at least equal to obstaclism.

As to the OP, I'm sure I've got that nonsense from Shaka when I settled further from him than my OC.
Click to expand...
Think about it this way: if the AI was police and considerate it would probably be way too easy to exploit as a human. "Can I get the better side of this trade? I totally swear I'll pay you back when things are going better."
 
Coastergenius said:
Think about it this way: if the AI was police and considerate it would probably be way too easy to exploit as a human. "Can I get the better side of this trade? I totally swear I'll pay you back when things are going better."
Click to expand...

Being polite and considerate is NOT the same thing as either gullible or a push over.

What is desired is that the AI be polite but firm in its dialog back to the human.
Of course the dialog boxes of the AI calling the human up just to insult them should be the first to go.
 
joncnunn said:
Being polite and considerate is NOT the same thing as either gullible or a push over.

What is desired is that the AI be polite but firm in its dialog back to the human.
Of course the dialog boxes of the AI calling the human up just to insult them should be the first to go.
Click to expand...

I agree. All they do is add some game color which many find tiresome quite soon.

Of course to be polite and firm about what you want you need to know what you want. The AI doesn't seem to.
 
Coastergenius said:
Think about it this way: if the AI was police and considerate it would probably be way too easy to exploit as a human. "Can I get the better side of this trade? I totally swear I'll pay you back when things are going better."
Click to expand...

Speaking of which, I usually give in to requests for free luxes, and get those screens thanking me for giving them leadership of WC or passing their proposal. The dialog text for all three of these mentions returning the favor. Of course, each gives a bright green modifier for diplomacy, but do they ever actually return the favor?

I feel like the dialog text could be encouraging and positive without being a lie.

joncnunn said:
Of course the dialog boxes of the AI calling the human up just to insult them should be the first to go.
Click to expand...

I am thinking of firing up a game where I pick AI opponents because they have low chattiness flavors. Really all I wish for is that, if there are going to be two choices with responding, that they came with different game effects. In particular, picking “You will pay for this” should mean that I don't get those dialog boxes from that AI for the rest of the game!

qemist said:
I agree. All they do is add some game color which many find tiresome quite soon.
Of course to be polite and firm about what you want you need to know what you want. The AI doesn't seem to.
Click to expand...

Two good points!

qemist said:
As to the OP, I'm sure I've got that nonsense from Shaka when I settled further from him than my OC.
Click to expand...

Please save the screen shot the next time that happens!
 
joncnunn said:
Just think of AI behavior as terribly rude human one (so bad that he'd quickly get black listed by many players) and you'll understand it.
Click to expand...

qemist said:
I've concluded the devs tried to emulate a typical 9 year old gamer when they designed the AI diplomacy. He doesn't have much of a clue about winning the game (and even less of a clue about real diplomacy) so his behavior is entirely driven by feelings and guided by elementary school playground norms. You built a wonder I was thinking of building. I hate you. You settled a spot I liked the look of. I hate you. You're beating me so I'll call you a rude name. I think I'm beating you so I'll call you a "looser".

I call this nineyearoldism. I think it is an explanation for AI behavior at least equal to obstaclism.

As to the OP, I'm sure I've got that nonsense from Shaka when I settled further from him than my OC.
Click to expand...

These posts sum AI behavior up pretty nicely.

But maybe it's not such a bad thing. It means you don't have to feel so guilty when you wipe them from the face of the earth. :D

That leads me to wonder...what are interactions between humans in MP games like? I'm curious, never having played any multiplayer game (except for hotseat games with friends where we're on the same team, so it's basically co-op against the AI). In an MP game, I assume everyone's playing to win, to an even greater extent than the AI does. Do players not get mad over getting beaten to good city spots, getting beaten to wonders, getting city-states taken from them, losing a proposal in the World Congress due to another player/s actions, etc?
 
As muc as i enjoyed the mention of nineyearoldism (it was pretty good thumbs up), there is a logic about AIs complains.

1. you don't scare him in terms of army
2. he does not like you (he might not hate you)
then ofc some leaders are more rude than others.

But that explains why one leader might complain while the other do not. One simply considers going into war with you , while the other one might consider leaving you this spot for a better cooperation with you (war has a cost , no caravans , no friendship , no science agreement that might sucks but the ai still values them) or simply out of fear (even so in higher level I d be surprised if you had a better army in term of pure total strengh early on ) .

My point is , it is more than simply distance calculation.
 
qemist said:
As to the OP, I'm sure I've got that nonsense from Shaka when I settled further from him than my OC.
Click to expand...

It just happened to me. City was 6 hexes from my cap, 7 from Shaka’s. I was just going four city Tradition, so no problem to agree to the demand.
 
The AI does indeed lie often.
Current game, Venice was going nuts with missionaries and prophets. He converted my #2 city with a prophet. I asked him to stop. He said he would. I conveniently had a prophet of my own so I sent him to return my city to my religion. Immediately, on Venice's turn, his prophet hits my city again. Instead of converting it back straight away, I had to wait a turn or two then surround my city with units. I could not buy an inquisitor yet bcs my prophet had just spawned, so I had no faith. I would have immediately DOW but we had a DOF and I wanted that to be done before I went after him. He then used his MoV to take an allied CS on my border. I used a GG to take horses and gold from a Venetian puppet. Payback felt good. Then the DoF ended and I took his capital and one of the 2 puppets. Sadly, the rest of our circle of friends liked him better...Oh well. Now I know who is next.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

C
Deity AI's behavior is inconsistent
Replies
0
Views
1K
Caocao84
C
vorlon_mi
[LP] Bombers Crossing Neutral Territory?
Replies
1
Views
698
vorlon_mi
vorlon_mi
GeneralZIft
Civ7: Immersive and Balanced AI?
Replies
0
Views
612
GeneralZIft
GeneralZIft
Predator145
AI changing strategy Flag?
Replies
7
Views
618
Predator145
Predator145
D
AI Units in other AIs territory not banished when declaring war.
Replies
1
Views
989
jros83
J
Top Bottom