Founding too close to their borders warning?

[radiospace]

I have a question in regards to AI diplomacy.

When an AI approaches you after you've founded a new city and warns that it is too near their border, which is worse: telling them you're sorry, and you won't do it again, (and then later doing it again), or telling them that you'll found cities wherever you darn well please?

Previously I've tended to say "sorry", but I've often noticed this usually is held against me (eternally) when I found more cities later ("You lied!"), so I wonder if it's better for the long term relationship to just tell them to stick it the first time?

 

[Martin Alvito]

Either option will almost certainly lead to war. If you plan to aggressively settle next to an AI's borders, the only way to avoid a further diplo hit is to simultaneously settle all of the cities that are going to aggravate that AI. Even then, you had better keep that AI busy by buying into a major war unless you want them to declare.

With regard to the options you presented, tell them to stick it if you want the war now, and lie if you need a few extra turns to build up your military.

 

[radiospace]

Well, in my current game, I got the warning from Greece on my second city, and I haven't even discovered their borders, so it isn't like I am deliberately trying to provoke them. They just seem to have an ambitious sense of personal space.

 

[Civ4Brains]

Even then, you had better keep that AI busy by buying into a major war unless you want them to declare.

mmm, does bribing others into war with another civ have any diplomatic repercussions with the remaining civs?

 

[Civsassin]

Either option will almost certainly lead to war. If you plan to aggressively settle next to an AI's borders, the only way to avoid a further diplo hit is to simultaneously settle all of the cities that are going to aggravate that AI. Even then, you had better keep that AI busy by buying into a major war unless you want them to declare.

With regard to the options you presented, tell them to stick it if you want the war now, and lie if you need a few extra turns to build up your military.

The last time I gave them the stick it response, it didn't start a war. The AI leader - I can't remember which one it was - said something the the effect that he wouldn't deal with me anymore. He essentially took his toys and went home.

 

[Martin Alvito]

Well, in my current game, I got the warning from Greece on my second city, and I haven't even discovered their borders, so it isn't like I am deliberately trying to provoke them. They just seem to have an ambitious sense of personal space.

I agree that this is odd. I've tried avoiding an AI once its borders are discovered and meeting them by settling, and I still got the message a turn or two after I met them. I think it works that way precisely because of that potential for exploitation.

The last time I gave them the stick it response, it didn't start a war. The AI leader - I can't remember which one it was - said something the the effect that he wouldn't deal with me anymore. He essentially took his toys and went home.

That's rare. If you're close enough to them to get the settlement warning and you deliberately goad them, that's almost always going to result in a war on Deity. Did the leader already have another war underway? Or is it possible that you had a superior military due to being on a lower difficulty level?

mmm, does bribing others into war with another civ have any diplomatic repercussions with the remaining civs?

No, and I think that's a major balance issue. IIRC, in Civ 4 you took a diplomatic hit with the civilization you targeted, and no one else cared (which is more or less as it should be).

 

[SpearMan153]

anyone know how close the ai considers too close? how may hexes?

 

[lilnev]

I've heard that "closer to their capital than to yours" is the measure. And I think it applies to the tiles controlled by culture, rather than just the city tile.

edit: There's also the "they covet lands you currently control", which I think is distinct. I've had that based only on my capital; and quite early, like turn 20.

 

[oawiefga]

You know how the AI proposes city locations when you build or buy a settler? The max distance for that is 20 hexes but only the 2 nearest city locations are highlighted. Theoretically you could build within the 20 hexes and not get the warning so long as there are still closer city sites available to the AI.

Also I find that it helps if you are going to build close then it makes sense to grab the closest site that you want first and then settle the spots in between your capitol and your new city. For some reason subsequent cities do not draw the ire of the AI so long as they are not as close to them as the first city.

 

[NukeAJS]

I've heard that "closer to their capital than to yours" is the measure. And I think it applies to the tiles controlled by culture, rather than just the city tile.

edit: There's also the "they covet lands you currently control", which I think is distinct. I've had that based only on my capital; and quite early, like turn 20.

It's normally due to resources you have that they don't. If you trade that resource with/to them, it goes away.

 

[Furiey]

I've had this warning when the AI settled a city right next to my capital, well away from their other cities. I think it was greece again.

 

[Civsassin]

That's rare. If you're close enough to them to get the settlement warning and you deliberately goad them, that's almost always going to result in a war on Deity. Did the leader already have another war underway? Or is it possible that you had a superior military due to being on a lower difficulty level?

I play on Immortal difficulty, and I don't recall if the civ had another war. I remember it happening, but I don't remember the circumstances. I considered it to be normal behavior.

 

[radiospace]

When I eventually met Greece I discovered that their capital was 8 hexes from my second city (that they warned me about). That was probably closer than that city (Mumbai) was to my capital, so it met that rule.

I ended up lying to the Greeks -- "we're so sorry, won't happen again." As it turned out they were in the opposite direction from my main growth (remember I hadn't found them when they started complaining), so it wasn't a huge problem. When I finally got around to founding another city in the general vicinity of Greece they didn't complain again (this was maybe 1000 years later), but with my 3rd Greek-adjacent city, they denounced me. This was in 1260 A.D., so it took them most of history to boil over.

By 1260 A.D. they are in last place (they lost Sparta to Babylon quite early which took their teeth away), so I'm not exactly shaking in my boots.

So to recap:

2nd city (Mumbai): Closer to Athens (8 hexes) than to Delhi. Got warned. Promised not to settle near them again.

next city: Closer to Athens than to Delhi, but further away than Mumbai. No complaints.

next city: Further from Athens than the previous two cities, but closer to Corinth. Got warned, then denounced.

 

[Civ4Brains]

No, and I think that's a major balance issue. IIRC, in Civ 4 you took a diplomatic hit with the civilization you targeted, and no one else cared (which is more or less as it should be).

hang on i'm confused, you answered no to my question:

does bribing others into war with another civ have any diplomatic repercussions with the remaining civs?

but judging by your comparison to Civ4 you seem to be indicating that the civs in Civ5 do care?

ie. i bribe civA into war with civB (creates a diplo hit with B), but civsC, D, E etc.. do care (and thus a diplo hit with them as well)?

 

[Martin Alvito]

No, what I mean is that there are no diplomatic repercussions with anyone in CiV for inciting a war. By contrast, in Civ IV the civ you incited a war against was (mildly but permanently) upset with you.

 

[Civ4Brains]

ahh, ic

 

[EditorRex]

I've been noticing a lot of difference in AI behavior on this as well. I've notice Hiawatha, Ramses and Alexander being especially defensive about this, but Augustus, Songhai and Suleiman not at all. Haven't played enough games as a warmonger to really get the measure of this yet. Any chance that one of the numerical modifiers discussed on the Diplomacy By Numbers thread defines how each of them reacts to nearby cities?

 

[EditorRex]

I wonder if this entire issue was to weaken the anti-Barbs strategy of settling your second third and fourth cities near rivals and backfilling? It worked so well in Civ 4 and may have been viewed as an exploit. Personally, I thought it was just smart play.

 

[sschmalz]

Without reading everyone else's response, I may repeat the fact that the size of your military has everything to do with how you can and can't speak to other civs.

So, if you're ahead militarily then just tell them that you'll settle where you want. They can't do anything about it.

However, if your military is lacking and you talk that way, you are asking for trouble. They want the land that you recently settled + you're getting an attitude + your military sucks = "They declare WAR on you!"