Best response?

What is the best response? "We're sorry if this caused a divide between us." or "Get over it."?

I haven't played Civ5 in awhile and just recently began again. In a current game as Arabia I've met Washington and Japan. Japan is pretty close to me, and I've managed to build a few cities near gems and gold resources. When Japan said my expansion worried them I told them the nuetral answer not "we'll build where we please." Not because I think I'd lose in a fight, but because I don't want to divert my attention and resources while establishing my empire. Theres a spot between our borders with good land AND gems, gold and iron just sitting there. So I made a city there. Now Japan, who remains guarded said I basically lied to them. Me, I'm thinking, "Dude, that stuff has been there for a few hundred years and you didn't claim it, what'd you think I was gonna do?"

They settled in a different spot earlier. Dummy. But now I can see a war is in the future.

 

In my opinion, it would be difficult to remain peaceful with Japan close to you under the best of circumstances.

I would prepare for a defensive war. Japan is a beast on the battlefield.

Maybe you could be wily and get Japan into a few other wars, then stab him in the back when hes otherwise occupied.

 

You did the right thing imo. Saying you won't settle near them and then doing it anyway gives you a worse diplo hit than telling them you'll settle where you want.

The only way to keep them on good terms and expand, is to build lots of settlers and settle them all in one go near the border of an AI. Then say to them (when they complain) that you wont settle near them again, and then don't settle near them again. That way you can grab multiple good spots, but not hurt the AI's fragile feelings.

Unless you plan a war soon, it's usually best to suck up to the AI until such time as you are ready to pound them into the ground. You'll get better deals that way and if a big threat arises, you can usually get a coalition going to take it down and avoid a diplo hit again by doing so.

 

I only tell the AI that I will 'refrain from settling near them in the future' if I never plan on planting a city closer to their capital than the city they are basically complaining about, and then only if I plan on being at peace with them for as long as possible. More often than not I will just tell them that I settle where I please. If they have a problem with it, then they can fight my army over the issue. Bottom line, tell them the truth if you care about what other AIs will think of you, because if you lie by agreeing not to settle closer but do it anyway then you will be labeled as untrustworthy. If you don't care, then lie away haha The same situation applies when they call you on moving an army on their border but lie and attack anyway a few turns (or a thousand years) later.

It's like there is no time limit on these things, so if you make a promise in 2400 BC, then it will be held against you if you break it in 1400 AD lol. I'd love to see an 'expiration date' on those sort of things, similar to denouncements and friendship declarations. It is ridiculous that if they leave the land up for grabs for a thousand years that they would take offense if you had a change of heart since that discussion so very long ago. Also, if I really am just passing through with my army that one time, why am I a backstabber if I decide to attack 100 turns in the future because of changing political circumstances?

 

Well, at least the "army at the borders" statement expires after 30 turns. I don't know, whether this is true for the settlement promise, too.

 

I had no idea. Are you 100% certain? I could have sworn that even after 30 turns I'd still get scolded. This is extremely helpful info it is true though, thank you for sharing it.

 

Yeah it's always going to depend on the situation whether you give the nice response or the dickish one. It's better to be dickish but honest, than a liar. Only give the nice answer if you are going to follow your word.

If they already covet your lands, or they are Alexander, that's another story. It doesn't matter as much because you're going to hate each other anyways, and end up going to war.

 

Alexander is such a pain. In my last game, every AI came to tell me what a threat he is to the world etc. Even with 1 city left, he still denounces me and everyone else. I almost feel sorry for him.

 

Yes, I'm pretty sure it expires after 30 turns. At least in my games I was not told a liar after this time passed by and I started my attack. (To be honest, I do not know, why I think it is exactly 30 turns. Maybe I did read something about it. Or I just took it in analogy to other diplomatic deals.)

But of course this would be even more reliable, if an other player could affirm it.

 

But how near is too near? I'm closer to MY borders than theirs in the new city. I'll admit I wanted a buffer to stop them from buiilding in places I'd rather not have them, butwhat choice is there really? Let them take their time to build cities near the resources on the map? That would put them on MY doorstep and they'd get the resources.

 

OK, do so! That's fine and a good strategy. But be not surprised, if they are angry about it. *I* am, when the AI takes the places, I wanted to settle. I think, this is a sign for *good* diplo AI, not for a bug or at least an oddness. It's not even because "they want to win the game" or something immersion breaking like this. It's plain struggle for most and best resources. I've heard whispers, that something like this exists in real world, too.

How near is to near? Again I've heard (but this is only rumor, too - at least I do not know for sure), that the "magic line" is the *distance to the capitals*. If the new founded city is closer to the other civ's capital than to your own capital, they complain about it. Therefor, it seems *not* important, how close your new city is to your own *borders*.

 

Well before I quit for the night, I noticed that Oda had a settler and a pikeman headed towards the location I ha colonized. There was still space neough for a city with cows on it and a gap between my radius where he could get through. I paid for a tile just to cut him off. I eexpect to be denounced soon. Meanwhile Washington had a settler going to the north of my empire, but our open borders treaty ran out trapping him between a circle of my cities, too small for him to even move. I remain friendly with Washington but I won't give him OB until I secure the area north.

I wonder what terms he is on with Oda? Japan is basicallycaught between me and America, but it is not a small weak empire. We may out power it, but Oda isn't in a bad position. I guess it may come down to who is the easier target.

 

I gave Oda all the nice responses in my current game (don't remember who I'm playing) and he denounced me anyway. I find the new AI behavior pretty interesting and fun, if a little hard to figure at times.

 

If you're playing against Japan, then you will go to war. Period.

 

Its seems inevitable. I've been building up some forces to deal with it, while making sure my border cities have walls and defenses. I onder if I should try and get Washington to "take my side" in it. I don't really want to. I don't want to give America an excuse to annex a lot of japan and gain more territory.

 

Yes, Japan nearly always likely to attack you - best to attack them first before they get sumurai units

 

Trying to overwhelm Japan wouldn't be a bad idea. Their UA makes fighting them like fighting a horde of zombies.

 

This game is a mystery, neither Oda or Alexander almost ever started a war against me and I have 600hrs playtime. Most likely to attack me is Cathy, Ramsang, Ramses and Caesar?

Never Oda, he's been guarded, but with RA's and fair trades he turn out to be a great buddy and willing to start a war against someone he dislikes, for a penny. After I denounce their enemies of course. He might kill a CS of mine now and again, by mistake but I never swear to protect those anyways, so no hard feelings is my response.

Alex attacked me in one game only, but then I lied and settled cities too close to him. In many games I turned him to a friend to trust, never picked his CS and just traded fairly.

I don't get it why ppl are so afraid of these guys, play your cards right and they will help you.

The others I mentioned before are more dangerous in my games.

As for the OP's question, I usually use the milder response and most of the time the AI seem to be happy with that.