Clarifying the new promise mechanic

[stealth_nsk]

Just a thought: Might this mechanic have more to do with the AI's decision tree than with the player's?

Any decision presented to player should be part of player decision tree. But this doesn't conflict with quite good idea of bidirectional diplomacy information where not only player receives info on AI intention, but also AI gets some info about player intention.

The difference is - the first is a must, the second is nice to have.

 

[MacBalt]

Any decision presented to player should be part of player decision tree. But this doesn't conflict with quite good idea of bidirectional diplomacy information where not only player receives info on AI intention, but also AI gets some info about player intention.

The difference is - the first is a must, the second is nice to have.

Agreed. But, if the second is presumed, then doesn't the player's decision also become more consequential? For example, is it more advantageous for me as the player to launch the war now -- before the AI starts building walls and defensive units (& in spite of being caught flat-footed for the current turn) -- or is it more advantageous for me to take a "short-run smaller" and "long-run larger" diplomatic penalty in order to let more of my units get in place even though the AI *may* also be building fortifications while I get ready for the invasion?

There are a lot of "ifs" in that, but IF the "ifs" are true then it seems likely to be a welcome mechanic to me... Anything that makes the AI a little less stupid is probably a good thing in my book...

 

[stealth_nsk]

Agreed. But, if the second is presumed, then doesn't the player's decision also become more consequential? For example, is it more advantageous for me as the player to launch the war now -- before the AI starts building walls and defensive units (& in spite of being caught flat-footed for the current turn) -- or is it more advantageous for me to take a "short-run smaller" and "long-run larger" diplomatic penalty in order to let more of my units get in place even though the AI *may* also be building fortifications while I get ready for the invasion?

On the scale of moving unit, building priority is usually too slow to make effect, at least on Standard and slower speeds. Moving military units is different thing, but for the AI it's generally good idea to move some units to the border there other civ units are gathered even if the civ promises not to attack.

 

[MacBalt]

On the scale of moving unit, building priority is usually too slow to make effect, at least on Standard and slower speeds.

Yes, but...

(And here I must admit my almost complete ignorance of Civ V's mechanics. I played Civ IV pretty aggressively but abandoned Civ V after playing it through only a few times.)

...in Civ IV, at least, putting a turn or two into a build (like city walls) could make the rush purchase price a lot more manageable. If the AI could use this mechanic to put a turn or two into some important builds and then rush purchase the items in the event of a real invasion, wouldn't that be a pretty nifty improvement for the AI? Certainly I would be likely to do the same thing if I saw the AI come knocking on my borders.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Yes, but...

(And here I must admit my almost complete ignorance of Civ V's mechanics. I played Civ IV pretty aggressively but abandoned Civ V after playing it through only a few times.)

...in Civ IV, at least, putting a turn or two into a build (like city walls) could make the rush purchase price a lot more manageable. If the AI could use this mechanic to put a turn or two into some important builds and then rush purchase the items in the event of a real invasion, wouldn't that be a pretty nifty improvement for the AI? Certainly I would be likely to do the same thing if I saw the AI come knocking on my borders.

In Civ5 you always buy things at full price for this very reason of rush buy being exploitable. It's likely Civ6 works the same way.

 

[MacBalt]

In Civ5 you always buy things at full price for this very reason of rush buy being exploitable. It's likely Civ6 works the same way.

Hmm... Not sure whether to hope for that or not then, actually!

Thanks for kicking these ideas around with me tho! Super conversation.

 

[stealth_nsk]

Hmm... Not sure whether to hope for that or not then, actually!

Interesting thing in Civ5 (and as far as I know in Civ6) is the ability to buy things you're not building right now. So you could build some Wonder and buy units without disturbing it. It's quite fun.

Thanks for kicking these ideas around with me tho! Super conversation.

Thank you

 

[Fede1893]

The point of that prompt screen it's not only about the decision you will make but also about the actions you have just taken.

Basically the game is punishing you for having amassed troops on the borders of another civ (clearly an offensive act, for defensive you will just keep them on the line of your borders). It is also coherent with real life, nobody likes foreign military presence near their borders.

So the screen presents and you can say:
1) just passing through: has sense only if:
a) it's true --> you get a small diplo bonus for promise kept, so in the end you have been rewarded because tha AI was wrong about your intentions;
b) wanted to war but changed your mind / was spotted too early ---> no war but better than starting a war you're not sure to win... and you get a small diplo bonus.

2) ignore: here the AI is penalizing you because you have mobilized your troop to its borders before a formal declaration of war; that's why you don't get the chance to declare a formal war even if you have the prerequisite. You can do it on your turn but you will still get a small penalty vs that civ for having mobilized before dow (opportunity cost).

3) Just shut up and die!: if you are trying to catch an opportunity you really don't want to miss (eg: settler/GP undefended or stopping a city building a wonder you want/etc...) and have no time for formal declaration (and giving the ai the first move won't prevent you from winning) ---> you take this option and get less malus with that civ than ignoring and then declaring a surprise war.

Moreover same screen can be used in MP and humans usually value a lot honesty.

 

[Fede1893]

Hmm... Not sure whether to hope for that or not then, actually!

Thanks for kicking these ideas around with me tho! Super conversation.

In Civ5 you always buy things at full price for this very reason of rush buy being exploitable. It's likely Civ6 works the same way.

Yes but the unit activates only the turn after. So having one more turn of preparation makes a huge difference as you will be able to use it actively.

So in case of ignore request or dow the ai can on his turn rush buy with gold/faith at least one unit in each city next to the borders (most likely ranged).

 

[mzprox]

I think it makes sense that if you want the least amount of diplo hit then you give them warnings and don't wait with the declaration of war until you moved all your troops into position. This mechanism, and the whole warmongering modifier is there to help the AI which has hard time reading human intentions.
(I remember the old times where you could move all your troops next to your rival's cities, declare ware war and took all you can, possibly eliminating the entire civ in one turn, or if you could1t you could made peace at the end of your turn and start again in the next, without the ai retilating )

 

[SupremacyKing2]

My understand is that each dialogue choice is useful under different circumstances.
The choice "my troops are only passing through" is best when you are not intending to declare war at all.
The choice "yes, prepare for war" is useful when you are ready for war and don't want to wait. You'll take a warmonger hit but that's all.
The 3rd choice "ignore request" gives a small diplo penalty but it buys you some time if you are not quite ready yet to DoW or if you want to wait until you can formally declare war or use a casus belli. The 3rd choice is not always the best because it gives the AI an opportunity to formally declare war on you and thus avoid some warmonger penalties.

 

[Lord Yanaek]

The point of that prompt screen it's not only about the decision you will make but also about the actions you have just taken.

Basically the game is punishing you for having amassed troops on the borders of another civ (clearly an offensive act, for defensive you will just keep them on the line of your borders). It is also coherent with real life, nobody likes foreign military presence near their borders.

Not sure where you're coming from, but in CiV5 some AIs are really touchy about this. I've had AIs with much more troops than me (any AI but the most beaten out ones on Immortal/Deity) complain about me "amassing" 3 units on my side of shared border to keep an eye on their movements.
So if they keep this mechanic, i really hope they make sure it doesn't trigger for no good reason as it did, and i hope this time they give us the ability to ask the AI to move their troops, i'm tired of letting an AI i know will DoW me come to perfect position or be considered the aggressor.
This was one of the worst part of CiV5 for me

 

[dturtle1]

Yes, but that warmonger hit is going to be huge after the classical Era and if you were going to go war anyway why wouldn't you Denounce a few turn earlier and go a formal war. The only reasons the declare war choice works is
A) when it is an attack of opportunity early in the Ancient Age
B) when you honestly dont give a **** if the A.I like you or not and you a steam rolling the map anyway.

I don't like false choices but as Civ Games have a tendency to being full of them.

Agreed Bob,...it shouldn't trigger as long as you are within your borders for that very reason. If your borders are touching and they aren't super friendly you should have the right to have units stationed on your border.