1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

-DEBATE- Should Firaxis add the "get your soliders off my borders?"

Discussion in 'Civ5 - General Discussions' started by France, Nov 28, 2013.

  1. France

    France Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2013
    Messages:
    49
    Location:
    Buenos Aires
    We all know we get pretty scared when we see masses of units near our borders when we could only develop about 1/4 of their army. Is it frustrating when it is the other way around & you prepare for war, but you aren't fully ready to attack? Then that civilization pops up to move your units having those two options:
    - You either say your passing through when you are clearly not
    -Or fully declare war having them strike at your units first
    The AI definitely has the advantage by choosing the second option, but if you lie and declare war every other civilization would know of this, and have a penalty that would last the whole game.
    Do you think it's unfair? Would you like to have an advantage at something in your time of need? Would you like to get the first attack & or have every other civilization denounce that player for good? At least know they're on your side, or favour you?
    Should FIRAXIS allow more diplomacy in a new update?
     
  2. Smokeybear

    Smokeybear Emperor

    Joined:
    Apr 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,240
    Location:
    US
    I like this idea. With the caveat that you couldn't just toss it off any time you wanted, as often as you wanted. There would have to be turn limits on how often you could use it against any given civ. Also, I would think the civ you're accusing would have to have at least 3 units on tiles immediately against your borders, for three or more turns. I hate it when I have two or three units in pure defense mode two tiles within my own territory, none of them on tiles immediately adjacent to anyone else, and yet an AI civ can still pop that one on me and accuse me of preparing to attack them. If nothing else I'd like to see these caveats applied to the AI civs, just because it needs to be done for fairness.
     
  3. EK834

    EK834 Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2013
    Messages:
    333
    The human gets a diplo perks of its own: the AI never gets to know if you're planning a war nor which city you plan to sneak attack. Meanwhile, with a spy and a few friends, the AI's plotting, and often its exact target, are often known to the human in time to prepare.

    The AI having the the perk to force you to remove your units from its border or being forced to DoW, after which it gets a turn to attack you first, is one of the things that are there to balance the advantage the human has. It's not as bad as it sounds, most AI give you a forewarning (they tell you during trade deals that they find you have a lot of units near them quite before they will come and entrap you to DoW or promise you have no such intention) and you know then you have to retreat one tile away from the border if you want to be free to declare War without a promise standing in the way. The lesson: never keep military units on the border if DoWing a neighbor is in your plans - put a civilian to watch movements on the other side and that's all. It's not a good tactic to let the AI see your military build-up anyway, it's gonna build an army too.

    I tend to agree the effects of that promise are too long lasting. It should be more like a peace treaty in length, with a message telling you the promise is over. As it is it's too restricting, amounting to a non-aggression pact. It limits your options when you don't intend to declare war in visible future but might later. The only reason it's not uber annoying is that it can be prevented by keeping the borders unit-free.

    OTOH I don't agree the human should have this diplomatic option too. We don't need it, for one thing, because if we find the AI has too many units and letting it DOW on its turn would be too dangerous, we can already DoW by surprise and get a first round of attack.

    The second reason is that it would be exploited all the time. The human player would avidly watch the borders for the first opportunity to force its neighbors to make that promise, greatly decreasing the odds of being attacked (while the AI does it when you are multiple units parked right on the border and it doesn't like you - declared friends will often only give you the advance warning) . Paradoxically, if the program the AI to avoid the borders to make the situation less likely to be exploited by the human, its potential for sneak attacks with units you haven't seen would be increased, making it more difficult to prepare for an imminent war.
     
  4. phillipwyllie

    phillipwyllie Wannabe Deity

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2003
    Messages:
    1,458
    Location:
    4 Hexes from FoY
    Hostile AI's don't necessarily mean DOW, and conversely friendly AI's that have DOF's with you doesn't necessarily mean peace. Many a time I've been back-stabbed by my "friends".

    This is greatly needed as all you need is 1 unit in sight of the AI's border(doesn't need to be touching) to get that request.
     
  5. MantaRevan

    MantaRevan Emperor

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2011
    Messages:
    1,537
    It would certainly be an option I'm in favor of. It's true that the human has a lot of advantages over the AI as it is, but I think that this option is just more fair to the human.
     
  6. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    I tend to agree with EK834. I understand that, from a "fairness" perspective, it seems unfair that they get this and we don't. But from a balance perspective, they need it far more than we do.
     
  7. Sonereal

    Sonereal ♫We got the guillotine♫ Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 31, 2008
    Messages:
    14,845
    I don't know exactly how the penalty works if you break your promise, but I would like it if I didn't actually declare war, I don't get hit with a "broken promise" modifier.

    I usually have troops on the border because I'm guarding the border.
     
  8. Aristos

    Aristos Lightseeker

    Joined:
    Dec 11, 2001
    Messages:
    3,575
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Deep inside...
    If they CAN'T see the mass of troops, they cannot calculate the amount of "massed troops threat"... so, if you only want to guard the border, or if you are really amassing for an offensive but want to keep it "secret" from the AI, just keep the units one tile away from the border (pre-Flight), and they will not see the mass.
     
  9. Vitruvius

    Vitruvius King

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2013
    Messages:
    862
    Even if its implemented, it will not be very helpful. The "3 units adjacent to the border for 3 turns" is very easily avoided if the AI continuously rotate only 2 units on and off your borders. This is the reason why this mechanic is pointless.
     
  10. France

    France Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 24, 2013
    Messages:
    49
    Location:
    Buenos Aires
    I don't believe it would be that pointless, of course, as Smokeybear said; there would have to be about 3 to 4 units lined upon your borders (great point!) That is when you would go to the diplomacy screen. They would think twice about invading, knowing they would get denounced by a lot of people. Personally,I don't think they need it more than we do because it's not about fairness, but about having a chance to not fall back behind. If it were added to the game, diplomacy would have more depth.
     
  11. Louis XXIV

    Louis XXIV Le Roi Soleil

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2003
    Messages:
    13,579
    Location:
    Norfolk, VA
    As far as I know. That's how it works.
     
  12. otaman1

    otaman1 Prince

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2013
    Messages:
    2,697
    Why does the AI get to harass us like "Oh, your empire is so weak. Blah blah blah blah blah"? And why can't we ask the AI for stuff? We can only demand, and the AI always wants something back when trading.
     
  13. Glassmage

    Glassmage The Desert Flame

    Joined:
    Apr 23, 2011
    Messages:
    1,623
    Location:
    USA
    Please add this so at least I can denounce them after.
     
  14. KmDubya

    KmDubya King

    Joined:
    Feb 2, 2008
    Messages:
    632
    Location:
    Nong Bua Lam Pha, Thailand
    For balance it would be a bad idea.

    You would use this every chance you could to either get a free shot at the enemy, a no war guarantee or the knowledge that a broken promise will make the enemy a pariah in the world for ever.

    You already have the option of declaring war first to get a free hit on the enemy. With focus fire of ranged attacks you can cripple an attacking force, especially since as a human you probably have more ranged units then they do.

    Another option is to either bribe your enemy to attack someone else or to bribe someone to attack them.

    If you ignored military and are defenseless against the aggressor then you have learned a valuable lesson.
     
  15. Makavcio

    Makavcio Prince

    Joined:
    Oct 1, 2010
    Messages:
    534
    I have only one problem with this system:
    these promises last too long and moreover, there is no indication when promises expire.

    I play on epic game speed and every time I'm just passing by someone, that AI gets A WHOLE ERA of immunity. *censorship* at its finest.
     
  16. Syailendra

    Syailendra Prince

    Joined:
    Nov 30, 2011
    Messages:
    420
    Location:
    south east asian jungle
    my problem with the mechanic is that the question can pop even when my troops is standing inside my border. Heck, its my land, and its my man, you don't have any business about it. If the ai is affraid then he should prepare for battle, not whining.
     
  17. Walter R

    Walter R Great Engineer

    Joined:
    Mar 8, 2013
    Messages:
    713
    Location:
    England
    This.
    I don't particularly want the facility to ask the AI the same question, I just don't want to have to account for my actions in my own territory - anywhere else on the map is fair enough as far as I'm concerned. If my borders happen to be adjacent to an AI civ, tough - it's still my land and I have the right to march my troops backwards and forwards all game if that's what I want. I've no problem with said civ then feeling threatened, but I don't see why that should hold me to ransom if they subsequently do something to provoke war. (Man, that makes me sound more aggressive than I actually feel!)
     
  18. reinesos

    reinesos Chieftain

    Joined:
    Nov 29, 2013
    Messages:
    4
    Even if its implemented, it will not be very helpful
     
  19. Dogmouth

    Dogmouth King

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2012
    Messages:
    613
    I just want the parameters of the promise to be a little bit more transparent. You shouldn't have to scour through internet forums just to get a clue about what you promised. Heck, even after reading about this promise a zillion times, I don't know the exact terms (how long does it last? what counts as a hostile action by the AI to relieve you of your promise?). It's truly silly that you can "break a promise" when you don't know what you've promised. A real contract or promise doesn't work this way.
     
  20. EK834

    EK834 Prince

    Joined:
    Aug 26, 2013
    Messages:
    333
    I agree. That and the fact it lasts too long are the two annoyances of a mechanism that I find fair and ok otherwise. It should be as transparent and about a long as a peace treaty.
     

Share This Page