Denounced for settling too close??!

[qadams]

Playing as Egypt, I had already settled Memphis and Nekken, and made a promise to Tomyris not to place other cities too close to her. Then I settled Thebes and Akhetaten and made a similar promise to Saladin. Later, I finally filled a spot in the middle by settling Sais — but after doing that I was immediately denounced by both Scythia and Arabia! Why? Because I placed a city only four tiles away from my capital, and farther from those other Civs than my earlier cities! Does that make any sense?

 

[leandrombraz]

The AI caring about where you settle isn't just about distance, it's more about settling where they planned to settle themselves. They saw that as a good spot, regardless of distance, and planned to settle there themselves. It's like the AI already had their own Map pins there, then you went there with your settlers and ruined it.

 

[criZp]

^ As usual, the civ AI makes absolutely no sense. You think it has to do with distance from the starting city, but no, "settling too close" has nothing to do with such distance, apparently.

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

^ As usual, the civ AI makes absolutely no sense. You think it has to do with distance from the starting city, but no, "settling too close" has nothing to do with such distance, apparently.

One of the many reasons the AI is regularly lampooned. My favorite is getting denounced because "they simply don't like you." Brilliant, Firaxis! Brilliant.

 

[Karmah]

The AI caring about where you settle isn't just about distance, it's more about settling where they planned to settle themselves. They saw that as a good spot, regardless of distance, and planned to settle there themselves. It's like the AI already had their own Map pins there, then you went there with your settlers and ruined it.

^ As usual, the civ AI makes absolutely no sense. You think it has to do with distance from the starting city, but no, "settling too close" has nothing to do with such distance, apparently.

that sounds pretty 'human' to me

 

[EgonSpengler]

Does that make any sense?

Sure. It makes it easier for you to elbow them in the head repeatedly until they're a whimpering blob and then take a bunch of their stuff. Makes perfect sense to me.

 

[criZp]

Yeah but that isn't the problem, if the AI gets mad that you take a city place they planned on then that's obviously what the game should say. Instead it says something else.

 

[Karmah]

Yeah but that isn't the problem, if the AI gets mad that you take a city place they planned on then that's obviously what the game should say. Instead it says something else.

in diplomacy talk 'fudge you' is spelled 'We'll consider it'

 

[AsH2]

Loyalty pressure

 

[Bangau]

I think the rule is: they consider it near their borders if it is within 9 tiles distance of one of their cities. Anyone can confirm?

 

[FenrisWolf456]

I think the rule is: they consider it near their borders if it is within 9 tiles distance of one of their cities. Anyone can confirm?

Pretty sure this is the case. I had a similar discussion about this before. The issue comes down to human vs. computer perception. OP sees the unclaimed land close to their capital as 'theirs' ... but it's not, not until you put down a city. That's how the AI sees it, open valuable land that they would like to settle in.

Basically it boils down to: why should the AI care how close the city is to your borders and capital? Their concern is valuable land and with rival cities place down near their own borders. And if Sais was settled while the promises were still in place, that would add to the AI grievances.

 

[AntSou]

AI should be able to know in advance what the calculated loyalty pressure would be and ignore those tiles.

 

[qadams]

I think what annoys me the most about this whole thing is that I prefer having good relations with my neighbors. I did not intend to break a promise by placing Sais where I did; in fact, I expected it wouldn't cause any problems at all. But you can see where that logic got me.

 

[criZp]

Basically it boils down to: why should the AI care how close the city is to your borders and capital? Their concern is valuable land and with rival cities place down near their own borders. And if Sais was settled while the promises were still in place, that would add to the AI grievances.

No, it boils down to the AI not being able to communicate their "wants" to the player, due to incompetent programming. They ask for a promise to "not settle close", but there's no way to tell exactly where the border goes between "close" and "not close". Why doesn't the game just say something like "Promise to not settle near them (not settle within 4 tiles of their territory)". Instead the info is just hidden away, for no reason.

 

[AntSou]

I think what annoys me the most about this whole thing is that I prefer having good relations with my neighbors. I did not intend to break a promise by placing Sais where I did; in fact, I expected it wouldn't cause any problems at all. But you can see where that logic got me.

The worst bit about it for me is that you can just exploit it.

Yeah sure, I'll get the 30 Diplomatic Favor and then settle where I please anyway. Sometimes there are no more places to settle nearby anyway, so you're getting 30 Diplo for free (plus the AI is losing 30 Diplo, so it's a 60 diplo difference).

I'd much rather these requests worked like the 'promised to move troops from border', where the AI doesn't need to pay anything, with three outcomes:

- Accept and Fulfil -> Positive Opinion modifier
- Deny -> Negative Opinion outcome
- Accept and Break Promise -> Higher Negative Opinion outcome + Grievances

Breaking promises should also make me untrustworthy in the eyes of other Civs, so more difficult for them to accept my offers, alliances, etc.

 

[Dragabond]

I think a better question is why you didn't immediately burn down both Mecca and Chertomlyk for settling that close to your capital.

 

[sdtum21]

The AI caring about where you settle isn't just about distance, it's more about settling where they planned to settle themselves. They saw that as a good spot, regardless of distance, and planned to settle there themselves. It's like the AI already had their own Map pins there, then you went there with your settlers and ruined it.

I've always looked at it this way. Each AI periodically lays claim to a certain area of the map close to their existing territory, and then gets pissed off whenever anyone else settles in that area, regardless of how close tile-wise it is to one of their cities.

 

[qadams]

I think a better question is why you didn't immediately burn down both Mecca and Chertomlyk for settling that close to your capital.

Heh, because I'm not a warmonger?

 

[Tech Osen]

I've always looked at it this way. Each AI periodically lays claim to a certain area of the map close to their existing territory, and then gets pissed off whenever anyone else settles in that area, regardless of how close tile-wise it is to one of their cities.

Regardless how it works: you should get a warning message before you settle, not after.

 

[Dragabond]

Heh, because I'm not a warmonger?

Me either.