This may be general knowledge, but I haven't seen it. I think I figured out the "rule" for whether city placement will anger another civ. This also leads to a "steal the iron" strategy. This is for PTW 1.21.
The rule appears to be
Rule
Placing a city within another civilizations 20 squares will lead to war. Outside of the 20 squares will not affect relations at all.
[Edit: A better way to state this is: If the CIV distance is 2.5 or less it will lead to war. 3 or greater will not. The 20 I am talking about above are the 20 squares your citizens can work which are also 2.5 or less away from the city.]
I had a start with no Iron. However, another civ had iron one square to the south. I tried placing a city to the SW of the iron. The civ, who was larger than me, pretty much immediately started building up forces and declare war on me. As this was an early diety game I lost horribly.
After losing, I got to wondering at what distance an AI will consider a town a threat. I knew 3 squares away was safe (except for the culture problem).
It occurred to me that the rule might be the above. Did that mean I could steal the iron even though it was one square away? What if I built the city 2 squares S of the enemy city?
I loaded up my game and tried it. I moved my settler to S of the iron and tried the same strategy I did before (rush a temple and library). The iron is equally far from us (1 N of me, and 1 S of him), so if I could get higher culture than him in my town (he was just expanding when I built the town and so had 10 culture and probably a temple) I would gain the much needed iron.
Well it worked perfectly. I got my culture over his by sacrificing some workers to rush the temple and library. Eventually the iron was in my territory and I could build swordsmen.
Even more interestingly, he was acting no more aggressively than I would have expected without the town. There seemed to be 0 difference between his behavior now as compared with what I expected if I hadn't "stolen" the iron.
So I am not 100% sure, but it seems STRONG evidence for the above rule. He didn't go from polite to annoyed. He didn't declare war or even seem more aggressive in any way.
I haven't seen this mentioned though given the large amount of information I could have EASILY missed it. My thinking was that even if it is mentioned, if I missed it after reading this site for the past month or two, maybe it would be new to others as well. The trick with the iron is one I plan to use again. It means that only if a resource is SE, SW, NE, or NE, or under a city is it safe from poaching.
The rule appears to be
Rule
Placing a city within another civilizations 20 squares will lead to war. Outside of the 20 squares will not affect relations at all.
[Edit: A better way to state this is: If the CIV distance is 2.5 or less it will lead to war. 3 or greater will not. The 20 I am talking about above are the 20 squares your citizens can work which are also 2.5 or less away from the city.]
I had a start with no Iron. However, another civ had iron one square to the south. I tried placing a city to the SW of the iron. The civ, who was larger than me, pretty much immediately started building up forces and declare war on me. As this was an early diety game I lost horribly.
After losing, I got to wondering at what distance an AI will consider a town a threat. I knew 3 squares away was safe (except for the culture problem).
It occurred to me that the rule might be the above. Did that mean I could steal the iron even though it was one square away? What if I built the city 2 squares S of the enemy city?
I loaded up my game and tried it. I moved my settler to S of the iron and tried the same strategy I did before (rush a temple and library). The iron is equally far from us (1 N of me, and 1 S of him), so if I could get higher culture than him in my town (he was just expanding when I built the town and so had 10 culture and probably a temple) I would gain the much needed iron.
Well it worked perfectly. I got my culture over his by sacrificing some workers to rush the temple and library. Eventually the iron was in my territory and I could build swordsmen.
Even more interestingly, he was acting no more aggressively than I would have expected without the town. There seemed to be 0 difference between his behavior now as compared with what I expected if I hadn't "stolen" the iron.
So I am not 100% sure, but it seems STRONG evidence for the above rule. He didn't go from polite to annoyed. He didn't declare war or even seem more aggressive in any way.
I haven't seen this mentioned though given the large amount of information I could have EASILY missed it. My thinking was that even if it is mentioned, if I missed it after reading this site for the past month or two, maybe it would be new to others as well. The trick with the iron is one I plan to use again. It means that only if a resource is SE, SW, NE, or NE, or under a city is it safe from poaching.