Does anyone declare war just to move a AI's unit?

[Tarascan_King]

Does anyone else declare war on the AI just to move a unit that is hogging up a hex?

I always try to give the AI a few turns to see if they will move a unit out of the way but sometimes they just sit there for no reason hogging up a hex so I say heck with it and "forcibly" remove them.

I understand that the AI will park a military unit on a hill in peacetime next to their borders and I don't mind that but sometimes AI units will hog up areas between borders and get in the way when I am at war with a 3rd party. This is especially frustrating.

Btw, I do get labeled a "war monger" pretty soon in my games,

 

[Gort]

Not so far.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Can't say I have. I've never had a choke point blocked by someone without a road allowing me to pass through or oceans to cross instead, though.

 

[Bad Brett]

Does anyone else declare war on the AI just to move a unit that is hogging up a hex?

This is so funny. This was a huge problem in the first iterations, especially with ZoC. You could build a wall of units to keep the enemy from founding new cities... and the AI often did the same (perhaps not on purpose), which could be really frustrating. Then they addressed this issue in Civ IV by allowing units with different owners to share the same tile. In early reviews, this was one of the changes that was praised the most.

And now it's back.

 

[Louis XXIV]

One of my favorite things in a Civ3 multiplayer game was to block a chokepoint to keep two civs from meeting each other for about 20 turns. I find the change in Civ4 to be fine, but a limitation on strategic options.

 

[Camikaze]

I've experienced this problem sporadically, but it hasn't concerned me enough to declare war. It is quite annoying that you are blocked from moving within your own territory sometimes.

 

[Bad Brett]

One of my favorite things in a Civ3 multiplayer game was to block a chokepoint to keep two civs from meeting each other for about 20 turns. I find the change in Civ4 to be fine, but a limitation on strategic options.

Yeah, it makes perfect sense that a Trireme can have complete control over perhaps 10000 square miles of sea. And it's good game design that this can be used as a strategy to peacefully prevent enemy battleships from leaving their port.

I shouldn't lie. I've done this in the past and had tons of fun doing so. But a strategic option? No way. In that case building bridges of transport ships to be able to move units around the globe in a single turn is a strategic option. Or adjusting the luxury slider the turn before the spaceship arrives to double your score...

No, these things are called exploits and they weren't removed by accident in Civ 4.

 

[LegionSteve]

I once got one of my exploring units stuck in AI territory by moving it into the fog and ending up completely surrounded by AI units. It couldn't reach an empty tile and the game wouldn't let me end turn. I had to declare war on the AI to bounce the unit out of its territory so I could continue the game

 

[moredrowsy]

Haha. I've done that a few times when I first started playing civ 5. Then, I realized, heck, it's not worth killing "one" unit and then forcibly create a few archers/crossbow (and thus increase maintenance) when they attack my border cities.

Though, I have used this strategy to block a civ from conquering neighboring/ally city states. I just park my pikeman around and in the city state. Then the computers are too stupid and send in one meele at a time. Their archers also wouldn't be in range to attack the cities or are forced to go on open ground to attack. Pretty hilarious. I'll just watch this beefy germany waste his military units one by one until i gathered enough units near his weaker borders and backstab. ^_^

btw, o gawd. I hate these effing germans, mongols, montezumas. all they do are just dow 24/7.

 

[Hammer Rabbi]

ive used my own units to flood an area where a settler wants. but the ai tile blocking is really irritating. yet to DoW a civ over it though. i will on a CS though, then make peace.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Yeah, it makes perfect sense that a Trireme can have complete control over perhaps 10000 square miles of sea. And it's good game design that this can be used as a strategy to peacefully prevent enemy battleships from leaving their port.

Where are you getting those mileage numbers from?

Civ5 strikes me as a fair compromise. You can pass through the units you just can't stay on the tile. It's only in rare cases (such as the top of a hill at a chokepoint) where they can actually block. Not being able to move workers through is a bit strange, though.

 

[Bad Brett]

Where are you getting those mileage numbers from?

The circumference of the Earth at the equator is 25000 miles. Even with a really huge map, a tile will be around 100 miles long (= 10 000 square miles).

Though I believe that gameplay is more important than realism, this is just stupid. They tried to have some tactical combat in the first Civ games (1upt... sort of, since the entire stack was wiped out if it was attacked, and ZoC), but then the realised how terrible the system was. Being able to peacefully keep your opponents from expanding by building a wall of workers shouldn't, of course, be possible. Yet, this is pretty much how Civ5 works.

 

[Louis XXIV]

Do you also accept that an army takes hundreds of years to travel between two cities? I would think that two large armies spending decades next to each other in a 1000 square mile area without getting resupplied would deplete the natural resources and cause serious sanitation issues pretty quickly.

 

[Bad Brett]

Do you also accept that an army takes hundreds of years to travel between two cities? I would think that two large armies spending decades next to each other in a 1000 square mile area without getting resupplied would deplete the natural resources and cause serious sanitation issues pretty quickly.

As I said, gameplay is more important than realism. But being able to stop your oppponents from expaning by building a wall of workers is just stupid, especially in the earlier iterations when Civ still was a strategy game.

 

[sydhe]

No, but I once gave a city to another country to move my own troops. I'd just taken the city, she vassalized to another country I didn't want to go to war with, and her culture surrounded the city.

 

[Louis XXIV]

As I said, gameplay is more important than realism. But being able to stop your oppponents from expaning by building a wall of workers is just stupid, especially in the earlier iterations when Civ still was a strategy game.

Once you remove the realism argument, why would that not make sense in a strategy game? If you want to spend the resources to do this (which often isn't all that efficient considering those workers could be put to better use), it strikes me as a valid strategy.

 

[qec]

I've done this before. The occasion to do so is rare but it can be worth it sometimes. When I use this tact I usually make sure it will be a decisive victory though.

Other times I've taken settlers from the A.I to avoid them settling near my borders, especially if I tell them not to settle near me. This is different from removing a unit blocking your way, but your still essentially declaring just to keep a path open.

Also, same as others mentioned above, I've definitely used the reverse tact of blocking off hilly choke-point areas to keep the A.I out. Settlers and workers, like GG, can't pass through other player's units even on flatland if I remember correct? So you could block settling even on flat land. I wouldn't use this tact to the point of crippling my economy by having to many units, but if its an area that only requires a couple units to block off a substantial portion of the map then I'd say its worth it.

 

[Tarascan_King]

Hey Everyone,

Very interesting responses, nice to see how people deal with this differently. I guess Im not too patient thats why I declare war.

I actually downloaded the 2 units per hex mod for a new game and it is working out great! I can still enjoy the new combat system and the ai getting in my way has been greatly diminished.

There is also a 5 unit per hex and I think a 10 but I thought the 2 units was the best choice since the 5 and 10 units mod would tempt me to use stacks.

 

[headcase]

Usually, I don't do this. The benefit has never outweighed the risk. Except this one time...

Once I declared on Russia simply because a unit was trapped in its borders (wasn't worth much, but I was bored). Amusingly enough, Greece attacked Russia, took the city to one hitpoint, and I took it with... I believe it was a Spearman.

The Greek units just shrugged their shoulders and left.

 

[shaglio]

Does anyone else declare war on the AI just to move a unit that is hogging up a hex?

I always try to give the AI a few turns to see if they will move a unit out of the way but sometimes they just sit there for no reason hogging up a hex so I say heck with it and "forcibly" remove them.

I understand that the AI will park a military unit on a hill in peacetime next to their borders and I don't mind that but sometimes AI units will hog up areas between borders and get in the way when I am at war with a 3rd party. This is especially frustrating.

Btw, I do get labeled a "war monger" pretty soon in my games,

While I've never done this, I have declared war to free a trapped Scout. I had my Scout exploring and I soon realized I was on a peninsula. When I backtracked to explore elsewhere (he didn't have embarkation yet), one of Alexander's cities had expanded its borders and trapped my Scout. I tried to make an Open Borders agreement, but he wanted too much in return. So to spite him, I declared war, evacuated my Scout, and wound up taking a few cities from him just for good measure. That'll teach him not to be such a jackweed!