Hey Mr. AI, mind if I do something?

[WillJ]

One of the things in Civ3 that annoys me is that when moving ships around, if you have to pass through someone's territory, they get mad at you, thinking you might be planning something devious against them, when all you're doing is passing through.

AFAIK, there is as of right now no solution to this annoyance (besides signing a ROP, which IMO is way too major for this kinda situation, plus it's not available right from the get-go). What I'd like to see is during diplomacy, you can ask the civ to allow you to move some units into their territory that turn for a very small fee (possibly for free, if the AI is feeling charitable), agreeing to move the units out ASAP (assuming the computer can calculate just how many turns ASAP is; for example, it'd be different when the civ's boundaries are narrow than when they are wide, and it'd be able to realize that it's not your fault if units get in your way). If you don't move them out ASAP, or even worse if you declare war, it's bye-bye Mr. Reputation and Mr. Good van Attitude.

Thoughts? Also, making it so that ROPs' lengths can be negotiable (not always 20 turns), being able to have one-sided ROPs, and ROPs available right from the start of the game would take care of this even better. BTW, does anyone know why we can't have ROPs right from the start? It doesn't exactly take an ingenious scientist to figure out the concept of right-of-passages; kids on the playground can discover it. Edit: Well, I can sorta see how it needs writing to write the agreement down on paper, but you don't really need to write it down.

 

[dexters]

Good points all around.

I think the 20 turn deal is something that may be hardwired and making variants of this may screw up the way AI value trades.

I like the idea of asking the AI to grant you passage, but with all the crap and exploits aorund ROP, I don't know what sort of exploits may come out of this. And I think we all agree that if at all possible, Conquests should fix a lot of the old exploits and not create new ones.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by dexters
I think the 20 turn deal is something that may be hardwired and making variants of this may screw up the way AI value trades.

Well, I guess you can't ask for everything. But would that mean that my idea is pretty much impossible (even the seperate-from-ROP version), or just that ROPs couldn't be made so that they last different amounts of time?

Originally posted by dexters
I like the idea of asking the AI to grant you passage, but with all the crap and exploits aorund ROP, I don't know what sort of exploits may come out of this. And I think we all agree that if at all possible, Conquests should fix a lot of the old exploits and not create new ones.

I can't think of any exploitations of this. Well, I can think of one:

The AI asks you permission to move through your territory. The turn before they leave your territory out the other side, you make a blockade of units, making it impossible for them to leave. Their reputation is ruined, and if you manage to completely circle your territory, they're completely trapped.

HOWEVER, I realized right from the start that my idea hinges on the fact that the computer can calculate what "ASAP" means. It'd have to divide the number of squares between the entrance and the closest exit of the territory in question by the number of movement points of the slowest unit in question, and each turn units are still in the territory, it'd make sure the path to the exit is clear. If it isn't, it goes to the next nearest path, and so on. If all the exits have been closed, it closes the deal, and no one's reputation is harmed. If this is impossible, you're right, there'd be possible exploits (such as the one above). But if in fact it's possible, I'm pretty sure this idea is exploit-proof.

 

[dexters]

One thing I'd like to see with ROPs is that you can't use your units to block the AI and the AI can't use theirs to block yours.

ROP movement is often plagued by inefficiencies resulting from AI's parking a unit in a key road juncture and it forces your units to waste a turn or two to go around them. It's annoying.

The the whole wall trick human players like to pull to deny an ROP ally from settling a spot IS AN EXPLOIT.
And should be nullified by allowing AI units to move through their units.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by dexters
And should be nullified by allowing AI units to move through their units.

Oh yeah, I didn't think of that. That's a much simpler solution than my calculation idea, and it makes sense.

 

[Pembroke]

An idea: Limited ROPs.

1) "Free Seas" : Naval units, and naval units only, have the right of passage.

2) "Green Card" : Only units with zero attack value can enter, e.g. your scouts can continue exploring or you could build a road to connect a trade route. HOWEVER: building irrigation/mine or remaining on a resource tile for more than 1 turn (i.e. resource denial) will all be considered hostile acts and depending on the attitudes and your rep you will get a request to stop it, kicked out of the territory, or a declaration of war.

3) "Special Operation Request" : At most N units can be inside the counter-party's territory in any turn. N is either negotiable or fixed to some small number, e.g. 1-3.

 

[Martock]

I like that idea of "Free Seas" by Pembroke...that would remove this problem altogether. Alternatively, they could set it so the AI only gets pissed if the ships get parked there. If you are moving through and keep on moving, the AI shouldn't get pissed at you.

 

[dexters]

The problem is, I GET PISSED if the AI uses my seas to move.

Sometimes, they are moving to a spot to settle and I don't want them to go there.

Bottom line: free seas needs to be negotiable with specific parties, and not built into the game.

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by dexters
Bottom line: free seas needs to be negotiable with specific parties, and not built into the game.

Well, of course. It's an idea for a limited ROP, not a default game setting.

I like Pembroke's ideas.

 

[Speaker]

Why should ships be able to move freely? What's to stop a transport from waltzing right up to your coast and dropping a load of Tanks onto a hill?

 

[WillJ]

Originally posted by Speaker
Why should ships be able to move freely? What's to stop a transport from waltzing right up to your coast and dropping a load of Tanks onto a hill?

Not signing the deal.

 

[Pembroke]

Not signing the deal.

Exactly. ROP is always a trust thing. The problem with the current implementation is that we don't have anything between no ROP at all and the full ROP, hence the idea of having a variety of limited ROPs to choose from.

One other thing about territorial violations: when you give or get the ultimatum to "remove your troops or declare war" the current "instant teleportation" is something that ought to be fixed. Particularly annoying is the situation where the enemy settler+spearman are teleported *across* my lands to the exact unclaimed spot on the other side where they were trying to get anyway and plonk down a city there the following turn. Well, sometimes it works for me, too, but it's still something that ought not to happen...

Possible fixes:

- Units are teleported to the nearest square _owned_ by that civ. Not just unclaimed. This might lend to some abuses, but probably nothing significant. It would also be the easiest to make.
- Units "remember" the square they entered from and are moved there, or if occupied the nearest free square of that. This would be a good solution except there is the problem of what to do when borders have changed during the visit. Possibly there needs to be a concept of "direction of entering" or somesuch.
- The civ giving the ultimatum gets to pick a square outside but bordering their territory and the offending units are either teleported there or assigned a move command there (more realistic). This would be a good solution except it's probably a major work as the AI needs some logic to decide where it wants to escort the enemy troops. There's also the problem of what to do when there is no free area immediately outside the borders (i.e. the territory is an entire continent or the lands beyond the borders are claimed by 3rd civs.)

Any thoughts? I think this problem needs fixing, but it's not immediately obvious how it would be best done...

 

[Lee2003]

Make it like Civ2 when your diplomat got caught or military units got sent away, they went back to their nearest city which is always availbale