'Move your troops' - 'ignore this request' = promise to move

[Archon_Wing]

Gandhi forward settles a city against my capital to the west. Can almost shoot over. I settle east.... and then he says I settle too close. A while later he also claimed that having so many units near his borders scares him. Well, he was right about that at least.

It's okay though. They can't hate you if they're dead, right?

 

[jimkirk]

i would do an arrow up their hole .. only way to do it hit early and hit often ,, make em beg.. they wont bother you again

 

[LoneDragon]

I love when they settle right next to your capital and then tell you the next city you build is too close to them.

 

[Mahasona]

My SCOUTS have had the 'Move your troops' request when exploring a different continent.

I can't promise to move them away because I don't even know where the borders are yet!

 

[NukeAJS]

Would be even better if you could use one of your causus bellis if you have the option when you click attack.

 

[agonistes]

I love getting that request from an Allied Civ where we by definition have open borders....

Yea, its a pain. I move all my ships up to Norway to get the free promotions, at every upgrade, so I'm sailing hundreds of ships around England constantly. She doesn't like it much, even with Open Borders. What the heck am I paying her for, for open borders, if I can't actually move through/near her territory?

I really was both hoping for and expecting some major improvements to diplomacy this xpac, but so far it hasn't been mentioned much. If at all. There has got to be close to a hundred different scenarios that can occur where the diplomacy is very unsatisfactory.

 

[Victoria]

What the heck am I paying her for, for open borders, if I can't actually move through/near her territory?

Did one notice if said queen got uppity early in the relationship?
One asks as one noticed the other day one could happily tromp through the poppy fields until near when hands would be released. Perhaps it is more a warning than a fully blown anger fest.
Regardless it is on ones backburner but would be nice to know of correlations.

Personally I would never let you near my backwaters @agonistes

 

[TheMarshmallowBear]

I don't mind the promises. If Gandhi forward settles us and then complains I ma like "well screw you Nukdhi!"

The only problem I have is with the move your troops because it counts if you STATION then near their borders, not actually attack, so you can still break your promise even if you have no intention of warring with them.

 

[steveg700]

Yea, its a pain. I move all my ships up to Norway to get the free promotions, at every upgrade, so I'm sailing hundreds of ships around England constantly. She doesn't like it much, even with Open Borders. What the heck am I paying her for, for open borders, if I can't actually move through/near her territory?

But you can actually move through her territory, right? She just wants you to make a promise not to abuse the privilege and, y'know, invade her country.

Were you guys declared friends at the time?

I really was both hoping for and expecting some major improvements to diplomacy this xpac, but so far it hasn't been mentioned much. If at all. There has got to be close to a hundred different scenarios that can occur where the diplomacy is very unsatisfactory.

Well, I don't think we're ever going to see an AI that's good enough to understand when a player is moving a massive number of ships through their territory to exploit a wonder bonus rather than mount an attack. If you're just looking to avoid the penalty, then that should involve improving the overall relationship. If I were a declared friend or in an alliance, this would be a bigger problem for me.

Rather than try to have a bunch of scenarios where the AI is willing to allow my troops to amass near her borders, I would personally rather the AI have more going on than just one set of modifiers.

For instance, one set of modifiers for how much it desires a beneficial relationship with a given civ, and another for how much it deems that civ to be a target of opportunity, and another for how much trust it has based on that civ's actions. It could well be that they think a civ is worth having a friendly relationship with (for instance, they have access to desired resources), but they don't trust the civ because of actions like military build-up near their borders. So, they might trade resources, but might not grant and open borders request. And whether or not they decide to DOW could be influenced by weighting both that desirability and their trust.

 

[Disgustipated]

Or just conquer the English islands, problem solved.

On Earth maps I generally don't bother moving everyone up to that Natural wonder for the promotion unless I'm doing a full conquest game (taking every single city), then I'll move my fleet up there at least once. Though I do try to move carriers up there since that first promotion is very important.

 

[Ace Belder]

I stumbled upon this thread while searching for why my units are only healing 5 points in friendly territory. (Which I was sure was a bug)

But, this thread made me think that by my ignoring my friend Alexander's request to move my troops, that maybe another penalty is your units heal like in enemy territory.

Can anyone else confirm or deny this?

 

[Unikornus]

And yet they surround your capital with dozens of units, while you can't tell them to bugger off. Never understood why we can't discuss this with them while they can with us.

Eh they're a bunch of jerks. Like whenever I convert one of their cities to my religion, they get upset but it's ok for them to convert mine.

 

[JosephC]

I promised my troops were just passing by. Few turns later I liberated a city for them, the turn after they called me out cuz my troops were next to the city I just gave them...

 

[Archon_Wing]

It's especially stupid if you have a peace treaty or friendship, and thus can't declare war on them anyways.

 

[FractalAdvocate]

Yeah, promises are not nearly clear enough.

I'd like for there to be clear rules for what counts as too close -- no more than one troop on/in borders, or within two of their borders if not yours, maybe. Maybe that's a rough promise, but at least you'd know what you're giving up/how not to break it.

Also, a 'let me calm your worries by offering a declaration of friendship' option for troops near borders, which they can then reject or accept, would be great.

Also, in general, whenever your action is about to break a promise, you should get a 'sure you want to do that?' like for war.

(also religious conversion promised should only affect religious troops trying to convert rather than religious pressure, especially cause that's how loyalty works, but that's another topic)

 

[Pietato]

'Move your trrops!'
I move them.
She declares war on me.
I kill her troops, she sues for peace.
BROKEN PROMISE BECAUSE I FOUGHT HER INVADING TROOPS ON THE BORDER.

Nice work, firaxis.

 

[PeterChu]

So how about a "I'm protecting you from invasion" option, or something else along the tune of "I mean you no harm, but I ain't moving."

In a Civ 5 game, I once did a self-imposed 'world police' mission in the mid- or late- game: to liberate a city form its invader and make a dead civ come back again. After that, the first diplomatic message I got from this civ was just that: ''I see your troops on my border'. I had no choice but to retreat my troops. After a while, that civ was destroyed again by another civ.

With the R&F expansion and emergency system, that kind of 'world police' mission might appear to be game wise in Civ 6. At least I could get 2400 in cash. Free money, some might say. But I suspect the same pattern would still repeat itself. Such is the imperial international politics in the Civ franchise. Perhaps the alliance mechanic could somehow change this situation?

 

[wutface]

you'll get a 'you broke your promise'

choose option 3 and just erase them

dead civ's can't have negative modifiers or nag you with pointless diplomacy

 

[Victoria]

'Move your trrops!'
I move them.
She declares war on me.
I kill her troops, she sues for peace.
BROKEN PROMISE BECAUSE I FOUGHT HER INVADING TROOPS ON THE BORDER.

Nice work, firaxis.

It’s annoying we cannot use all the promises the AI uses, bent game

 

[historix69]

The complete mechanic with the promises needs an overhaul. It's annoying in every Civ game.

- When a promise like "Don't settle near me" or "Move troops from border" is made, there should be a new entry with details in a list of current promises in diplo screen.
(I have games with great wars where I need up to an hour per turn, so after a few days it is hard to remember when the promise was made.)
- The number of turns for the deals should be known. (I play on different Gamespeeds and use mods, so the deal duration varies and is not always clear.)
- The territory should be known. Is "near border" 2 or 3 or 4 tiles near the border?
- Is "settling close" counted from capital or the nearest city? Does the distance to the own capital count or not? (In some games settling in a distance closer to the own capital than to other opponents capitals is ok.)
- The game could add a new lense for an overlay with "promise" zones where not to settle nor station troops or add info to military units and settlers when in a "promise" zone.
- When AI declares war, all promises between both parties should become irrelevant and be removed and should not count as broken.

In my current game Shaka massed 20-30 horsemen near the border and told me to remove my handful of troops from the border. A few turns later he declared war.