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

[BrotherInJah]

'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.

This is hilarious..

Those two diplo actions: one where you settle and second where you have units in relation to other civ never worked even in designers mind.

Annoying is fact that i can't make AI move their troops or even one scout out of my way/city spot.. nooo he needs to stand there and i have no other choice but whack him and dozen other troops with him, and most likely nearby city too.. which i didn't intended to attack at all.

 

[wutface]

i have no other choice but whack him and dozen other troops with him, and most likely nearby city too..

now that's what i call "think in right direction"

if you can see AI then he is already to close and get's -9000 points with target for elimination on it's head

 

[agonistes]

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

Agree completely. And I've seen posts that say its no biggie, it makes sense for gameplay purposes that the AI has diplo options the player doesn't. Personally, I find it immersion breaking.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

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.

As you point out, the fix for this issue is undoubtedly rather simple from a coding perspective.

The problem is, it requires management oversight to implement, which is a continual weakness in Civ 6.

"Move your troops" works from the perspective of the coders who wrote it. What doesn't work is:

a) Providing useful information to the player (someone in playtesting should be pointing out that the details of the warning should be available to the player so they don't inadvertently violate and this should be built into the UI).

b) Integration with the rest of the game ("What should happen when there's a declaration of war?" "Hey, cancel outstanding 'move your troop' warnings!" "What should happen when you declare friendship?" "Hey, cancel outstanding 'move your troop' warnings!") To be fair, the code may already deal with some of these situations, but based on the comments above, I'm guessing there's not enough of this integration.

 

[Victoria]

I'm guessing there's not enough of this integration.

indeed, one goes to war with the evil alex who then complains you are close to his borders. its fairly uncommon and therefore likely some type of logic error. Logic errors are often hard to spot with so many interacting things. You really need Autistic people to test the game as they try all types of weird things.

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

You really need Autistic people to test the game as they try all types of weird things.

Perfectly logical things, often as not, just sometimes things others of us may be inclined to dismiss as possibilities without really turning our minds to it.

 

[Jaybe]

I don't understand you people!
You complain about AI forming inconsistent/"illogical" decisions based on your actions, yet YOU do it all the time to the AI. And you do it without having any means to communicate it to them (close borders or troops, forward settling, they are too strong or weak in some area, ...). The AI is forced to communicate 'most' of the basis of their opinions to you: you should be GRATEFUL you know what they are, otherwise you would be complaining how 'bland' the diplomacy is even more than you do now.

 

[Pietato]

I don't understand you people!
You complain about AI forming inconsistent/"illogical" decisions based on your actions, yet YOU do it all the time to the AI. And you do it without having any means to communicate it to them (close borders or troops, forward settling, they are too strong or weak in some area, ...). The AI is forced to communicate 'most' of the basis of their opinions to you: you should be GRATEFUL you know what they are, otherwise you would be complaining how 'bland' the diplomacy is even more than you do now.

You completely missed the point...

 

[Jaybe]

You completely missed the point...

Or you did.
Is your point that the AI should be transparent in what their opinion of you is, and that it should be truthful as to its cause? My point is that it does not, that the AI should have ‘excuses’ as illogical or irrational as they may be, to drive the dynamics of diplomacy. After all, that’s the way the player often does it, whether we think it is or not.

I’ll put it another way: diplomacy is often built on lies, perceptions (truthful or not) and hidden agendas. The AI should be able to operate the same way, for all the good it will probably do them. I invite you to enjoy the chaos, as the AI will surely ‘enjoy’ that which you will impose on them.

 

[Abaxial]

Often it is simply impossible to avoid moving some unit next to the border for the next 30 turns, because of the exigencies of geography. I think this feature should be removed, or only applied when (say) five units are adjacent to a civ's border.

 

[BrotherInJah]

...

you still don't get the topic, do you..?

 

[Archon_Wing]

There's nothing dynamic about a pile of dead AIs

 

[Ace Belder]

All the Armchair Programmers out there should just write the code to fix all the perceived AI problems, and the balancing issues those fixes cause.
Then send them in to Fireaxis, not for reward, but for the PEOPLE, for the community, and for the children. Don't forget the children.

The people's programmer! OOH-RAH!!

 

[local_hero]

This request and penalty wouldn't be half as irritating if the AI didn't get afraid so easily. I usually trigger this if I have two units exploring around the AI at the same time. Can be two weak units like scouts and a Caravel. Doesn't matter. 1< units and the alarm bell goes off. Idiotic. It would be better if it was a higher threshold.

 

[blackbutterfly]

How do they keep making the same mistakes every game? It's like 5, beyond earth and 6 were made by different people.

Beyond Earth was helmed by McDonough (?) & Miller. Not Ed Beach & Anton Strenger (?) for Civ V (G&K, BNW) and Civ VI.

Civ V vanilla was lead/designed by a young Jon Shaffer (now at Paradox), also a map builder (like me). Despite being panned by gamers the base game was quite a leap from Civ IV and IMO there were some very good/rational engineering choices made. E.g: keeping it simple. (Oh, I wish this so much for Civ VI RN)

Re OP

Is it impossible to satisfy the request to "Move your troops"? Has anyone figured it out? Please share your secret

 

[historix69]

Re OP

Is it impossible to satisfy the request to "Move your troops"? Has anyone figured it out? Please share your secret

It is not impossible, but sometimes there are situations (e.g. war with neighbouring civ) or geographical limitations (e.g. own coastal region too small to park fleet away from border) where you cannot fulfill it without giving up something, e.g. stop military advance and retreat instead of taking some cities of neighbouring civ or move naval units to a remote place where they cannot protect your cities.

 

[agonistes]

Beyond Earth was helmed by McDonough (?) & Miller. Not Ed Beach & Anton Strenger (?) for Civ V (G&K, BNW) and Civ VI.

Is it impossible to satisfy the request to "Move your troops"? Has anyone figured it out? Please share your secret

The request used to check for troops within 3 hexes of the ai territory, even if you were in your own territory. Which, of course, is complete and utter horse manure. Then they softened it to 2 hexes - which is still horse manure, but obviously better than 3. So, if you get 'move your troops,' make sure none of your units are within 2 hexes of the ai's territory. Your units stationed in cities don't count. I can't remember for sure, but I believe units in forts and units stationed in encampments no longer count either - but I'd test that.

Its funny how this has morphed into the version of Civ that I both love the most, and hate the most. Some of these decisions make me just

 

[Trav'ling Canuck]

Its funny how this has morphed into the version of Civ that I both love the most, and hate the most. Some of these decision make me just

LOL Me too!

 

[Victoria]

To me the real problem with this is we cannot do it to the AI, its a stupid annoying weapon we cannot use.
The fact that sometimes you get stuck in a situation you cannot get out of before the turn limit for broken promise just makes it worse.
Also you sort of forget with everything else going on.

To me its not as bad as Ceded cities but its certainly on the list way worse than joint wars. So easy to ruin a budding relationship accidentally.

 

[jwhitten]

Honestly, I feel you should get MORE negativity from them for ignoring. How would you feel if you sent a letter via pigeon hundreds of miles to your neighbor, only for it to never be opened?

Yes, but they will be thanking you for the nice roast pigeon...