Peace Treaties More Dangeroux Than War: Losing My Army Via Cultural Entrapment

[Volver]

First I just want to say VEM is the best. No way I could return to playing Civ V without it. I liken that to growing accustomed to a Benz, then falling on hard times and trading it in for a used Civic (sorry Honda owners <3).

Anyway, one fairly minor issue I'm not so keen on is making peace with someone without open borders, then finding my transplanted units stuck in cultural no-man's-land.

Attached is a screenshot of my poor swordsman just a little bit ago. I swear Genghis' city was not there 5 turns before. This one is definitely the best example; it's SO ridiculous I couldn't help but chuckle.

Seriously though, it seems like this to me happens at least once every game. I make peace with the neighborhood d-bag, can't get open borders, and end up paying with a unit or three. To be fair, I need to learn to be more cognizant of where my dudes are before I call them off. It can't have happened in non-VEM Civ V though because it catches me by surprise every time.

I don't get annoyed by legitimate mechanics even when I struggle with them, but this is just dumb to me. I liken it to the AI scout stalking your barb camp so he can sneak in and jack your gold; or the one pitiful allied warrior accompanying your army so he can capture the city w/ one attack after you did ALL the work. I get it, I guess, but I don't like it at all. It almost feels like an exploit. Can't someone teach the AI a small dose of pride???

After writing all that I'm really not sure what I'm looking for here; I just wish it wouldn't happen. I'm POSITIVE I'm not the first person to have brought this up. Is there some trick I'm unaware of?

 

[mitsho]

So, basically, making the AI more open for open borders would solve the problem, right? And yes, I know the problem and yes, it's especially annoying with the late Open Borders of G&K's.

I'd add that this problem is much more annoying (it's one unit here) in coastal areas, i.e. when your trireme cannot continue to explore as the cultural border reaches out that far.

 

[Ahriman]

I'd add that this problem is much more annoying (it's one unit here) in coastal areas, i.e. when your trireme cannot continue to explore as the cultural border reaches out that far.

Sounds like a feature, not a bug. If I control the coast and I am not your friend, you shouldn't be able to explore past me without ocean going vessels.

 

[mitsho]

military armadas, yes. But lonely exploration ships? Regardless of the realism aspect, I think it's bad gameplay. It lowers the worth of naval exploration units and naval units in general vis-a-vis land-based units, since it's highly guaranteed that they get stuck. Coupled with the other negative points, it really doesn't make much sense to explore with ships. I think, gameplay-balance wise that this aspect could be made better.

But it's not really the main point of the opening post, which is the units beaming into non-desirable spots after peace treaties. Maybe one can introduce a trigger which makes them reappear at your capital (or nearest city)? Does make sense in that the units return home and not to the nearest spot outside the borders.

btw. this is even more annoying when an open borders treaty runs out that you want to renew, can happen to you travers a civ to reach a target and can happen when an ally traverses your land to help you defend and then gets beamed back, making his units take longer to reach you to help out...

 

[Ahriman]

But lonely exploration ships? Regardless of the realism aspect, I think it's bad gameplay. It lowers the worth of naval exploration unit

Yes, I think it is good for gameplay, it increases the value of open borders and the techs that encourage it, it encourages putting cities in strategic chokepoints that control the coastline, and it discourages just selling OB for gold in the early game rather than mutual OB.

Maybe one can introduce a trigger which makes them reappear at your capital (or nearest city)?

Yes, this would be great. Or have peace treaties enforce a 10 turn open borders treaty (I thought that used to happen? Or maybe only when the other guy is surrendering to me with lots of tribute, OB gets thrown in.)

 

[Thalassicus]

Welcome to the forums Volver!

I agree it's a little frustrating when units get trapped, especially since settlers can move in and found a city without us knowing the settler exists. There's nothing we can do about this in the early game now that OB were moved much later. Automatic OB from peace treaties might also feel a little odd, since it would let hostile enemies move through one another's territory while waiting for another war to start. I'm not sure what a good solution is.

One thing that might help is I could move open borders back to an earlier location in the tech tree. Maybe have embassies on Writing and open borders on Trade? This would still delay open borders (compared to vem) but at least give us the possibility of getting one.

 

[mitsho]

A new option (Right of Passage) that was one way and only last 5 turns would probably solve a lot of the issues. Make that one available (AI agree to it) all the time, but the cost dependent on how much he/she likes you. 5 turns are enough to get out of being stuck, maybe it's even a bit too long.

But I guess, we can't code new diplomacy options...

(how does the embassy one btw. functions? Cause I could see a "Trade Maps" options that only includes the line of sight of the cities much the same way embassies show you the tiles of the capital)

 

[Ahriman]

since it would let hostile enemies move through one another's territory while waiting for another war to start

If the enforced OB is only a few turns, as compared to a 10 turn enforced peace treaty, I don't really see the problem.

One thing that might help is I could move open borders back to an earlier location in the tech tree

I think that cure would be worse than the disease. Being able to sell OB for 50 gold to other civs in the early game is a big balance issue.

 

[Thalassicus]

50 gold is only ~3 turns of income with the basic 15 gold per turn, so I don't think it's a balance concern anymore.

 

[Dunkah]

I was thinking the same (Right of Passage), idea when I read mitsho's post. Only for 3 turns and only to open terrain, so you couldn't use that time to explore any new terrain. If possible.

Off Topic: Would love to see the idea of selling maps brought back again as well.

 

[Ahriman]

with the basic 15 gold per turn

I've asked this before. Why are you doing this, and similarly for culture?

This seems like a really really bad idea. It completely devalues the marginal impact of every decision you make in the early game. What does it matter if I build a monument or not if I'm getting +12 culture per turn anyway? Why does it matter if I work a gold producing tile rather than a production or food tile if the overall impact is negligible?

This seems like a gargantuan change with no obvious rationale.

50 gold *should* be a lot on the early game. A handful of those and I can buy myself a granary, which could double or more my excess food/city growth rate.

 

[wobuffet]

This seems like a really really bad idea. It completely devalues the marginal impact of every decision you make in the early game.

VEM adopted these changes a while ago; to see Thal's reasoning and subsequent discussion, see http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=457527
The main idea, I think, is to bring Capital-centric strategies into balance. When the Palace gives large amounts of free yields, it's a no-brainer to stack World Wonders, National Wonders, Great Person Tile Improvements, and such in the capital. This decreases the number of available opportunities for interesting decision-making.

It also, in my experience, made non-warmonger, 10+ city AI civs more viable. The net gold accruing to smaller civs is enhanced (see below), which was particularly important to do in light of Thal's AI gold purchasing system (see http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=455722 ).

In response to your concerns, Production isn't changed all that much. Culture (and Science, I believe) were rescaled to be more granular, so the free per-empire bonuses aren't that large.

Each player receives some base level of Gold per turn, but each City produces 1 less, and VEM also balanced (presumably in your absence, Ahriman) various other sources of Gold. This reduces the benefits to owning lots of small useless puppets that just churn out gold for you, which I think is a good thing &#8211; I'd prefer owning such cities to confer either a moderate Science or Gold edge, but not both.

 

[Ahriman]

I have no particular objection to shifting palace bonuses to player bonuses. My objection came from increasing the aggregate level of these bonuses. Why +15 gold per turn? Isn't that much higher than vanilla, GEM, or G&K? That feels like too much. That is a lot of gold in the early game.

3 culture per turn isn't so bad; when I saw a post before it said +13 culture per turn, maybe that was a typo, or maybe I misread.

This reduces the benefits to owning lots of small useless puppets that just churn out gold for you

Aren't lots of small cities balanced by unhappiness per city, and puppets balanced by the science and production an culture penalties?

Removing gold per cities feels a bit weird, particularly since my understanding was that VEM also changed the trade route formula to penalize small cities, but 1 gold per city isn't that big a deal.

 

[Seek]

VEM adopted these changes a while ago; to see Thal's reasoning and subsequent discussion, see http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=457527

Um no offense, wobuffet, but the real discussion (about 5 pages worth, and somewhat heated) took place in this thread. For the record, Ahriman, Txurce and I agree with you.

 

[Ahriman]

Thanks. You guys make a lot of good points in that thread.

I really don't like having a much faster early game. I like an early game where initially we're focused on barbs and exploration and scouting for a potential rush, and where you have to think very carefully about the tradeoffs between units and buildings and which tiles to work.

I strongly, strongly agree that a high base gold yield devalues working gold tiles.

I don't think balancing every start position is necessary; I think it is ok for some start positions to be better than others. That is part of the dynamic that leads some AIs to outperform others, which leads to some AIs becoming serious threats to the human while others are crushed beneath the boot of history.

An even if starts are roughly balanced, they don't need to be balanced on gold. If one civ has much less gold, chances are it will have more of something else. Boost coastal starts back to the strength they had, sure, but isn't every start position nearly always river start or coastal start?

I can live with cheaper early game structures, though I don't see a strong need for it - the granary with wheat can give +3 or +4 food (with 2 wheat tiles), which is really really strong. My feeling on the watermill is that it should be 2 food 1 production 1 gold maintenance, or 1 food 1 production 1 gold maintenance with an engineer slot, or 2 food 1 production 2 gold maintenance with an engineer slot. Otherwise it is much weaker than the granary because of how the granary boosts other tiles. It could be 1 food 2 production 1 gold maintenance I guess.

" when something is given equally to all players, it does not make the game easier or harder."
This is just so not true. Lots of gold in the early game favors the human player, because the human spends that gold much more wisely/efficiently than the AI, and big efficiency advantages in the first couple of dozen turns will snowball like crazy.

I don't really see a need for even stronger yields from strategic resources/luxuries/bonuses, because so many of them either have crucial military role, crucial expansion role, and/or bonuses associated with other early game buildings.

Basically, I don't find a slow early game to be a problem, so I don't see what problem is being solved by boosting the gold income. If you want gold to be slightly more valuable in the early game (which is fair, it takes a while to build up enough gold to buy much) then reduce the gold purchase cost multiplier on a few early units (warriors, scouts).

Mines at +1 production that shift to +2 production at ~iron working or so might be worth considering. This would help boost the value of that tech for civs that don't have iron nearby.

 

[Zaldron]

I have no particular objection to shifting palace bonuses to player bonuses. My objection came from increasing the aggregate level of these bonuses. Why +15 gold per turn? Isn't that much higher than vanilla, GEM, or G&K? That feels like too much. That is a lot of gold in the early game.

3 culture per turn isn't so bad; when I saw a post before it said +13 culture per turn, maybe that was a typo, or maybe I misread.


Aren't lots of small cities balanced by unhappiness per city, and puppets balanced by the science and production an culture penalties?

Removing gold per cities feels a bit weird, particularly since my understanding was that VEM also changed the trade route formula to penalize small cities, but 1 gold per city isn't that big a deal.

You didn't misread: It said 13 culture/turn. Are you saying it's not 13/turn now?

I actually agree about removing the gold/city as well.

 

[Zaldron]

" when something is given equally to all players, it does not make the game easier or harder."
This is just so not true. Lots of gold in the early game favors the human player, because the human spends that gold much more wisely/efficiently than the AI, and big efficiency advantages in the first couple of dozen turns will snowball like crazy.

Basically, I don't find a slow early game to be a problem, so I don't see what problem is being solved by boosting the gold income. If you want gold to be slightly more valuable in the early game (which is fair, it takes a while to build up enough gold to buy much) then reduce the gold purchase cost multiplier on a few early units (warriors, scouts).

Mines at +1 production that shift to +2 production at ~iron working or so might be worth considering. This would help boost the value of that tech for civs that don't have iron nearby.

I'm not sure if you were involved/tried some of the final versions of VEM, but the AI gold spending algorithm in those versions was actually really good in my mind. I don't think that it does favor the human that significantly.

I'm neutral on the pace of the early game so I went with the flow in VEM. I do agree that in the early game in vanilla and G&K no one buys *anything* with gold except work boats and workers.

I believe that +1 mine production at iron working would turn iron working into a mandatory beeline tech rather than the choice that it is right now.

 

[Ahriman]

I'm not sure if you were involved/tried some of the final versions of VEM

I missed the final few months of VEM.

It said 13 culture/turn. Are you saying it's not 13/turn now?

The version I have installed atm doesn't incorporate this, so I'm not sure what the intention is. If it's 13 culture per turn, that seems game-breaking. The link here http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=457527 talked about 3 culture per turn.

If it's really 13 culture per turn per civ from turn 1:
Monuments in the early game are near useless. So are all the various culture policies that provide a small culture increase. So are early ampitheaters. So is the Honor policy that gives culture from killing units. And France's UA just will be nerfed into oblivion.

I really, really don't understand why we would possibly want so much culture to come just by default. Not everyone should be getting lots of policies; policies should come from investing in culture infrastructure and specialists.

I believe that +1 mine production at iron working would turn iron working into a mandatory beeline tech rather than the choice that it is right now.

Right now I find, except for a coastal start, that Civil Service for +1 food from river farms is a very dominant, and I find that iron working is easily ignored. Some of that will change by rebalancing units (ie boosting swordsmen relative to others) though.

 

[Zaldron]

I really, really don't understand why we would possibly want so much culture to come just by default. Not everyone should be getting lots of policies; policies should come from investing in culture infrastructure and specialists.


Right now I find, except for a coastal start, that Civil Service for +1 food from river farms is a very dominant, and I find that iron working is easily ignored. Some of that will change by rebalancing units (ie boosting swordsmen relative to others) though.

I second your comments regarding culture and hope that 3-5 is the correct number.

I don't have a philosophical problem is iron working is a really strong tech for warmongers or someone who needs to defend and weaker for other playstyles.

 

[mystikx21]

I believe that +1 mine production at iron working would turn iron working into a mandatory beeline tech rather than the choice that it is right now.

Pretty sure that's in VEM/GEM already.