Promise not to settle on ~The Planet~

[schondette]

Sigh. . .Was really hoping to be friends with him too

> Me: Settles Marseilles
> Persia: Promise not to settle near me!!
> Me: Sure thing! Settles Rheims. . .
> PROMISE BROKEN ERMERGERD DERP DERP DERP!! 10000 grievances !

 

[Red Menace]

shame on you for even building a settler

 

[AriochIV]

There's really no way around it. If you refuse to promise, you'll get grievances twice: once for refusing, and then again the next time you settle close.

Sometimes it seems like the "diplomacy" system is structured in such a way that every action inevitably leads to war.

 

[Infixo]

How did you settle Lyon? Did he ask you not to settle too close then?

 

[sonicmyst]

Its okay. Disregard those grievances and continue flipping them through great works of art.

 

[MaryKB]

You're only 10 spaces away ... that can affect so many things. My first guess would be that ten or less is too close.

 

[greenblade]

I couldn't find out how close is too close for this promise. Nor can I find out what "pull your units away from my empire" exactly means. It's sad to troll players like this.

 

[Stilgar08]

I couldn't find out how close is too close for this promise. Nor can I find out what "pull your units away from my empire" exactly means. It's sad to troll players like this.

Infos are poorly distributed and mechanics often not explained at all. I yet have to find a mod for a better civipedia in that regard, but it is FXS duty to provide players with these information. In that regard CiVI is a fail...

 

[Vandlys]

Sigh. . .Was really hoping to be friends with him too

> Me: Settles Marseilles
> Persia: Promise not to settle near me!!
> Me: Sure thing! Settles Rheims. . .
> PROMISE BROKEN ERMERGERD DERP DERP DERP!! 10000 grievances !

[...]

It's a ridiculous system that doesn't take in account the proximity of your cities, and even worse, the proximity of your capital! It should simply rule that if your capital is as close or closer than the opponent's, there is no complaint. Simple as that.

You're only 10 spaces away ... that can affect so many things. My first guess would be that ten or less is too close.

From a game system that could be an explanation, but as a design choice it's still sad. I mean you could also argue (in my opinion it would be a better argument too), that he is only settling four (!) tiles away from his own capital.

Firaxis, sometimes it baffles me you don't see these things in play testing, or you just don't care..

 

[Equilin]

It's a ridiculous system that doesn't take in account the proximity of your cities, and even worse, the proximity of your capital! It should simply rule that if your capital is as close or closer than the opponent's, there is no complaint. Simple as that.



From a game system that could be an explanation, but as a design choice it's still sad. I mean you could also argue (in my opinion it would be a better argument too), that he is only settling four (!) tiles away from his own capital.

Firaxis, sometimes it baffles me you don't see these things in play testing, or you just don't care..

I bet the devs are thinking: "Well you see, he's really close to you, you should know beforehand (as a human player) that war will inevitably broke out, so don't promise him anything!". So it is expected that civs start near each other will (try to) kill each other out as a rule.

 

[WillowBrook]

I really wish some of these mechanics were explained better. Also, a timer as to when you have to fulfill the promise.

I promised someone to move my troops yesterday, thought I had enough time to clear a nearby barb camp, but then got the red hand that I'd broken my promise. But maybe it wasn't the musket clearing the barb camp, perhaps it was the caravel on alert that I'd forgotten about that had come to be two tiles from his border due to his border expansion. Or maybe it was was two together; perhaps either alone would not have triggered the broken promise? Then there was the horse unit that had been exploring his lands, but I moved it out as soon as I made the promise, and it was far from the border when the broken promise triggered.

 

[Red_warning]

I deal with this problem by never ever making any promises.

 

[WillowBrook]

I deal with this problem by never ever making any promises.

The problem with that is now you're forced to declare war if you're not willing to promise to move your troops. I don't like that the ignore option was removed. Ignoring should have a penalty, but smaller than breaking a promise.

 

[Battlehelm043]

I deal with this problem by never ever making any promises.

Is that a promise?

 

[FenrisWolf456]

Annoying to be sure, but you're under 10 hexes away. That's enough to influence his city via religion and loyalty, the AI has a right to be concerned, as would a human player who understands Eleanor's abilities.

 

[Red_warning]

Is that a promise?

Absolutely maybe

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

You know, they won't have time to complain about you settling too closely if they are burying their dead.

Just a thought.

 

[schondette]

How did you settle Lyon? Did he ask you not to settle too close then?

Lyon was earlier. evidently that was ok. although he didnt have those border cities at the time

Annoying to be sure, but you're under 10 hexes away. That's enough to influence his city via religion and loyalty, the AI has a right to be concerned, as would a human player who understands Eleanor's abilities.

yeah thats the problem. If they want to make diplomacy better/matter then they should adjust the "close settling" index to match that of loyalty pressure or something. Tie the two systems together so it makes more sense. and so we dont have to keep defending stupid game behavior. The fact im playing Eleanor is moot.

You know, they won't have time to complain about you settling too closely if they are burying their dead.

Just a thought.

i just want to paint some pictures man.

 

[Finvola]

I started a game the other day (huge map) settled my city, popped out a scout and went off exploring. I met other civs, but didn't know where some of their capitals were yet. I founded my second city and Gilgamesh was like "Hey, your people are too close!!!" and I thought to myself "What? Close? I don't see him or any cities near me!" All I saw was that there were a couple CSs to the right of me and to the left of me was the coast.There was a small bit of territory under me I hadn't checked out yet. I sent my scout to investigate and it turned out that he was right underneath me and forward settled his second city right under my capital. It wasn't that my second city was too close to his at all. Then he squeezed his 3rd city next to my capital on the lefthand side, he was basically settling around me, and was very probably going to wage war on me soon. I decided to restart because I wasn't ready for that amount of drama so early on..

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Annoying to be sure, but you're under 10 hexes away. That's enough to influence his city via religion and loyalty, the AI has a right to be concerned, as would a human player who understands Eleanor's abilities.

The OP's scenario is not defensible. This is a broken interaction that showcases bad design in how "settling near" is calculated. Player is literally settling on the opposite side of his nation from the target in question. That 3rd parties consider this a grievance is a complete farce. If anything, Persia's getting "grievances" over this is offensive posturing and would be treated as overtly unreasonable between human players, might as well drop the pretense and just declare.

Capital proximity and/or loyalty pressure function would be a more functional model.