1. We have added a Gift Upgrades feature that allows you to gift an account upgrade to another member, just in time for the holiday season. You can see the gift option when going to the Account Upgrades screen, or on any user profile screen.
    Dismiss Notice

Promise not to settle on ~The Planet~

Discussion in 'Civ6 - General Discussions' started by schondette, Mar 14, 2019.

  1. ShunNakamura

    ShunNakamura Warlord

    Joined:
    Jul 21, 2005
    Messages:
    235
    Yeah sometimes they don't ask for you not to settle near them when they really should. In an English game I forward settled the *bleep* out of Mansa and he didn't give a care in the world. Seriously. I basically dropped a settler on his capital and rush bought a bunch of land(effectively stealing resources from his capital) and not an eye blink. Actually he was downright friendly with me. It was weird. I kept expecting him to backstab me, but nope alliances and trading was all he was interested in. That said he did return the favor later by dropping a city nearly on top of me and sniping a silver resource I was was waiting the border to expand to(I was at war with Germany and didn't want to spend for a 3rd ring border expansion rather than troops). That said I had another source of silver, so not a big deal. I was just surprised because I think that is the first time I saw the AI drop a city and buy border expansions right off. Usually if they settle on top of me I have a bit of time to buy land up.

    Anyways we really need some kind of promise overlay that would tell us what areas the promise would affect and of course we should be able to see this before agree or disagreeing. And yeah for the troop one there really should be an option other than war if you don't want to move your troops. Though I hear that ESC can close out the window with no ill results. So I guess that is an option?
     
  2. FenrisWolf456

    FenrisWolf456 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2019
    Messages:
    65
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    So civs should get a free ride settling close just because they forward settled a city at first and then put down a couple of cities close in behind? It's unclaimed land, just because it's near your capital doesn't make it yours by default. But we all of course feel entitled to it due to proximity, and get mad at the AI when it moves in close and takes valuable land that would help bolster your own kingdom. Why does the AI not get a say?

    In the OP, Persia was already agitated by close settling. The OP settling Rheims, even if behind their row of established cities, is still taking valuable land that is close to Persia's borders, and close enough to influence it through loyalty and religion. And there is another Persian city that is undiscovered that seems to be a tile closer. Rheims is also not the 'opposite side of his nation', that would be north of Paris, not just south of west in the same general area as that which created the grievances in the first place.

    Not that I'm saying that Persia isn't being a jerk about things, from the OP's provided information, Lyon was established before Persia pushed up against the border. Likely the OP could have demanded a promise then to not settle close. But Ray and that undiscovered city are there now and fully part of the Persian Empire, so settling close should instigate a reaction from the AI. The issue is more what is considered 'close' for the AI won't align for the player. I too would have thought that wouldn't have likely irritated the AI as being too close, but I would have had second thoughts before settling it. For human players, we'd likely shrug it off seeing the line of French cities there already. But the AI likely doesn't consider that line of cities when analysing the placement of Rheims. And really I feel it shouldn't take that into account. The player should never be left feeling "Well, I cut off Persia and Mapuche from this area with my single line of cities, all that land to the northwest is mine now to settle at my leisure"

    Not sure what the AI takes into consideration, but if a human player, they would probably be feeling pretty penned in there with the French to the north, Mapuche to the east, and a city state blocking natural expansion to the west. Why wouldn't they consider all that land to the northwest of France as open game and not get irritated at France's continued expansion?
     
  3. Takfloyd

    Takfloyd Prince

    Joined:
    Apr 17, 2005
    Messages:
    405
    Location:
    Bergen
    This is the correct post. It's a broken interaction, like almost all interactions between humans and AI empires in the game.

    The most hilarious part is that those grievances will be gone in 3 turns anyway, since grievances decay at a ridiculously high rate.
     
    TheMeInTeam likes this.
  4. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,242
    Based on your own stated logic: why does the player not get a say?

    I already gave two examples that would be better systems than the present implementation. They would not favor the AI or the player. If we're going to have a "grievance" system at all wrt city placement, these would be upgrades on the nonsense that happens now.

    There is a player city between Rheims and Persia for any straight line you could possibly draw. No coherent model for "rightful territory" or "near us" would reasonably place Rheims as even kind-of Persian there.

    The issue is that the AI algorithm for "close" is not reasonable. This allows the AI (and only the AI, due to a bug you can't get grievances this way in PvP) to get "offensive grievances".

    Rheims is 5 hexes from the player's capital. Not only is this much closer to the player's capital than Persia's, it's closer to the player's capital than any Persian city by a significant margin. Any model that holds this is "too close" to Persia is not a functional model.

    The reason for that is because a good player declares war over it so they don't fall behind. If Persia declared war that'd be fine (in fact surprise wars are their thing). Fake grievances showing an obvious problem with a paid-DLC feature not so much.

    Because they'd be preparing for war as the only alternative to dying a slow death. They'd also know that even if they settled in the spot in question first, they'd lose the city to loyalty pressure...which makes claiming it's "their" land even more questionable.

    Rather than this phony nonsense a pinned in nation should just declare war. It's what Civ 6 mechanics dictate, even if the devs don't want to admit it.
     
    Banazir864 likes this.
  5. ShakaKhan

    ShakaKhan King

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2015
    Messages:
    831
    It seems they should have changed the mechanic when R&F came out - since then the settler lense, which is automatically selected when you select a settler mind you, shows the tiles that have loyalty pressure from AI civs. So the way it should work is if you settle a tile that has loyalty pressure from another civ, you risk being warned or suffer grievances. If the tile doesn't have loyalty pressure, then you're safe. Easy-peasy
     
    Noble Zarkon and Julia97 like this.
  6. FenrisWolf456

    FenrisWolf456 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2019
    Messages:
    65
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    Because ... the player did? The initial request made by Persia to not settle close. The player chose "Okay, I won't settle close". Persia felt that the city placement broke the promise, the player's say now was in settling there in the first place.

    Perhaps I am not getting your meaning, but I find the idea that "this unclaimed land is closer to my capital than yours, therefore is it mine" to be ludicrous (as a statement of fact, rather than a desire). It's not yours until you settle it, period. Loyalty is already a thing and already makes land closer to your borders easier to claim in the future, and harder for others to take without effort. That's all that's needed in my opinion, and in the end shouldn't suddenly quell another civ's desire for land, particularly land in the vicinity of the capital (in fact there is this mechanism in the game, you can generate negative favour for having settled in lands that the AI considers their own).

    I simply don't agree. France doesn't own any of that unclaimed land by virtue of being closer, or having cut off natural growth by stringing a line of cities along the west. A civ's only full claim to ownership is what is within the borders. The only function in the game that comes close is Loyalty pressure.

    And how is loyalty and religion not coherent models? That influence spans 10 hexes. Two of Persia's cities are within 10 hexes. How is there not any concern for this then, even if minor? Are you saying a human Persia player shouldn't be concerned, also knowing Eleanor's ability spans 10 hexes as well?


    I can't speak for multiplayer, so I don't know what the issue is. Is it that if you get an AI to promise not to settle and it breaks that promise, no grievances are generated? Or is it if a human does it, no grievances are generated (well, points-wise in the game at least)?

    Again, so what? If France wants to claim the land, they should settle it, rather than having branched out to the west as they had. Its clear that the area for Rheims wasn't considered relevant enough to claim until much later. If it's not settled, it's not theirs, especially just by the virtue of being 'close' to the capital. Again, the Loyalty system is there to give France that edge to settle close to it's capital and borders and discourage others from forward settling. But that in no way means that the land isn't and shouldn't be coveted by other civs.

    Persia isn't behind yet, they have at least 4 cities to now France's 5. It's quite possible as well that Persia isn't ready for war (even if they excel at surprise ones) and may be pursuing a peaceful path. Why go to war when there is all that unclaimed land to the northwest?

    But really that isn't the issue of the OP. The issue was the AI complaining that a promise was broken for a city that seems like it would be safely far enough away. As it is, the promise was seen as broken and thus generated grievances, which would then more likely drive the AI to an aggressive, possibly even warlike stance over it ... thus the whole 'should just declare war' could likely happen. You can't declare war just on the broken promise notification alone. The player gets alerts when the AI breaks a promise, and this is the game's way of telling you that you broke a promise with the AI. You could then of course go and actively declare war, but that's a separate action.

    I have no idea what your second sentence is saying. Breaking promises was a thing in the base game.

    So, either we have a mechanism to generate grievances to justify aggressiveness and wars, or we just have the AIs attacking for seemingly random reasons. I seem to remember quite a few early complaints about erratic AI behaviour in this regard.

    And no, war isn't the only option, there's still a lot of unclaimed land. Or are colonies not a thing any more? Plus we don't know from the information provided what is to the south of Persia.

    I was mostly equating the feeling of being penned in to being a human player. If the roles were reversed and the human was playing Persia, I'm sure they would be immensely aggravated with how France settled (and Mapuche too, for that matter). We as human players know it's harder to set up secondary colonies, and that it's better to have one contiguous empire than a bunch of small pocket kingdoms dotting the land.
     
  7. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,242
    Player was not informed of what constitutes "close" (Civ 6 UI in general is trash, but that's a bit tangential here). Player had no reason to anticipate some inane conclusion where a city that would be loyalty flipped in < 10 turns if anybody else settled there was "too close". So no, the player did not have a say.

    Quoted is incoherent in the context of your earlier argument. Either this is a valid grievance or it isn't. The argument quoted here suggests that the entire grievance system regarding city placement is "ludicrous". If that's your position, it is not rational to still argue that Rheims was "too close". It's one or the other.

    It's not coherent because it's not being applied in an internally consistent fashion. "Loyalty influence" only counts sometimes according to the argument you're making.

    Human can demand not to settle close, but if this is violated you don't get grievances. You just lose the points for making the demand and get nothing no matter what the opponent does (it's an objective bug in interactions between two player civs).

    They did settle it.

    That's why there are wars in Civ.

    Wanting to break out of a lost position is not random. It is consistent with what the game's mechanics reward. Settling Rheims generating grievances is the "random" implementation, to the extent that even the arguments I'm quoting above are self-inconsistent.
     
  8. UWHabs

    UWHabs Deity

    Joined:
    Oct 10, 2008
    Messages:
    4,038
    Location:
    Toronto
    If you want to have a new AI complaint, "you settled territory we want for ourselves", then it's fine for them to be upset at this settling. I won't like their complaint, since I don't think they have any more "right" to that terrain than I do, but hey, if they want to be upset at that, fine.

    Otherwise, the AI complaining about "you settled too close to us" should only trigger if you settle within X tiles of the AI and your closest border to them gets smaller (ie. if you used to be 5 tiles distant from them, and settling a new city brings your borders within 4 tiles of theirs, they could legit claim that you settled too close).
     
  9. azmundai

    azmundai Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 18, 2018
    Messages:
    28
    Gender:
    Male
    you can't expect a game to think beyond <10 TILES!??!?! WAR!!!!!!!
     
  10. FenrisWolf456

    FenrisWolf456 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2019
    Messages:
    65
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    I'll certainly agree that there is no information on what constitutes 'close' for settling purposes; similarly for what constitutes troops no longer on the border. It is very annoying and has tripped me up a few times.

    But I think our back and forth has gotten a little conflated, from the actually situation in the OP to generating grievances in general.

    France did have a say, they could have settled on the other side of the lake, or north or east. The issue is that it was uniformed say, because it does seem like another Civ shouldn't really have any concerns. But we can't blame the AI for a bad UI. All the AI sees is that the player made a promise. Then settles a city within the too close zone and so triggers the 'you broke your promise' grievance. Whether it's in the player's back field of what should be considered a natural expansion (one that is close by and influenced by the player's own loyalty) is beside the point. It's the distance of that city to those of Persia, of which seems to be at least 8 hexes.

    Not sure how it pertains to the grievance system. We may just be arguing at cross-purposes here.

    The argument in question here that I see you making is this: This land that is under my loyalty influence is mine, whether I have settled it or not. You thus have no right to desire or even consider settling here at any time now or in the future.

    This is what I do not agree with, and indeed by the game mechanics, I could have gone and settled a Persian city right where Rheims was placed. Thus the land was not France's. Of course it would be pretty foolish of me to do so because of loyalty issues, but that doesn't make the land inherently France's.

    The Grievance system is there to help make things more transparent for the player, by assigning visible values to actions the AI considers negative. And by having this system, it gives the AI impetus to like or dislike the other civs for their actions, likely in the hope that it would make the AI perhaps more aggressive or difficult to deal with. I think it's perhaps one of the best things to have come with GS.

    To be more clear, I think for this specific instance, the closeness is due to Rheims being within 10 hexes of Persian cities (which would be a concern for any civ due to Loyalty and Religion) only. But, Persia's capital is 11 hexes away, and like the promises, we don't know to what distance an AI has the consideration that unclaimed land is 'considered theirs' for the purposes of the negative friendliness modifier (my hazarded guess would be 10 hexes around the capital - in which case Rheims also claimed land to set this trigger off), or if that is even a factor in what the computer considers as 'close' for the purposes of the promise.

    How so? There are two arguments being made in regards to Loyalty.

    The first is the direct concern that a city within 10 hexes will exert loyalty pressure on a rival city. This is likely the main concern for the computer and what drives the use of the 'don't settle too close' promise. Religion also has this influence, but my feeling is that religion isn't a concern to the AI until a city actually flips. Eleanor's ability would also be a concern to a human player, but I doubt the AI is cognizant of what her special ability can do. I also tend to conflate discussion of mechanics and try to justify them in a 'if this happened in the real world' sense. The mechanic is simply that Rheims was built within what the computer AI has deemed to be too close. The AI is meant to simulate a player, so the 'real world' justification would be the factors I said; that Rheims is in range to exert Loyalty and Religious pressure, and that the city has claimed tiles that the AI considers there (much as you consider the area is France's due to proximity to Paris). Thus, Rheims is too close.

    The second use is the argument over whether unclaimed land under the effects of Loyalty should thus mean the land belongs to that civ. Here, Loyalty only counts for the ease/difficulty of settling the area, not in actual ownership of the tiles. But the AI doesn't care if you consider that land as your own, it's concern is whether the city is to close to its own cities, which apparently it was.

    That is bad then. The AI should have a way of determining who is more in the right between any two civs so that it can properly react.

    Right, but for the AI, there needs to be ways to trigger an aggressive response to it's position. Grievances are one method for that, in that they are something tangible that represents a civ's justification for aggressive actions. Breaking promises fits into that. There is also the relationship value, which is meant to replicate unjustified reactions, such as coveting nearby land that has been claimed by another civ. It wasn't your land to begin with, but you are still angered by the other civ swooping in and taking it before you could get to it.
     
  11. Battlehelm043

    Battlehelm043 Warlord

    Joined:
    Aug 28, 2012
    Messages:
    227
    Location:
    California
    "Magnus did nothing wrong."
     
  12. Equilin

    Equilin Prince

    Joined:
    May 8, 2017
    Messages:
    331
    Gender:
    Male
    Dunno how much this is gonna help, but i just find these (while looking for codes related to flooding the world)

    <Replace Name="DIPLOMACY_ADJACENT_EMPIRE_CITIES_REQUIRED" Value="2" />

    <Replace Name="DIPLOMACY_ADJACENT_EMPIRE_RANGE" Value="10" />

    So the distance an ai calls adjacent is 10 tiles, i don't quite understand the first one tho
     
  13. Victoria

    Victoria Regina Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2011
    Messages:
    10,451
    Bang on oh user with 1k avatars
    ... this used to be 9
    OP you can settle close to someone and do it to them also.... however my experience with GS is if you settle in their ‘allotted’ area they will likely DOW for even more grievances. The AI does not care about them why should you? Grievances are a joke unless you want to play ‘peaceful flip’ which apparently you are so it sounds just fair to me.
    Your idea of friends is a touched warped, and wanting to be friends with Persia is just like wanting to be friends with France.
     
    Last edited: Mar 21, 2019
    MaryKB likes this.
  14. FenrisWolf456

    FenrisWolf456 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2019
    Messages:
    65
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    My guess on the first value is how many cities you have to have before the AI will start calling you out for being too close (i.e., they won't call you out for settling your capital too close). Though the settling of Lyon should have triggered the complaint, so there are other factors still involved, perhaps how well the civ likes you.
     
  15. Banazir864

    Banazir864 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Dec 3, 2016
    Messages:
    78
    Gender:
    Male
    You can try to rationalize the AI's decision all you want, the fact is, if this does not comport with the basic understanding of "don't settle near me", as can easily be seen if you imagine the AI was another player:

    Imagine an all-human multiplayer game with this same setup. After the French player settles Marseilles, the Persian player asks him in public chat "Please stop settling near me," and the French player agreed. Then when the French player settled Rheims, the Persian player accused him of breaking his promise. Would any human player who could see the cities in question actually agree with the Persian player on this? If not (and I don't think you can rationally contend that anyone would), then they AI is defining the promise in a way no reasonable human would.

    But then, we already knew that the AI's triggers for taking offense resembled those of a hallucinating 3-year-old (see, e.g., the "troops near borders" nonsense, the complaints about not satisfying impossible agendas, etc.).
     
    TheMeInTeam likes this.
  16. MaryKB

    MaryKB Deity Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 18, 2018
    Messages:
    2,706
    Gender:
    Female
    Location:
    United States
    Well, if I'm playing Eleanor, you wouldn't want me settling more cities within 10 tiles of yours ...
     
  17. FenrisWolf456

    FenrisWolf456 Chieftain

    Joined:
    Feb 19, 2019
    Messages:
    65
    Gender:
    Male
    Location:
    Vancouver, Canada
    But it does. France has been settling in the area just north of Persia. Finally, Persia gets annoyed (whether rightly or not, but I don't think it's something a human wouldn't do. A human seeing France's cities going down, starting to grab land that is near Persia's capital, would likely start putting cities out that way too, just as AI Persia has). Persia issues the 'don't settle close' demand, to which the player agrees.

    And then the player doubles-down and settles a city in relatively the same contentious area. Sure, it's close to Paris. Sure, it's in behind a line of French cities. But it is still expanding towards Persia, taking up land that it likely initially considered 'theirs' at the start.

    Likely it would be a worse reaction, as MaryKB says. Eleanor leads France, a player would know just what she can do. And here is France putting another city down in range to start influencing two Persian cities. It certainly wouldn't be so cut and dry as you make out. Likely the other players would jokingly taunt Persia with "sucks to be you, bro, good luck!"

    But then, lets just consider if it was say Catherine instead, or another civ instead of France. Then you would have more of a case. But I still feel the Persian player would have a case too, if a weak one. I would agree with Persia that yeah, France did sort of settle close. But then it would also be "well, you snoozed and lost, Persia, you expanded too late".

    In the end though, the AI can mimic reality only so much. Parameters need to be set that will trigger AI reactions to things. You could add in considerations for closeness to the settling civ's cities and capital, or loyalty influence, or a more fine tuned appraisal of the worth of the settled tiles, and so on and so forth, but to what real gain? I don't see it being good for the game for loyalty-influenced tiles to be removed from the AI's considerations for settling, which ultimately this is what the 'settling too close' demand is about. Persia wants to settle the lands that France is starting to take. Much like a human player would likely be irked at France's continued line of cities expanding west, cutting Persia off from easily settling to the north.

    It's been stated that Persia should be going to war, but for that to happen the AI needs to build up enough forces and/or enough grievances, so really this is helping do just that.
     
  18. TheMeInTeam

    TheMeInTeam Top Logic

    Joined:
    Jan 26, 2008
    Messages:
    25,242
    I've played civ many years, and so have a lot of other posters here. The case you're making isn't plausible. A human player might attack you for boxing them out of land in the first place, but settling behind border cities I've never seen someone complain about one time in over ten years. Perhaps others could come up with evidence to substantiate otherwise, but I doubt it.
     
    Chinese American likes this.
  19. TheMarshmallowBear

    TheMarshmallowBear Benelovent Chieftain of the BearKingdom

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2006
    Messages:
    7,273
    Location:
    Inside an Ikanda.
    If you settle within 10 tiles of a city you trigger the Border Cities effects. Rheims or whichever is 9 tiles away from Ray.
     
  20. schondette

    schondette Chieftain

    Joined:
    Jun 10, 2018
    Messages:
    41
    Gender:
    Male
    This is nonsense. I didnt "double down" by expanding FURTHER away form him and I have never heard of this 10 tile rule until after this thread. If anything it highlights the shortcomings of this archaic rule as it doesn't consider reasonable context as my scenario presents. Your last three paragraphs are non-sequitur. Having said this, and in complete defense of this so called "double down" its perfectly logical that settling cities behind border cities wouldn't constitute a prompt from neighbor civs and yet here we are. After all why would the other settlements be okay but not this one? How is one supposed to participate in the rules of the game when it doesnt make clear what they are? Why cant people just admit that some things about this game are silly instead of arrogantly defending them?

    Thanks. I take some catharsis knowing that I have something tangible to consider for next time when I want to try to be diplomatic although i maintain this 10 tile rule is lazy and short-sighted
     
    TheMeInTeam likes this.

Share This Page