Right of Passage agreements

[hoopmatch]

I've noticed that when my ship enters another civs territory the other ruler inevitably complains. I'm given a choice of asking for a Right of Passage agreement, promising to move back out of his territory, or going to war.

If I can't get a Right of Passage agreement, I agree to remove myself from the other dude's waters. But I go against my word and stay in the waters, and he complains no more.

Are there any consequences to this that I'm unaware of? Does the other civ take revenge later?

 

[Elephantium]

There are two levels of the other civ complaining. The first is what you're describing: They complain, and you reassure them with (possibly empty) promises. The second level, they demand that you either remove your forces or declare war.

Most of the time, you'll get the complaint on the first turn and a leave-or-declare on the second, but I've seen an immediate leave-or-declare as well as multiple turns of the "soft" complaint. I'm not 100% sure what dictates which you get. I think one factor is whether you're next to one of their cities.

 

[Raliuven]

The message depends on the unit or what the boat is carrying. If it has offensive capabilities (i.e, it can capture cities, capture workers, etc.) you can (can, not will) immediatley trigger a leave or declare message.

You will receive a 'soft' message if the unit is basically harmless. For example, if you have a worker, settler, scout, catapult or empty transport ship in their borders. As these units can't capture a city, they are viewed as trespassers, but not dangerous. If you put a warrior on that transport, then it is viewed as an offensive unit and you can get the boot or declare message.

 

[Elephantium]

Except I've also gotten the "soft" message when I've had land units in their culture borders. As I said earlier, I think how close you are to one of their cities is a factor, but I haven't done any careful surveys of AI responses to territory violations

 

[creamcheese]

I think the formula may be fairly complex, I know sometimes I think I know which message I will get, and then I get the other one. Usually the more military units you move in the more likely it is that you get the boot on the first turn, and they never boot you if you only move workers.

 

[Raliuven]

Except I've also gotten the "soft" message when I've had land units in their culture borders. As I said earlier, I think how close you are to one of their cities is a factor, but I haven't done any careful surveys of AI responses to territory violations

Guess I never thought of it that way - distance of units to cities. I always thought it was a mix of what type of unit is tresspassing (harmless or dangerous) and that Civ's current attitude towards you. Of course, you could have a friendly ally in a military alliance with no ROP that boots you every time to put a toe over the line.

What bugs me is that the AI never seem to boot each other. Very frustrating because if there is a neutral civ between you and your enemy, the 'neutral' AI will allow the enemy AI to freely cross/use their terriroty but you get the boot immediately.

I've never see the AI not demand the removal of an offensive (dangerous) unit each turn it is present. The first may be a soft demand, but the second is always a leave or declare in my experience. I've never seen two soft demands in a row. If the unit is harmless, you receive a soft demand and then nothing more.

However, if you have a harmless unit in AI terriroty and you move a dangerous unit in later, a 'hard' demand will boot all units, harmless or otherwise.

 

[CKS]

However, if you have a harmless unit in AI terriroty and you move a dangerous unit in later, a 'hard' demand will boot all units, harmless or otherwise.

This can be a handy way to speed the travel of settlers or workers across the AI's land. Walk them across just more than half-way and then have a military unit step across the border. The settlers and workers get booted to the other side. Usually the boot order comes right after the military unit steps across, since I've already been warned (in regards to the settlers).

 

[Yoda Power]

You also get a reputation hit.

 

[NickyJ]

I always thought that it was: "You're troops are in my territory. Sign an RoP agreement, or please leave." They give you one turn of no complaining for you to leave quietly. If your troops start to move away but are still in their territory, they give you a moderator's warning. If you move further into their territory or stay in the same place, they'll give you an infraction. (i.e. Get off my land, you squatter!)

 

[CommandoBob]

In the mod CCM, there are units that can attack anyone and not start a war. I find these are a great way to deal with the trespassing AI, especially the wandering settler pairs. However, this isn't a problem until after settlers can be built by hand, which is deep into the game. Until then, settlers are autoproduced and quite few.

The double standard regarding tresspassing (AI can and human can not) is one of my pet peeves with the C3C.

 

[Ataxerxes]

If I remember an old article correctly, you get a diplo hit for your units being in their territory but it goes away as soon as you move out. You might have a slightly higher chance of a DOW for your units being in there.

Also, the "move or declare" option takes place immediately if you agree to move. Your units are ejected, sometimes to odd places. It'll be on his borders, but it's kinda random where.

I remember my naval units getting that first-level warning and then being ignored. There have been complaints that you can't give some naval units the boot order if you want to complain.

I don't advocate rights of passage, but that's another story.

 

[Abegweit]

You also get a reputation hit.

No you don't. You get an attitude hit - and it's only temporary at that. It goes away when you leave.

 

[Raliuven]

No you don't. You get an attitude hit - and it's only temporary at that. It goes away when you leave.

Not to argue, but I thought it was a round-by-round attitude hit? Somewhat the same as rejecting a trade deal. So you take a hit the round it happens - which may lead to war - but then the next round is a clean slate. I'm just surprised because this is the first time I've seen it suggested that the hit lasts until you leave.

 

[Abegweit]

Not to argue, but I thought it was a round-by-round attitude hit? Somewhat the same as rejecting a trade deal. So you take a hit the round it happens - which may lead to war - but then the next round is a clean slate. I'm just surprised because this is the first time I've seen it suggested that the hit lasts until you leave.

As I recall, and it's been a long time since I looked at this, the attitude hit worsens the longer you stay in their territory. However it is cancelled as soon as you leave.

IOW, we are both right.

My main point, though, was that it is not a rep hit. That's serious. Attitude is minor.

BTW, I have never heard that you get an attitude hit from rejecting a trade deal. Are you sure of this?

 

[Raliuven]

I don't think I would say sure, but I think I read somewhere you take a -1 to attitude for border disputes and if you either refuse to talk to the AI opponent or flat refuse the deal. That is why I always select to negoation a trade deal before canceling the talks - it avoids the attitude hit. I'd have to search the forum, but I think it was in an attitude article written by Bamspeedy or someone similiar.

Edit - I stand corrected. Here is the link to Bamspeedy's article: http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3/strategy/ai_attitude.php

I didn't read this section as closely as I thought:

+1 If they ask you to leave their territory, +4 if you are given the orders to leave or declare war. These are only temporary, and as long as you leave when forced to, you get the points back the next turn. You can continually send 1 troop in, spend 1 turn there and claim you will leave, leave when you are forced to, but go back into their territory the next turn, and the AI attitude will not drop in the long run, just keep cycling between +/- 5 pts.

Noting that (+) is bad, (-) is good.

I can't find anything to back up my thoughts on rejected trade deals. Maybe I made it up. I'll keep looking.

 

[bigFRANK]

I would go with the failed trade attitude hit, couple of times I have outright rejected deals that have been placed before me such as - I give you one luxury you give me five plus a couple of technologies. The attitude of the rejected civ seems to take a turn for the worse certainly for the remainder of the turn. If faced with these now I normally trade one gold for one gold, everyone stays happy and the silly request goes away.

 

[Smellincoffee]

AI civs can harrumph all they want about you sending ships through their waters, but they'll only get evicted (in my experience) if you also have land units and the AI sends you a "leave or declare war" message. If you should decide to declare war against an AI, or you're in a MPP that might result in you auto-declaring war, you should take care to remove those ships first. I once ruined a valuable staging ground in Korea because they decided to attack a partner of mine while I was sending transport ships to another country through Korea's water.

 

[Pacioli]

This can be a handy way to speed the travel of settlers or workers across the AI's land. Walk them across just more than half-way and then have a military unit step across the border. The settlers and workers get booted to the other side. Usually the boot order comes right after the military unit steps across, since I've already been warned (in regards to the settlers).

Indeed. This trick can be useful for exploring the world also.

 

[Lanzelot]

In SGOTM14 I used this trick to "transport" Armies over to another continent: we had only carracks (transport 3), but had to fill our Armies to size 4 in order not to loose them. (Was a tough Demigod game...) After one continent was conquered, they were stuck there. So in order to teleport the Armies over to the next continent, I first build some towns on the old continent to make sure that all tiles around the Armies were "covered" and the next "free tile" would be across the ocean on the other continent. Then I gifted all those towns to an AI from which we had gotten many boot orders in the past... And indeed, the next turn we got the boot and the Armies were kicked to the closest free tile, which happened to be on the other continent...

Used some "normal" units later to recapture the gifted towns on the old continent.

 

[Raliuven]

In SGOTM14 I used this trick to "transport" Armies over to another continent: we had only carracks (transport 3), but had to fill our Armies to size 4 in order not to loose them. (Was a tough Demigod game...) After one continent was conquered, they were stuck there. So in order to teleport the Armies over to the next continent, I first build some towns on the old continent to make sure that all tiles around the Armies were "covered" and the next "free tile" would be across the ocean on the other continent. Then I gifted all those towns to an AI from which we had gotten many boot orders in the past... And indeed, the next turn we got the boot and the Armies were kicked to the closest free tile, which happened to be on the other continent...

Used some "normal" units later to recapture the gifted towns on the old continent.

That is extremely tricky! I love it!