The "don't settle near me" promise is broken: a practical example

[Victoria]

The fun aspect of AI leaders having fixed "personalities" is that you can learn them and plan strategies around them.

And your fine video does exactly this, exposes monty for the black and white approach he has to the game. Take John or Teddy's hypocrisy in the game, Cleo's godly attitude, Victorias colonial racism. I have played so much the leaders do have personality... it is not super fixed because they do have to fit into the situation they are in and I like that... that they do not have double crosser on a post it note stuck to their forehead is good, but they do have personality that is sadly mostly ignored by people as quite rightly a lot of it is political.

So settling on another "continent" is okay, even if its closer?

It does not even have to be a different continent. I tested it on the same continent, just different islands.I tested it setting 3 tiles apart because you can be 1 closer over water.

 

[oSiyeza]

@Falkman Real-life contemporary geo-political conflicts have no relation to the CIV games. None of these games are realistic, nor have they ever been.

The game mechanics need to make sense in-game. If you watch those 2 minutes of video you very clearly see that Sumeria is south and especially east of my territory, and I'm expanding west. I'm not expanding in their direction at all, nor am I moving any troops in their direction. Therefore, the Sumerian leader telling me that I'm settling near them makes no sense.

I just have to disagree here. The game portrays what it portrays: empires, leaders, diplomacy... A motivation that makes obvious sense for a political leader can be used as a referent for a motivation that would make sense for the political characters in game.

In this case your critizism is even more weird, cause the situations he described in real life are valid examples and have in-game mechanics that model these situations.

If an action of the AI bothers you as a player but there is a legitimate reason for a human player to act the same way, generally that is not a problem with the game. It is just we holding a double standard.

This is very easy to do when judging others, specially an AI. This is called attribution of a theory of the mind, or in this case, the failure of doing so. The actual problem is not that the AI acts irrationally here, it is that it acts irrationally in many other occasions, so we are unable to see it as a player with agency.

 

[Josephias]

Ah, thanks, this is the data I was looking for. So yes, I would argue that making it a question of ONLY tiles to any of their cities, with total disregard for your own, the rest of the territory, etc., doesn't really make sense. If I expand west when they have no cities west of me (and the vast majority of the cities east of me), I'm clearly not expanding towards them, and the game telling me I am is rather counter-intouitive, which IMO does't make for good gameplay.

The main point here is it is you who is being misguided by the term forward settle. (And maybe by the term near in the AI complaints)

I think the real thing we are trying to simulate here is contested land. Or, in a more kid-easy language: “i saw it first”.

Anyone can experience it a lot when has discovered the perfect location for its next city... and then sees an enemy settler going towards there. It does not matter actually if its capitol is nearer or not: that spot was in your civ development plan, and taking it away is an agression to your civ. Yes, I,ve started wars because of that, and surely most of you too

The current algorithm for the AI is simple: as Victoria said. Everything 8 tiles around their cities -except if in a different landmass- is theirs, they saw it first (even when they not, try reasoning that with a kid saying that).

You could ask for a more deceloped mechanic, such as range increasing or decreasing if there were luxuries, strategic resources or high yield tiles involved, but computation cost might be higher and final result even more difficult to underestand, so I underestand they keeping it limited to a simple rule. Not broken at all, annoying, maybe... but what in diplomacy isn’t?

 

[yung.carl.jung]

7 tiles is still "near them". that seems quite clear to me. that another city of yours is already closer is irrelevant. he is asking you not to settle any other cities close to his empire. his definition of close is 8 tiles. where is the problem again?

 

[Codeword Iroquois]

7 tiles is still "near them". that seems quite clear to me. that another city of yours is already closer is irrelevant. he is asking you not to settle any other cities close to his empire. his definition of close is 8 tiles. where is the problem again?

When the city seems further than eight tiles, for example.

 

[AntSou]

Most of these comments are giving way too much credit to the AI.

Forward settling to give "room behind"? What? AI can't even perceive when an enemy is too far away to engage in war effectively, AI can't even perceive when its military forces are mostly naval and declares war on an inland Civ based on its mistaken superiority, but somehow it can understand the concept of "behind"?

Tomyris is forward settling because, in all likelihood, there's either a source of Niter or Luxuries nearby. Gilgamesh is forward settling to grab the Luxury resources. There's no strategy to it. Then the "ask for promise" triggers because you're within a pre-set range of one of its cities.

It's dumb, not some coded strategy. All of those forward cities are YOUR cities, not theirs. It's a free settler and free buildings for yourself, every single time. Quite often you don't even have to bother conquering it, it will turn with little effort.

TLDR: What's happening in both of those pictures are examples of the AI overvaluing Resources VS loyalty and territorial integrity.

@The Highwayman Any chance you can tell me if there's any Niter nearby and which Luxuries are within city radius of Issyk? Also check if any of those luxuries are available near her original cities.

Edit: I'm fine with how the Promise mechanic works though. It's an easy way for the AI to grow grievances from proximity to you. It's simple and effective in its goal. That's not what I'm complaining about.

 

[The Highwayman]

@AntSou I'll have to check and see if I still have the save file as it's an old game. As you say, there is no backfill strategy to the AI. Perhaps they do know where future strategics will spawn and that's the logic. If I remember correctly it was all the same continent, so the unique luxury pursuit was unlikely.

 

[AntSou]

@AntSou I'll have to check and see if I still have the save file as it's an old game. As you say, there is no backfill strategy to the AI. Perhaps they do know where future strategics will spawn and that's the logic. If I remember correctly it was all the same continent, so the unique luxury pursuit was unlikely.

Not sure if AI can see strats in advance. I'd actually prefer if that were the case. Maybe she just has the tech already?

Luxuries won't necessarily appear evenly spread on the same continent though. You can find yourself not having access to a couple of your Continent's Luxuries. There seems to be Jade and Ivory at the bottom, but none anywhere else in that screenshot. Too much fog to judge though.

 

[Bibor]

It does not even have to be a different continent. I tested it on the same continent, just different islands.I tested it setting 3 tiles apart because you can be 1 closer over water.

No, my question is if the AI is considering landmasses/continents for settling as in I'm on Arborea, the AI is on Eurasia, will it still trigger the demand if I forward settle on Arboera because of proximity?

 

[Galvatron]

I'm fine with how the Promise mechanic works though. It's an easy way for the AI to grow grievances from proximity to you...

Speak for yourself to me it's mathematical proof that the AI had it coming.

TLDR: What's happening in both of those pictures are examples of the AI overvaluing Resources VS loyalty and territorial integrity.

Stocks rise and fall, infrastructure collapses, people are no damned good, but they will always need land. And it's the only thing they're not making any more of.

 

[Virdrago]

No, my question is if the AI is considering landmasses/continents for settling as in I'm on Arborea, the AI is on Eurasia, will it still trigger the demand if I forward settle on Arboera because of proximity?

Yes. I have been asked to stop settling close by the AI when on a different continent (but the same landmass) with us separated by mountains.