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

[DrCron]

I could write a bunch of text here, but it's easier if you just see this very clear example of the broken mechanic. It's in the first 2 minutes an 30 seconds of this video:

Has anyone checked the game files to try to find out how that "logic" works? Because however it is, it definitely needs to be fixed.

What do you think? Did you guys also get ridiculous examples of the AI saying you are settling near them when you are actually closer to your own capital than any of their cities?

 

[OmegaDestroyer]

I am pretty sure there isn't any logic to it.

 

[wesplaysciv]

I agree it doesn't feel right, it's probably just based on number of tiles from Ai without considering how close it is to the player... But it doesn't annoy me too much, I take the favor and still settle where I please.

 

[Bibor]

I’m always a Chandragupta at heart: a good neighbor yields me -5 diplo favor per turn.

 

[Falkman]

Did you guys also get ridiculous examples of the AI saying you are settling near them when you are actually closer to your own capital than any of their cities?

This doesn't sound like a ridiculous example at all, it seems pretty logical. If your capital is 10 tiles from an opponent, and you then build a new city 3 tiles from your capital and 7 tiles from the opponent you have still built something closer to them than you previously had, even if it's still closer to your own city than theirs. Seeing another civilization steadily creeping closer would be cause for concern in real life so it makes sense in the game as well. There are many real-world examples to draw comparisons with as well; Cuban missile crisis had Cubans build missile silos within their own country, but it of course still upset the US. The Vietnam war had western help because the first world feared communist expansion, even though it was on the other side of the world (and much closer to other communist countries than the first world countries themselves), currently there is a huge dispute regarding the South China Sea even though the territory China is expanding and claiming is close to themselves etc.
Not perfect analogies of course but all situations where developments were technically happening close to (or even within) the offending part's home territory but still upset another part further away.

 

[tiamats4esgares]

This doesn't sound like a ridiculous example at all, it seems pretty logical. If your capital is 10 tiles from an opponent, and you then build a new city 3 tiles from your capital and 7 tiles from the opponent you have still built something closer to them than you previously had, even if it's still closer to your own city than theirs. Seeing another civilization steadily creeping closer would be cause for concern in real life so it makes sense in the game as well. There are many real-world examples to draw comparisons with as well; Cuban missile crisis had Cubans build missile silos within their own country, but it of course still upset the US. The Vietnam war had western help because the first world feared communist expansion, even though it was on the other side of the world (and much closer to other communist countries than the first world countries themselves), currently there is a huge dispute regarding the South China Sea even though the territory China is expanding and claiming is close to themselves etc.
Not perfect analogies of course but all situations where developments were technically happening close to (or even within) the offending part's home territory but still upset another part further away.

Sorry, but I'm gonna to have go disagree. Your examples are terrible, by the way. The AI says to stop settling near them, not to stop settling altogether. The last city he placed was 7 tiles from the nearest city of that AI, and in the opposite direction (there were already other cities closer) AND far away from the AI's other cities yet they still considered it breaking the promise.

I gotta go with the OP on this one. That's pretty broken.

 

[DrCron]

@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.

 

[Futumch]

What do you think? Did you guys also get ridiculous examples of the AI saying you are settling near them when you are actually closer to your own capital than any of their cities?

Oh hell yeah. They forward settle quite close to you and you can't say boo. You settle on your own borders and they have a major hissy fit.

 

[dexters]

The video is a bit long to watch, can someone summarize, but basically, the way I understand it is, AI knows which tiles it wasnts to claim/settle

If you settle onto one of those tiles, you get the 'don't settle near me request' and if your follow up city is 'further' away but still within their claimed tiles range, you break a promise.

I skimmed through the video quickly and I think both cities are settled close to the AI, one is closer (the trigger city) but both would generally qualify.
My rule of thumb is, if I'm in the AI's shoes, would I consider the cities im settling 'too close' ? If the answer is yes, then it's probably going to result in a broken promise usually it works.

It's much more realistic and practical than tile counting.

 

[Victoria]

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.

It has nothing to do with relationship to your own capital, purely how close you settle to a city of another civ.
In this situation Gilga forward settles first. It is an agressive settle, and exactly what you would expect from Gilgamesh. With Gilga you are either with him or against him.
There is a modifier on that warning based on your relationship. If you were friends with Gilga then there is much less chance he will denounce you, allied, even less.

The forward settle tactic is baiting you and I use it often. I know it gives me a negative modifier with him that does not decay quickly but a promise does turn it positive after about 30 turns. No promise, no biggie but less positives with them.... You use promises and keeps when you want to make friends or at least try to avoid war. Forward settling and leaving a vulnerable city close is asking for war if against an agressive civ like Inca. When they forward settle you it could be considered the same thing. It is a land grab. This is my city, everything from this city back to my capital is mine, do not settle there, equally I am ready to fight if you disagree with me.... exactly what I am saying when I forward settle.

how you can say it makes no sense? It only makes no sense if you are basing your assumption on peoples capitals... and it is not their capitals that count.
There is another thread asking if the distance has changed.... I'll check.

 

[The Highwayman]

Here is an illustration of the AI's forward settling. Note Issyk at the bottom of the map. Scythia moved her settler all the way around the left past Preslav, past Auckland, past gorgeous resource filled land, to settle that. Their cap is north of Neapolis in the photo. I'm expanding near my territory and get the grievances for forwarded settling. Instantly denounced by Tomyris, Cathy, and L6G for causing others grievances.

Spoiler :

 

[Victoria]

I'm expanding near my territory and get the grievances for forwarded settling. Instantly denounced by Tomyris, Cathy, and L6G for causing others grievances.

look at the pic and tell me where else she can settle. She is forward settling you to give her room behind. She was the one risking the promise doing it... and if you give her enough grievances she may even try to take other cities off you.
Whatever ecuse we come up with, this stuff happens and it is a mechanic in the game. Some people like it, others do not. personally I would have considered having a scout lurking to try and catch such a settler or at least slow it down/body block it.
Also with loyalty now its not a big deal... free city in the long run right? Just stop other settlers getting in behind, or better declare war and capture the settlers... less grievances that way

The game mechanics need to make sense in-game.

They do... they may not make sense to the way you want it to work but I am fine with it. They forward settled you and you did nothing. If I was to complain about anything it is the fact they can ask for a promise even when they do not have 30. And you cannot ask them for a promise moving next to your territories. They are further off any required track than this IMO and compared with vanilla where the AI was forward settling between your cities... this is nothing... when did politics make sense? (Maybe we allow nuking of hurricanes?)

EDIT:
I just validated the distance
If you settle within 8 tiles or less of a civ on the same landmass, you are at risk of being asked for a promise.You can settle 3 tiles away over water without risk, as long as the land is not connected.

 

[Virdrago]

EDIT:
I just validated the distance
If you settle within 8 tiles or less of a civ on the same landmass, you are at risk of being asked for a promise.You can settle 3 tiles away over water without risk, as long as the land is not connected.

Yeah, I remember this being a question that came up some time ago. It's 8 tiles or less away, even if you settle behind. I had one game where I started within 8 tiles of an AI, can't remember who. I got to the small space between us first and settled, and promised not to go any closer. Not a problem, I had blocked the one mountain pass, that's all I wanted. I then settled next to my capital, but behind the city between us (and the mountains). Got denounced, as I was still 7 tiles away from their capital. So, be careful of that little wrinkle too.

 

[Sostratus]

I just validated the distance
If you settle within 8 tiles or less of a civ on the same landmass, you are at risk of being asked for a promise.You can settle 3 tiles away over water without risk, as long as the land is not connected.

I didn’t know about the water limit. Really helps explain how I’ve gotten away with extremely cheeky island bases.

 

[Codeword Iroquois]

I don't know, but the AI does seem to have a wide description of their own territory. I was playing a game of civ v as Bismarck, got told off by Catherine, who was halfway across the map, for settling as close to my capital as I could.

 

[Victoria]

for settling as close to my capital as I could.

It is not the Capitol, it is any city

 

[Galvatron]

What do you think? Did you guys also get ridiculous examples of the AI saying you are settling near them when you are actually closer to your own capital than any of their cities?

Edit oh you want to know thre actual mechanic? It's settling within like 7 tiles or something of one of their cities. Any city. Of any size.

I think you're misunderstanding the purpose of the request and how the game works. They're asking you to stop settling nearby. But they're nearby you. When they settled next to you.

You're probably thinking they're hypocrites. That's not a bug. They're hypocrites. On purpose.

Promises aren't for using defensively, they're for using offensively. You don't ask for a promise because you want them to stop. You ask for a promise so you can punch them in the face when they say no or break their promise.

The reverse is true. When they say: 'hey stop settling next to me',
you say: 'duck you, ***** you settled next to me, come get some'
and then they say: 'well, I never'
And then you say: and you never will'

If they actually stop forward settling you that's a bonus. Don't expect it. Expect to have to backup your words with steel, because they do.

They're asking for an unfair promise to let them win the game economically. It's the same as declaring war on you and then complaining that they are taking your cities.

Now go get some lebensraum

 

[Thormodr]

The human player frequently acts like a hypocrite. Why would anyone complain when the AI does so?

Much ado about nothing.

 

[DrCron]

EDIT:
I just validated the distance
If you settle within 8 tiles or less of a civ on the same landmass, you are at risk of being asked for a promise.You can settle 3 tiles away over water without risk, as long as the land is not connected.

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 human player frequently acts like a hypocrite. Why would anyone complain when the AI does so?

If I wanted my rivals to behave like humans, I would just play MP. The fun aspect of AI leaders having fixed "personalities" is that you can learn them and plan strategies around them. If they become nonsensical, that whole part of the CIV SP experience gets nullified.

 

[Bibor]

Yup, it's a human player's game. When the AI shows up with 3 crossbows and 2 swords, and I'm barely at slingers, I'm always at least a bit offended. How dares it, I say to myself, ruin my perfect setup I had for this cultural game. As with many things in life, a sizeable chunk of why we play Civ6 is self-gratification, as well as isolation from consequences. Ideal for experimentation.

Thank you @Victoria for the confirmation, handy information. So settling on another "continent" is okay, even if its closer?