"They believe we are building new cities too aggresively"

[Tomice]

Is it worth to avoid the diplomatic penalty mentioned above? Is it even possible if expanding rather fast/building wide? Is there a clear threshold?

In my last games, they all ended up in a "me against the world" defense-fest with 90% war and 70% against multiple foes.

Good that the AI is so bad at taking archer-defended cities...

 

[Hawawaa]

Ya I usually wait it out and when I get the message that I can plop a city down again I get back to it or I will look to place cites else where that is far away from the AI in question. It helps stop the AIs from going crazy and getting a bunch of denouncings and or wars declared on me. (jerks)

Also when I can't place a city and AI tries to place a city near me or in a good spot I want usually place a wall of units helps to block them.

Only a few times will the AIs actually agree to not place cities near me without fallout.

 

[mitsho]

I think Tomice doesn't refer to the situation where you've been asked by the AI to stop expanding in their direction. In that case, it is best to wait if you've agreed to it.

The penalty however can also occur when you settle heavily just by the number of your cities. I guess it's a good one since it bugs us and makes us play differently.

From my experience, it's not possible to avoid it.

But what it seems to me is that unlike similar modifiers, this one isn't confined to a few civs. Like the you covet for the same city state, or you built a wonder I coveted. If possible, I'd suggest making wide civs (the Expansionist type) less prone for that modifier.

 

[Tomice]

Like Mitsho said, I wasn't talking about being specifically asked not to build near them, but about the general hate you earn if you have more cities than the AI.

I used to expand less early on, so I'm not sure how to see it. Is it normal that that building 4-5 cities in quick succession makes you unpopular with any AI for all eternity, causing endless war? Am I just overdoing it? Does it help to make DOF's with other leaders while they're still friendly?

 

[Sporally]

An interesting question I would like to know the answer to aswell. I know it's an old thread, but still worth discussing.

Furthermore, I was looking for a thread on a few facts about building close to other cities, though I don't know if you will demand me to start a new thread. When you agree not to settle new lands near an AI, are they talking distance from their capital or any of their cities? And how far is "too close" or "far enough away"?

 

[Dunkah]

I've always thought that if you settle past the line that demarcs the halfway point from your capital to your opponents you would get the you are too close penalty.

SO whenever I do that I will always make sure I have enough gold to purchase the plots I want to steal from them as well, and do it all on the same turn. Even purchasing a plot once you have agreed to not settle so close will gain you the penalty.

You still get the "we covet lands you currently own" penalty either way.

 

[Sporally]

Interesting. I've always thought it was a matter of tiles. But you believe it is the capitals only that define the line?

Interesting. I thought they were seperated. I usally build two cities at the same turn if I need the two. Then I promise not to settle another city. This doesn't give me more penalty than only building one city, right? Then I also buy all the tiles at once and again promise not to expand. So this gives me a penalty aswell? But again, I guess if I buy all the tiles at the same turn it doens't give me a larger penalty, right?

 

[Dunkah]

Otherwise you could creep your way closer to them... build a city just outside your capitol... then build a city just outside of that city... rinse repeat.

I don't know if the "you built too close to me feeling happens as soon as you build the city or after the leader calls you on it.

I would have to say it is after you pledge not to build too close to them. SO you are probably safe with that technic.

 

[stackpointer]

To be labeled a reckless expander by an AI, you have to achieve the following:

• Be in close proximity of the AI
• Have more than 3 cities
• Have more than 1.5 times the average (without you) number of cities
• Have an army weaker than the AI

Here's the relevant (DLL) C++ code:

/// Is ePlayer expanding recklessly?
bool CvDiplomacyAI::IsPlayerRecklessExpander(PlayerTypes ePlayer)
{
	// If the player is too far away from us, we don't care
	if(GetPlayer()->GetProximityToPlayer(ePlayer) < PLAYER_PROXIMITY_CLOSE)
		return false;

	// If the player has too few cities, don't worry about it
	int iNumCities = GET_PLAYER(ePlayer).getNumCities();
	if(iNumCities < 4)
		return false;

	double fAverageNumCities = 0;
	int iNumPlayers = 0;

	// Find out what the average is (minus the player we're looking at)
	PlayerTypes eLoopPlayer;
	CvPlayer* pPlayer;
	for(int iPlayerLoop = 0; iPlayerLoop < MAX_MAJOR_CIVS; iPlayerLoop++)
	{
		eLoopPlayer = (PlayerTypes) iPlayerLoop;
		pPlayer = &GET_PLAYER(eLoopPlayer);

		// Not alive
		if(!pPlayer->isAlive())
			continue;

		// Not the guy we're looking at
		if(eLoopPlayer == ePlayer)
			continue;

		iNumPlayers++;
		fAverageNumCities += pPlayer->getNumCities();
	}

	// Not sure how this would happen, but we'll be safe anyways since we'll be dividing by this value
	if(iNumPlayers == 0)
	{
		CvAssertMsg(false, "0 players to evaluate when trying to identify if someone is a reckless expander. Not sure how this would happen without the game being over yet.");
		return false;
	}

	fAverageNumCities /= iNumPlayers;

	// Must have way more cities than the average player in the game
	if(iNumCities < fAverageNumCities * 1.5)
		return false;

	// If this guy's military is as big as ours, then it probably means he's just stronger than us
	if(GetPlayerMilitaryStrengthComparedToUs(ePlayer) >= STRENGTH_AVERAGE)
		return false;

	return true;
}

 

[Ahriman]

Thanks, that is really useful to see the actual restrictions. It seems like a good mechanic; it encourages the AI to get mad at (and potentially invade) civs who are founding lots of cities but don't have the military to support them.

 

[stackpointer]

Yeah, there are a lot of good mechanics in the game that people wouldn't be so confused or angry about if they had just been explained instead.

 

[Ahriman]

Yeah. If they had made the language "They believe you are expanding faster than you will be able to defend" or similar then people might have had an easier time understanding it.

 

[Sporally]

I never saw that as a bad thing. It's a more realistic game when you don't know the programming behind the scenes.

 

[Ahriman]

It's not the programming, it's the messaging. It is a problem when the text doesn't communicate what the AI is actually saying, and when the player can't tell how to avoid the situation.

"You have a lot of cities" is very different from "you have a lot of cities and don't look like you can defend them."

 

[Sporally]

True. Unless you interpet the message not being shown as "You have a lot of cities and a strong army, and I don't dare to threat you not to build more cities".

This could be what the developers had in mind when they made it. But yes, it would be preferable the way you said it still.