-
We are currently performing site maintenance, parts of civfanatics are currently offline, but will come back online in the coming days (this includes any time you see the message "account suspended"). For more updates please see here.
You broke your promise to move your troops away from the border
- Thread starter Anarchist
- Start date
- Status
HipNozY
Chieftain
My suggestion:
When you answer "I'm just passing by your land", and you move your troops away from the AI borders, the promise "to not declare war" should be gone. This promise would not be gone while your troops still threaten his borders.
I think this would make the game a lot more dynamic, and fun
When you answer "I'm just passing by your land", and you move your troops away from the AI borders, the promise "to not declare war" should be gone. This promise would not be gone while your troops still threaten his borders.
I think this would make the game a lot more dynamic, and fun
pthieu1986
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 19, 2012
- Messages
- 241
50? seriously? I thought i depends on game speed. I don't think that long.
Urgh - I searched for this thread to understand what it is that I did wrong to get this large penalty across ALL civs in my current game.
Rome - early leader, aggressive bastards.. after scouting my borders and amassing a huge army he waged a war on me early game. I wipe his army out, we peace, he rebuilds his army and comes at me again. I wipe it out again, and refuse peace.
I march south, raze his closest city in spite, and continue on to capture his capital Rome as my own. We peace, and I leave him with his remaining 3 cities in a fairly crippled state.
Years go by, and the bulk of my army remains along the borders of Rome City and his territory because I don't trust him, as he has slowly rebuilt his civ and his army.. I have a defensive pact with Brazil, who is also bordering Rome. Rome asks me about my troups; I am not interested in declaring war on him, but I certainly want to deter him from attacking me.
Years go by, and, feeling a little evil towards Rome still, I pay him to declare war on Brazil, which he does. My defensive pact with Brazil kicks in, and the entire world has the negative diplomacy penalty with me for breaking my promise. Technically speaking, I merely came to the aid of Brazil.. they don't have to know it was my cash that started the war!
Anyway, the thread has been a good read. I've learnt a bit from it, and will be more prepared in future to take care with my troup placements. I cannot really complain about my diplomacy situation.. I've had it in for Rome since his first attack.
My conclusions are;
1) 50 turns is a bit too long, would rather see it as 30
2) I wish we could call the AI out on their troup amassing
3) A warning before the diplomacy option could be handy to avoid any 'accidental' troup movements triggering it. Something like "Ghandi is showing concern at your troup movements", and if your troups are still there next turn, or move out and return within 30-50 turns, then trigger the diplomacy options for war/placate as it would have.
Rome - early leader, aggressive bastards.. after scouting my borders and amassing a huge army he waged a war on me early game. I wipe his army out, we peace, he rebuilds his army and comes at me again. I wipe it out again, and refuse peace.
I march south, raze his closest city in spite, and continue on to capture his capital Rome as my own. We peace, and I leave him with his remaining 3 cities in a fairly crippled state.
Years go by, and the bulk of my army remains along the borders of Rome City and his territory because I don't trust him, as he has slowly rebuilt his civ and his army.. I have a defensive pact with Brazil, who is also bordering Rome. Rome asks me about my troups; I am not interested in declaring war on him, but I certainly want to deter him from attacking me.
Years go by, and, feeling a little evil towards Rome still, I pay him to declare war on Brazil, which he does. My defensive pact with Brazil kicks in, and the entire world has the negative diplomacy penalty with me for breaking my promise. Technically speaking, I merely came to the aid of Brazil.. they don't have to know it was my cash that started the war!
Anyway, the thread has been a good read. I've learnt a bit from it, and will be more prepared in future to take care with my troup placements. I cannot really complain about my diplomacy situation.. I've had it in for Rome since his first attack.
My conclusions are;
1) 50 turns is a bit too long, would rather see it as 30
2) I wish we could call the AI out on their troup amassing
3) A warning before the diplomacy option could be handy to avoid any 'accidental' troup movements triggering it. Something like "Ghandi is showing concern at your troup movements", and if your troups are still there next turn, or move out and return within 30-50 turns, then trigger the diplomacy options for war/placate as it would have.
sendos
Immortal
In my German game, I remember receiving the message from Japan and honestly, I only had a scout and a spearman at his borders trying to do some scouting. I should've collected some screenshots but this diplomacy feature can be ridiculous. Also I don't recall receiving any message saying "you kept your promise" so I'm not sure whether it is temporary or permanent.
I think the devs' problem with implementing that may be that it could easily be exploited: when you see the AI preparing for war, you get your units into position and on your turn you force the AI to either declare war before it's ready and then you have the initiative to wipe their unprepared troops, or else your delay their war for 50 turns, or they'll get a diplo hit.
It doesn't cost you as much when the AI does it because it doesn't prepare well enough for the tactic and often the damage it can do on the first turn is relatively minor. A human doing it to the AI certainly would prepare for maximum damage. If the AI declare war, you attack first and gain the advantage. If the AI promise not to attack you, you can attack it at any time before the end of the promise, without diplo hit for you if you only kill its units, while the AI can't do it. It's win-win for the human.
I think it would be used against the AI by aggressive player to cripple an attack before its starts a lot more than to force the AI to delay a war by 50 turns or else get a big diplo hit for a broken promise.
The equivalent for the human player who notices the AI about to launch war is to simply declare war first and attack first (the penalty is minimal if you just pillage and destroy units), or to bribe the AI to attack someone else while you prepare for your war against it. You just can't hurt it diplomatically as well, but that's balanced in a way by the AI's lesser tactical skills.
That's the time length for Standard, for epic it's about 100, for Marathon it'll be 150.
I also find this to be a pet peeve diplo screen. I tend to leave large garrisons around my cities (2-4 units depending on city size/layout). When I'm moving a worker around I always move a guard unit on top of him when near enough to borders for a mounted/armor blitz just to avoid losing one to a ninjazergDoW. Sometimes this triggers the diplomacy screen.
I'm not usually an aggressive player and I seldom initiate hostilities. I've never had this screen pop up when I'm mobilizing for a sneak attack because I don't really do sneak attacks (if I DoW, there's usually a good reason and I don't bother shuffling units into position first, most likely it has to do with border annoyances and I maintain garrisons close enough there already). The issue I have with this mechanic is the length of the promise (50 turns in Standard is about a full Era), no notification that it's over (unlike Don't Settle Near Us) and no mitigating circumstance: While I may not currently wish to attack the civ that does this... he may do something to piss me off in 20-30 turns (like bully a CS under my protection) and if I DoW for ANY reason after saying this (INCLUDING automated DoW when said dillhole attacks someone with whom I have a Defensive Pact - unless they've fixed this in recent changes, but it was still there as of G&K) I suffer dishonor penalties with all known Civs.
A third response should be available: "I have no intention of attacking you unless provoked". So if you do that, you suffer no consequence if you DoW after being Denounced, having a CS you protect bullied or having a Defensive Pact trigger or catching one of their spies or having them crap out a city on your borders after you requested they not settle near you (which, ironically triggers another annoying diplo screen about settling near them... they crap out a colony near you, your borders expand naturally via culture and they whine about YOU settling near THEM when your cities been there a few centuries longer!) or have them GP your Holy City or a bazillion other little things the AI does to annoy the bejeebus out of me yet asks me to stop if I do the same...
PenguinPower
Chieftain
- Joined
- Oct 31, 2013
- Messages
- 13
Hate this. Though I usually have intentions of attacking near every time, so I guess I can't hate it too much. That's the one reason I don't go for domination victories often, every Civ on the planet seems to denounce me as soon as I take my first city 
after reading the whole thread I think the overall annoyance stems from
1. If I have no intention of attacking a neutral player I shouldn't be shook down into forcing peace for 50 turns. What if I have no intention of DOWing you. Then 25 turns later conditions on the ground change and you've spammed my holy city with a prophet. I have every right to execute that prophet and perform jihad or a crusade against you.
2. 50 turns is entirely too long. I think 25 or 30 would be a true test of someone's intention. Because honestly if they sit there army on the border for turn 31 then their tactics and army for that era are probably obsolete by then.
3.I think the diplo hit should be scaled to the era. For example I don't think anyone with a legit empire would have dared to denounce Rome if Rome wasn't pointed in their direction. Further I don't think leaders in a classical era would have cared or act like humanitarians in that era. That was the era they lived in. There were actually empires then. It should scale based on the era. It should be irrelevant in the classical age, fairly frowned upon during the renaissance against respected AI. and completely hated to the extent it is now, in the industrial age.
I mean Ghandi may have been liable to be summarily hung had he popped up around the time that monarchs were falling like dominos and England was building its empire. But in the industrial age they would have been denounced had they committed violence against him and his followers.
4. As a counter to #3. Propaganda should be a big component among swaying allies and justifying unjust wars in the Modern Era. Just like the US does it every time it gears up to bomb countries now. Or just like Hitler used to rally his allies and convince America and England everything was peachy until he was knocking down Paris.
1. If I have no intention of attacking a neutral player I shouldn't be shook down into forcing peace for 50 turns. What if I have no intention of DOWing you. Then 25 turns later conditions on the ground change and you've spammed my holy city with a prophet. I have every right to execute that prophet and perform jihad or a crusade against you.
2. 50 turns is entirely too long. I think 25 or 30 would be a true test of someone's intention. Because honestly if they sit there army on the border for turn 31 then their tactics and army for that era are probably obsolete by then.
3.I think the diplo hit should be scaled to the era. For example I don't think anyone with a legit empire would have dared to denounce Rome if Rome wasn't pointed in their direction. Further I don't think leaders in a classical era would have cared or act like humanitarians in that era. That was the era they lived in. There were actually empires then. It should scale based on the era. It should be irrelevant in the classical age, fairly frowned upon during the renaissance against respected AI. and completely hated to the extent it is now, in the industrial age.
I mean Ghandi may have been liable to be summarily hung had he popped up around the time that monarchs were falling like dominos and England was building its empire. But in the industrial age they would have been denounced had they committed violence against him and his followers.
4. As a counter to #3. Propaganda should be a big component among swaying allies and justifying unjust wars in the Modern Era. Just like the US does it every time it gears up to bomb countries now. Or just like Hitler used to rally his allies and convince America and England everything was peachy until he was knocking down Paris.
The 50 turn limit is a red herring. Border expansion promises are turn limited and generate a notification when they have expired. A promise not to steal tech lasts the whole rest of the game, not just 50 turns. The assertion that your troops are just passing through might mean that you can never DoW that civ! (Or, just maybe, if those particular units move far enough, the promise is then fulfilled.)
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I used to think the lack of reciprocity in the demand was unfair, but I do think computer players don't game the system the way a human can to a computer player, so I understand why it is the way it is. I also do think an argument could be made that 50 is too long. But it does have to be long enough that it isn't the same army planning to do the same attack. I'll plan out fights for quite a long time and it isn't unusual to be massing troops for 15 turns. So perhaps 30 is better (it's about the time it takes to redirect your trade routes anyway).
People keep saying that 50 turns is too long. But what if the promise is for the whole game?
The initial post suggesting 50 turns has been debunked! See #77 earlier in this very thread!
Has anyone made a DoW (ever, even 100 turns later, against the civ that popped up this message) and not gotten the global diplomacy hit?
The initial post suggesting 50 turns has been debunked! See #77 earlier in this very thread!
Has anyone made a DoW (ever, even 100 turns later, against the civ that popped up this message) and not gotten the global diplomacy hit?
Louis XXIV
Le Roi Soleil
I'm pretty sure I have, but I'd have to doublecheck. It used to be for the whole game, but that's not the case anymore.
Polisurgist
King
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2011
- Messages
- 630
The variables kaspergm posted in #77 seem to actually be about how much each leader cares about a broken promise, not the turn limit on how long the promise lasts.
And wasn't there something about the clock not starting on that promise until after you've moved your units away? Like, it might be 50 turns, but if you say you're passing through and then stay there for the whole game, the promise won't ever be fulfilled.
And wasn't there something about the clock not starting on that promise until after you've moved your units away? Like, it might be 50 turns, but if you say you're passing through and then stay there for the whole game, the promise won't ever be fulfilled.
GhostSalsa
Emperor
I feel as strongly as everyone else that this isn't an acceptable negative. These things pop up any time. If I'm planning a war two eras from now I shouldn't be forced to declare it now. I specifically don't want to go to war right now. But, I do like the risk element when I'm actually marching on an enemy - yesterday England caught my invasion fleet (7-10 tiles away, surprising) and got first strike with her SotLs, it was fun.
My preferred fix for sorting the risk and limit would be that if a Civ has meeting borders with me it can't ask me about my troops -
1) Of course I'm going to war with you eventually we have meeting borders.
2) These troops are on my own land.
3) This especially matters with the current settling conditions. Same-continent civs plant cities in your backyard. Or Venice buys a CS that is surrounded by your land on three sides. That's a guarantee that the screen will come up sometime for your home troop movements. Yes, great, yet another reason I can't invade anyone until the Industrial Era when I'm ready to wrap up the game.
My preferred fix for sorting the risk and limit would be that if a Civ has meeting borders with me it can't ask me about my troops -
1) Of course I'm going to war with you eventually we have meeting borders.
2) These troops are on my own land.
3) This especially matters with the current settling conditions. Same-continent civs plant cities in your backyard. Or Venice buys a CS that is surrounded by your land on three sides. That's a guarantee that the screen will come up sometime for your home troop movements. Yes, great, yet another reason I can't invade anyone until the Industrial Era when I'm ready to wrap up the game.
GamerFlair
Chieftain
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2013
- Messages
- 23
I'm pretty peaceful so its not really been an issue for me, i've never had it catch me prior to a dow. I get it when we get rubbing borders sometimes and I do think there needs to be extra options.
With the current way it works, I assume it forces you to declare war or promise you won't. (I havent ever hit the declare war, but the "declare war" bits suggests to me you do that, declare way).
The AI is making the ultimatum, not me, so why does that make me the aggressor. Its basically, "Move your troops or we will kill them." But I'm the aggressive one?
So, for starters, the declare war option should be they declare on you if it isn't already (and if it is already like that it needs wording better).
I'd have options like this.
1. Declare War (You declare war)
2. Passing through (diplo hit with civ if troops don't move next turn, broken promise if war declare within 10 turns [standard])
3. We come in peace. Our people are naturally curious, but we mean you no harm. (maybe a small diplo boost with civ, broken promise if war declared in 50 turns)
4. Our troops do what we please. You do not rule over me. (Dimplo hit with civ and possible to trigger them declaring war on you)
(If borders clash)5. Our people demand that our borders are defended. We promise they are operation purely in a defensive capacity. (maybe a small diplo hit to signal a lack of trust, broken promise if war declared for 30 turns [standard])
That pretty much covers everything. I'm sure better phrases can be made up but they should give the general idea. I guess no-one will pick option 1 much, maybe 4 could give a small hit to all civs too since its kind a mini warmonger action.
With the current way it works, I assume it forces you to declare war or promise you won't. (I havent ever hit the declare war, but the "declare war" bits suggests to me you do that, declare way).
The AI is making the ultimatum, not me, so why does that make me the aggressor. Its basically, "Move your troops or we will kill them." But I'm the aggressive one?
So, for starters, the declare war option should be they declare on you if it isn't already (and if it is already like that it needs wording better).
I'd have options like this.
1. Declare War (You declare war)
2. Passing through (diplo hit with civ if troops don't move next turn, broken promise if war declare within 10 turns [standard])
3. We come in peace. Our people are naturally curious, but we mean you no harm. (maybe a small diplo boost with civ, broken promise if war declared in 50 turns)
4. Our troops do what we please. You do not rule over me. (Dimplo hit with civ and possible to trigger them declaring war on you)
(If borders clash)5. Our people demand that our borders are defended. We promise they are operation purely in a defensive capacity. (maybe a small diplo hit to signal a lack of trust, broken promise if war declared for 30 turns [standard])
That pretty much covers everything. I'm sure better phrases can be made up but they should give the general idea. I guess no-one will pick option 1 much, maybe 4 could give a small hit to all civs too since its kind a mini warmonger action.
Polisurgist
King
- Joined
- Dec 13, 2011
- Messages
- 630
No it isn't. If you don't move them, the opponent doesn't go and kill them.
place 2-3 units on AI's boarders and he will ask you that question. He circles around 20 units around your boarders for 20 turns, and you know he will attack you, but you can't do anything but wait. 
What is he waiting for, Giant Death Robots? 
BlackWizard
King
- Joined
- Dec 14, 2010
- Messages
- 673
Which is bigger diplomacy hit:
1)Breaking promise of not to attack or
2) Declare war on civilization you have declaration of friendship with?
1)Breaking promise of not to attack or
2) Declare war on civilization you have declaration of friendship with?
The second one is a worse hit.
Backstabbing is one of the worst modifiers (apart from genocide).
- Status
Similar threads
