You broke your promise to move your troops away from the border

[njmfff]

Backstab seems to take the most diplo hits, but exact number might vary from civ to civ's flavor.

I've been using some diplo mod for a few games, which shows exact number of how much + or - you get for each modifier (doesn't change diplomacy system, just shows extra info). Same modifier never shows the same number on different civs. My guess is their flavor.

eg: with some civs, you get -25 modifier for competing for same CS. With others, you get -15, with third, you get -5. For warmongering, flavor "tolerate\dislike\hate" also weights differently... so not every civ will equally hate you, even if they declare you a warmonger.

 

[holywar]

The honorable thing to do is to declare war several turns before the units engage in combat. That is how the game is supposed to work. Anything else is a surprise attack, which must be carried out well in order to avoid the diplo penalty. Makes sense to me.

 

[Polisurgist]

The second one is a worse hit.
Backstabbing is one of the worst modifiers (apart from genocide).

I'm pretty sure the penalty for backstabbing or dealbreaking is bigger than the actual hit you take for conquering a civ's last city. It just isn't worse than the multiple penalties for taking all their cities until that last one

 

[EK834]

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?

That's because.. you are. Friendly and peaceful nations don't keep mobilized troops stationed on their common borders. Doing so in the RW is/was a sure sign you don't trust your "friend" or is about to betray them. Whenever nations do this, it's a sign of existing tensions or create/worsen massive tensions. In the game to the AI it means you're at the very least considering invasion, or are getting ready to defend from one of its attacks. Either way it's bad for the AI. The AI decides it's time to seize the advantage and force you to declare war, to have a turn to attack before you can, or force you to be peaceful and to exact a promise you can't broke without a solid penalty.

All in all it's better to keep a civilian or two to watch a border while stationing the units where the AI can't see them. That's the real "non aggressive" way to do this.

 

[Barghaest]

I'm pretty sure the penalty for backstabbing or dealbreaking is bigger than the actual hit you take for conquering a civ's last city. It just isn't worse than the multiple penalties for taking all their cities until that last one

Which is why I said "one of the worst" and not the worst. Also note I said "apart from genocide" which would be taking a Civs final city.

 

[blackcatatonic]

I have no problem with this ultimatum in principle, but the player should be able to demand it of the AI as well. It's particularly galling when the AI is so fond of the 'surprise' attack - which, even if you can see it coming, you can't call them on it in the way they can you. It's a similar story with the 'denounce Player X or I'll denounce you!' demand - IIRC the player cannot ask the AI to do the same.

As it is, it essentially provides the AI with a way to gain the advantage of first strike in a war, or force you to have to make the unappealing choice of staying at peace for 50 turns or take a huge diplo hit with everyone. I'm lucky in that I've never been asked it when I wasn't within 2-3 turns of being in a position to declare war anyway, so I've always gone for the 'it's time for you to die' option to no great disadvantage (unless my intentions genuinely are peaceful and I'm just moving my units from A to B), but I can appreciate that it's a little unfair on players who are intending to declare war at some point in the next 50 turns but are simply moving their units around when the AI makes its ultimatum.

I say give the player the same powers and there's no problem.

 

[Polisurgist]

Which is why I said "one of the worst" and not the worst. Also note I said "apart from genocide" which would be taking a Civs final city.

And note that I said that the backstabbing penalty is actually worse than taking a civ's last city.

And look, I just said it again!

 

[Dralix]

The honorable thing to do is to declare war several turns before the units engage in combat. That is how the game is supposed to work. Anything else is a surprise attack, which must be carried out well in order to avoid the diplo penalty. Makes sense to me.

I'm not sure that this is the case. Previous titles had various implementations of this, but if V does, I've seen no indication of it.

Friendly and peaceful nations don't keep mobilized troops stationed on their common borders.

I generally avoid the real world arguments, in favor of gameplay, but for an example of this, you can compare the Canada-US border with say, the India-Pakistan border.

 

[holywar]

I have no sympathy for players who get called out before they can move their units into optimal attack position. I have some sympathy for players who get wrongly called out and are then prevented from waging a just war for the next 50 turns. I think 25 turns might be more appropriate.

 

[GhostSalsa]

That's because.. you are. Friendly and peaceful nations don't keep mobilized troops stationed on their common borders. Doing so in the RW is/was a sure sign you don't trust your "friend" or is about to betray them. Whenever nations do this, it's a sign of existing tensions or create/worsen massive tensions.

Come on. The current AI specifically targets unguarded cities. If I'm not playing tradition (you seem to be imagining really big borders in your scenario) then "border" means "right next to my city". I have to put troops there to prevent the AI from showing up with a DOW. Keeping troops around border cities is peace keeping.

 

[Dralix]

Come on. The current AI specifically targets unguarded cities. If I'm not playing tradition (you seem to be imagining really big borders in your scenario) then "border" means "right next to my city". I have to put troops there to prevent the AI from showing up with a DOW. Keeping troops around border cities is peace keeping.

Pretty sure that for the purpose of the demand, border means one tile away from the AI's territory. Keep troops near your border cities all you want, so long as they're more than one tile away from AI land.

 

[Polisurgist]

I'm not sure that this is the case. Previous titles had various implementations of this, but if V does, I've seen no indication of it.

The AI's demand is the implementation of this.

As someone once pointed out, the AI being able to demand you go to war or promise peace while you can't do the same is a sensible foil to the fact that you can station spies in an AI's city and tell what they're planning to do while they can't do the same to you.

Though that doesn't explain why the AI war demand was in the game prior to espionage.

 

[GhostSalsa]

Pretty sure that for the purpose of the demand, border means one tile away from the AI's territory. Keep troops near your border cities all you want, so long as they're more than one tile away from AI land.

What games are you folks playing. This isn't possible. If I didn't run tradition and everyone settled near me then I am going to get these popups. I am going to get them every time I'm going to war with someone else. If me and Civ B and Civ C are a triangle then Civ B is going to popup when I go to war with Civ C.

I wasn't going to war with Civ B.

But now because of a forced promise which in fact I held in in regard to the specific troop movements being challenged - they went on to war with Civ C - I can't go to war with Civ B for 50 turns. Unless I'm ready for total diplomatic melt-down with every civ.

 

[Wodan]

I do not recall ever getting the border demand with any number of troops within my borders adjacent to AI territory. The only times I recall getting the demand is when I have 2 or more troops in neutral territory adjacent to an AI's territory.

 

[crabe]

What games are you folks playing. This isn't possible. If I didn't run tradition and everyone settled near me then I am going to get these popups. I am going to get them every time I'm going to war with someone else. If me and Civ B and Civ C are a triangle then Civ B is going to popup when I go to war with Civ C.

I wasn't going to war with Civ B.

But now because of a forced promise which in fact I held in in regard to the specific troop movements being challenged - they went on to war with Civ C - I can't go to war with Civ B for 50 turns. Unless I'm ready for total diplomatic melt-down with every civ.

So why is this a problem unless you really are considering going to war with civ B? lol.

 

[beetle]

I do not recall ever getting the border demand with any number of troops within my borders adjacent to AI territory.

I would very much like to know if this is true! It would quite helpful for times when the AI civ settled right on top of you! Should make liberating certain cities on the same turn one DoWs pretty easy!

The only times I recall getting the demand is when I have 2 or more troops in neutral territory adjacent to an AI's territory.

See above, Matthew has just one unit in neutral territory. You may be onto something!

Here is one that is especially irritating because I specifically kept my guys far back to try and avoid the diplo screen. View attachment 357773

 

[Barghaest]

And note that I said that the backstabbing penalty is actually worse than taking a civ's last city.

And look, I just said it again!

My apologies, seems I'm the one who has issues with reading comprehension.

But I'll have to disagree with you here... conquering a CS usually involves no other city captures along the way and always nets me a harder diplo time than backstabbing... all things being equal (shared war, other modifiers etc) I'm more likely to lose allies over eliminating a civ rather than a backstab even though some civs have different thresholds for warmongering and it appears backstab penalty is universally the same.

 

[Polisurgist]

My apologies, seems I'm the one who has issues with reading comprehension.

But I'll have to disagree with you here... conquering a CS usually involves no other city captures along the way and always nets me a harder diplo time than backstabbing... all things being equal (shared war, other modifiers etc) I'm more likely to lose allies over eliminating a civ rather than a backstab even though some civs have different thresholds for warmongering and it appears backstab penalty is universally the same.

That's interesting...I've never really tested it out, but it's always seemed the other way for me. Though maybe it's more that the penalty for conquering is more easily mitigated than the one for backstabbing; it may be worse, but there are more ways to make certain civs OK with it, while backstabbing will hurt for everyone almost equally.

I was just thinking about the way penalties scale up based on how few cities a civ (not a city-state has left). In all the discussions we've all had on warmonger penalties, I realize that comparing the penalty for taking one city (even if it's the last one) often fail to fit with the reality of the game, because most of the time when you do take that one, you've taken a bunch more to whittle them down to one prior to that.

 

[Amarr Emperor]

How can anyone take the side of AI on this, I just don't understand. As someone already pointed out, quit with your moral arguments "If you want to declare war then why would you lie about it", because the biggest problem is the war will start on their turn. Don't think this is a big deal? You probably play chieftain or warlord so STFU. Anyone who play diety would know you can not afford to be sneak attacked when you're literally outnumbered 20-1

 

[Buridan]

How can anyone take the side of AI on this, I just don't understand. As someone already pointed out, quit with your moral arguments "If you want to declare war then why would you lie about it", because the biggest problem is the war will start on their turn. Don't think this is a big deal? You probably play chieftain or warlord so STFU. Anyone who play diety would know you can not afford to be sneak attacked when you're literally outnumbered 20-1

That's the reason it is called deity - it is the challenge to find a way to sneak attack another civ. And if the AI finds out: deal with it!
At least you still have the advantage of sometimes stupid troop movements of the AI; hopefully you have enough ranged units