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

[TheMeInTeam]

You have all the diplomacy options you need to adjust you diplo level against the AI. I do not understand what you are complaining about, other than the detail of harassing them in-game rather than out loud.

Nowhere in your post did you demonstrate equity between the human and AI diplo. Show me how the human forces an AI with a couple units near his borders to DoW this instant during the player's own turn (taking a diplo penalty for doing so) or get put into a long NAP with a global penalty for breaking it.

If the human can't do that, then we have a non-difficulty related AI advantage that is frankly nonsensical and extremely difficult to justify when better alternatives exist.

You do all know that Civ is a computer program, and that computer programs have code that people are able to read, right?

Gameplay rules should be documented so that the player can reasonably know them via reading a manual or looking up help in-game. Asking players to learn the rules via reading through game code is not a legit expectation.

Still, it is nice that it's at least possible to learn the rules.

 

[beetle]

Someone already posted it in this thread: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showpost.php?p=12686232&postcount=3

That was a mistake. The postulated 50 turn conditional was debunked a few posts later, but the idea refuses to die!

I looked into the game files with intention of trying to mod this a bit. It turns out that as far as I can see, the entry above is not related to the promise we are talking about, but rather the promise not to buy tiles near them. The promise we talk about here seems to be called MILITARY_PROMISE

...[snip]...

Curiously, the MILITARY_PROMISE does not have a duration entry (at least not in the GlobalDiplomacyAIDefines.xml file, where the others are located), which means that we can't see directly from the game files how long this promise is active, and - more frustratingly - we can't mod it.

 

[Barghaest]

Take a piece of paper and write down "-1 diplo for border crowding, -1 diplo for one finger salute." Put it right under the "-3 diplo for being in the way", which is a diplomacy function that the AI doesn't really have, but we humans are special. Elsewhere on the paper you might have "-4 diplo for being Greece" or "-5 diplo because I hate everyone". That part is up to you.

Absolutely loved that... most AI tend to get the "being in the way" from me. Heh.

As for the questions about the length of the promise, no it isn't listed in the code (previous poster is correct on that - the length is listed for other promises but NOT the MILITARY_PROMISE); however, I can say it does have a definitive duration.

In my current game (modded to adjust game speed and opinion durations which I can modify were increased from 50 to 60) Siam popped up that one and I didn't feel like fighting so I said my troops were "just passing through".

I never moved them (they were defensive since Siam had already DoWed me three times before I scorched all but one of their cities to the ground) and was testing the decay on Warmongering (two civs saw me a potential threat and one just had early concerns and I was timing how long until they changed - I'd taken 2-3 cities at minor penalty and one and major).

I thought I'd screwed myself and would have to wait for Siam to DoW me (unlikely at this point) but decided to run some tests. I waited about 50 turns, saved and DoWed. Got the negative modifier. So I decided to reload and wait 60... didn't get the chance because at exactly 60 turns Siam popped the same damned diplo screen up, this time I chose Declare War. Checked over next few turns other four empires had no negative modifier for a broken promise.

So even though there's no code for MILITARY_PROMISE duration in GlobalDiplomacyAIDefines, it is in someway limited in duration.

Either:

1 - Tied to one of the ones we CAN modify or the OpinionDuration under GameSpeeds, because it appeared to last 60 turns in my game, same as DoF, Expansion, Border and Spy promises.

OR

2 - Previous promise expires immediately when diplo request triggers again.

It'll take me a bit more finangling to verify which of the two is the case, but for now you can safely assume if it pops again, you can DoW because it'll either have been past the set duration or it clears the flag when re-triggered, whichever is the case it's safe to DoW the next time an AI annoys you with the message.

 

[Polisurgist]

That was a mistake. The postulated 50 turn conditional was debunked a few posts later, but the idea refuses to die!

Yeah, kaspergm found some other lines int he code that also had numbers in them, but that was the variable for how much each leader weights the fact that you broke a promise, not a different duration for each leader.

 

[Louis XXIV]

That was a mistake. The postulated 50 turn conditional was debunked a few posts later, but the idea refuses to die!

There was a patch note somewhere about a time period being added. I'd have to dig through all the patch threads to find it, but there's supposed to be one.

 

[eris]

Nowhere in your post did you demonstrate equity between the human and AI diplo. Show me how the human forces an AI with a couple units near his borders to DoW this instant during the player's own turn (taking a diplo penalty for doing so) or get put into a long NAP with a global penalty for breaking it.

If the human can't do that, then we have a non-difficulty related AI advantage that is frankly nonsensical and extremely difficult to justify when better alternatives exist.



Gameplay rules should be documented so that the player can reasonably know them via reading a manual or looking up help in-game. Asking players to learn the rules via reading through game code is not a legit expectation.

Still, it is nice that it's at least possible to learn the rules.

I like the last line.

I will back down some from my frivolous counter argument. Yeah, you can't enforce their behavior.

However, effectively, they just always choose the "we're just passing through" reply. If they declare way sometime later they won't get quite the same Diplo hit for telling their cruel lie. If the diplo hit for lying was strictly with the civ lied to, I agree that it would be a lot more symmetric between player and AI.

"Asking players to learn the rules via reading through game code is not a legit expectation."

I beg to differ. The battle between forums and devs over details such as this seems to be very much part of the game play for many of us on many different levels. Having all the clues handed to us would ruin the fun for many. It would especially cut down the topics based on sheer speculation, which seem to be a significant percentage of the whole and must be enjoyable to someone.

Then again, I'd take a thorough manual written by someone like you any day. That would be a worth while piece of reference. Well beyond my skill levels, but incredibly enjoyable and useful just the same.

 

[Wodan]

Okay, so the question has been repeated raised. What is the answer?

If that dialog comes up, and I pick “just passing through”, what must I do prior to DOWing that civ so as to avoid the diplomacy penalty for breaking that promise?

I am guessing that it involves... moving my troops away from the border!

But which troops, and how far away, and for how long? (That last one might not be a factor at all.)

I already stated, in my experience if you don't have more than 1 unit directly adjacent to his border in neutral territory, you're fine. You can have any number of units in your territory adjacent to his border.

But some have refuted this guideline. I'm just saying in my experience the above works.

 

[beetle]

I already stated, in my experience if you don't have more than 1 unit directly adjacent to his border in neutral territory, you're fine. You can have any number of units in your territory adjacent to his border.

You could well be correct about this, but that not the question I have the most curiosity about.

If the dialog is triggered, what must transpire so that one can DoW later without the broken promise penalty (over and above the usual warmonger hit)?

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I beg to differ. The battle between forums and devs over details such as this seems to be very much part of the game play for many of us on many different levels. Having all the clues handed to us would ruin the fun for many. It would especially cut down the topics based on sheer speculation, which seem to be a significant percentage of the whole and must be enjoyable to someone.

There are a few reasons hidden rules are consistently bad for gameplay:

- It creates a barrier to entry for newer players to the series, who often get frustrated when penalized for breaking rules (or fail to take advantage of situations) they didn't know existed.

- The rules of a game define it. When some rules are hidden, to some degree precisely what kind of game you're playing is hidden.

- http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Strategy - Civ V, like its predecessors, is a turn-based strategy game. A core aspect of gameplay is planning around known information and hedging against unknown information to get optimized results. Hidden rules literally bar the player from doing this effectively until he knows them. Civ IV made this same mistake, and it wasn't any better then than it is now.

Now, in this particular case:

Actual human reactions to such a "violation" would be context sensitive in a MP game. Almost never would the world's market avoid trading with someone over this, however, unless the "offender" also happened to be the strongest civ or something too. So, on top of running counter to what can reasonably be expected in a strategy title or gameplay in general, this hidden rules mechanic doesn't mesh well with what a human would do and the result of the diplo penalty often results in at least some civs essentially self-harming.

There's little-to-no justification for this mechanic in its current form. The gist of the intent, and from what I can tell most seem to agree, is that the game should prevent the humans from surprise attacking undefended cities. There are a number of ways to go about that, and more than one of them is significantly better than a forced long-term non-aggression pact in a situation that doesn't merit it.

 

[Polisurgist]

Actual human reactions to such a "violation" would be context sensitive in a MP game. Almost never would the world's market avoid trading with someone over this, however, unless the "offender" also happened to be the strongest civ or something too. So, on top of running counter to what can reasonably be expected in a strategy title or gameplay in general, this hidden rules mechanic doesn't mesh well with what a human would do and the result of the diplo penalty often results in at least some civs essentially self-harming.

There's two kinds of trading in the game, and only one of them is impacted by diplomatic relations at all; you can send trade routes to whomever you like, irrespective of diplomacy. Trading resources and wealth is. If you had to look for a real-world analogy, trade routes are the free market at work, which is going to find a way to turn a profit regardless of the situation. Leader-to-leader trades are akin to lend-lease agreements and "special relationships" where diplomacy comes into play.

Which is not to say I wouldn't love to see resource-trading shift to a "world market" system once certain diplomatic conditions exist...you no longer just trade leader-to-leader, but you could put your resources on the market and just get whatever the market price is for them.

There's little-to-no justification for this mechanic in its current form. The gist of the intent, and from what I can tell most seem to agree, is that the game should prevent the humans from surprise attacking undefended cities. There are a number of ways to go about that, and more than one of them is significantly better than a forced long-term non-aggression pact in a situation that doesn't merit it.

It's not just about preventing surprise attacks, it's about balancing the fact that at AI has programming which you can see into via espionage while the AI has no such window. Maybe there's another way of accomplishing that balance, though game theory would suggest that any such method would in some way boil down to a peace that's enforced on the human and not on the AI.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

There's two kinds of trading in the game, and only one of them is impacted by diplomatic relations at all; you can send trade routes to whomever you like, irrespective of diplomacy. Trading resources and wealth is. If you had to look for a real-world analogy, trade routes are the free market at work, which is going to find a way to turn a profit regardless of the situation. Leader-to-leader trades are akin to lend-lease agreements and "special relationships" where diplomacy comes into play.

That's still a market. I was using the term loosely. I meant resource deals; ignoring the possibility of fair deals with an empire can be self-harming, especially when doing so over nothing/with a civ that isn't perceived as the biggest threat to win.

It's not just about preventing surprise attacks, it's about balancing the fact that at AI has programming which you can see into via espionage while the AI has no such window. Maybe there's another way of accomplishing that balance, though game theory would suggest that any such method would in some way boil down to a peace that's enforced on the human and not on the AI.

The AI can cheat and see units anyway if it wants. Espionage certainly does not show "programming". It might show behavior that is consistent with known programming, should one be capable of recognizing that, but that's a different issue.

Better solutions:

1. Once units are removed, the NAP ends immediately, though multiple iterations of this heighten that AI's vigilance against the human.
2. AI takes advantage of its absurd bonuses to park a token force on its borders with non-friends.
3. NAP stays in place, but any aggression by target AI removes it immediately. Possibly, other AI declaring war on this AI that are friends removes it also.

No matter what, forcing DoW or long NAP over a token force is nonsensical. This is a bad mechanic all around, and that it has hidden rules elements only exacerbates it.

 

[beetle]

1. Once units are removed, the NAP ends immediately, though multiple iterations of this heighten that AI's vigilance against the human.

This could well be exactly the situation! It is consistent with the anecdotal evidence provided.

 

[whyidie]

There are a few reasons hidden rules are consistently bad for gameplay:

- It creates a barrier to entry for newer players to the series, who often get frustrated when penalized for breaking rules (or fail to take advantage of situations) they didn't know existed.

Frustration is one outcome. Curiosity is another. The difference between the two is a "rational" outcome. You can expose all of the rules and still have a frustrating experience if the rules result in an outcome the user sees as irrational. In the same manner you can hide rules if the outcomes are rational to the user.

Now, in this particular case:

Actual human reactions to such a "violation" would be context sensitive in a MP game. Almost never would the world's market avoid trading with someone over this, however, unless the "offender" also happened to be the strongest civ or something too. So, on top of running counter to what can reasonably be expected in a strategy title or gameplay in general, this hidden rules mechanic doesn't mesh well with what a human would do and the result of the diplo penalty often results in at least some civs essentially self-harming.

1) I don't think human MP players are what SP players look to as expected behavior from the leader of a Civilization.

2) Does the "worlds market" truly avoid trade ? If you have otherwise good relations, will this completely sour them to the point where you can't make any deals ?

There's little-to-no justification for this mechanic in its current form. The gist of the intent, and from what I can tell most seem to agree, is that the game should prevent the humans from surprise attacking undefended cities. There are a number of ways to go about that, and more than one of them is significantly better than a forced long-term non-aggression pact in a situation that doesn't merit it.

I suppose in a vacuum there is no justification. But being as it exists, the impetus is upon those who wish to change it. Lets look at the ideas!

Better solutions:

1. Once units are removed, the NAP ends immediately, though multiple iterations of this heighten that AI's vigilance against the human.

The details are staggering. How is the zone determined ? Is it one tile, a collection of tiles ? Or do we create a demilitarized zone ? How many units to trigger it ? What if I'm truly just passing through ? Does "vigilance" equate to more troops ? If so, calculations like 2 below are likely needed. Its getting complicated...

2. AI takes advantage of its absurd bonuses to park a token force on its borders with non-friends.

On Immortal/Diety this will surely help. Below that I can't say that each Civ AI is able to generate enough forces across the board. Whats proportionate ? Lets start with say 15% of existing troops unless troop levels are below N, in which case make more troops. Would probably need a war condition as well, as the decision likely changes based on the AI being at war and how well the war is being waged.

3. NAP stays in place, but any aggression by target AI removes it immediately. Possibly, other AI declaring war on this AI that are friends removes it also

.

This one seems good. I suppose its meant to reflect the "if nothing changes in the landscape I won't attack" sentiment. Would love to position my troops, tell them I'm just passing through (a lie!) and then bribe my allies to attack. Or even better, pay the Civ I said I wouldn't attack to attack someone else, thereby removing my NAP! I do like this one.

 

[Polisurgist]

That's still a market. I was using the term loosely. I meant resource deals; ignoring the possibility of fair deals with an empire can be self-harming, especially when doing so over nothing/with a civ that isn't perceived as the biggest threat to win.

Sure, though there's nothing that can be traded through a leader-to-leader deal that can't also be taken by force (at least, nothing that you can get without a prior DoF). Any time I've been so hated that I literally can't get any of those deals, I just take what I want.

And there's hardly ever a time when you can't get any deal for anything. You might get a suboptimal deal, but no one ever promised you the best possible result every time you want it.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

The difference between the two is a "rational" outcome.

Games are defined by their rules. The act of hiding them is not a rational outcome unto itself. That you can hide them and have rational outcomes doesn't change that reality; it means that the rules were evident through implicit factors rather than explicit ones. As long as the player understands the implications to mean what the rules actually are, that holds up decently, but it's still a needless pitfall.

2) Does the "worlds market" truly avoid trade ? If you have otherwise good relations, will this completely sour them to the point where you can't make any deals ?

That question is irrelevant to my point. That it alters negotiations with anybody but the target civ is evidence enough.

The details are staggering. How is the zone determined?

Whatever conditions prompt the request are the same ones that must not be true. The simplest implementation by far (and likely sufficient) is to have the AI consistently bring this message up when the criteria is met, and drop the NAP when the criteria is no longer met. If the criteria is sufficiently strict, it would be difficult to get a true successful sneak attack, at least until air power, but you can do that right now anyway ^_^.

Would love to position my troops, tell them I'm just passing through (a lie!) and then bribe my allies to attack. Or even better, pay the Civ I said I wouldn't attack to attack someone else, thereby removing my NAP! I do like this one.

. This kind of behavior is par for the course in every civ iteration, including all of civ V up until now.

Then again, maybe a force in a heightened threat due to military on its borders should refuse war bribes . I'm not sure if Firaxis wants the headache of selective stabbing penalties, but in the case of a DoF dogpile it would make sense if your allies didn't mind your lie while anybody who isn't involved in this war did.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I think one of the problems with the "promise" that they used to have with CS and declaring war is that you don't Know if you are going to violate it.

If a popup came up saying (You promised that your troops were just passing through... are you Sure you want to declare war?)
[same for settling, converting, spying]

 

[TheMeInTeam]

^ While it would be useful to know that a NAP exists, the bigger issue is that you are forced to DoW or sign a NAP in the first place, with the mechanics behind it being questionable. The current implementation of this mechanic is not logically defensible, a bad reality considering it constitutes two factions operating under different rules in the same game, where the rules aren't defined.

 

[beetle]

If a popup came up saying (You promised that your troops were just passing through... are you Sure you want to declare war?) [same for settling, converting, spying]

That would be a nice feature! I have learned my lessons in this regard, and I am now better at keeping (or, more likely, not making) such promises, but the whole game mechanic (and consequences) would benefit from being more transparent IMHO.

…the bigger issue is that you are forced to DoW or sign a NAP in the first place…

I respectfully disagree with your major points.

I agree that it would certainly be enjoyable to be able to make a NAP or DoW demand of an AI civ! As discussed, the conditions for fulfilling the NAP are (perhaps unnecessarily) obscure.

I feel the game is the better for having this prompt. I think the NAP pop-up is okay as-is, and that removing it altogether would be much worse than leaving it alone. It is only a rude surprise the first game it happens. Taking the trigger out would make it too easy on the human player.

Once one knows it is there, it seems pretty straightforward to avoid activating the pop-up. When it comes to tactics, the AI has so many disadvantages that I feel no umbrage about the AI having this modest ability over a human player.

It does seem odd that the human player has at least a weak ability to influence settling, converting, and spying — but nothing like a NAP.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

I respectfully disagree with your major points.

I agree that it would certainly be enjoyable to be able to make a NAP or DoW demand of an AI civ! As discussed, the conditions for fulfilling the NAP are (perhaps unnecessarily) obscure.

One of my major points IS that this is a case of uneven rules. If your proposed solution is to instead offer the human player the opportunity to demand the same of the AI in the same situation the AI does it, then that would be a valid (though potentially abusive) solution also.

Bullying/forcing NAP is not a sound mechanic in the general sense, and that the current implementation of this rule is a broken mechanic.

When it comes to tactics, the AI has so many disadvantages that I feel no umbrage about the AI having this modest ability over a human player.

I have suggested a few methods that would prevent a true backstab without creating a ludicrous NAP, which is usually something signed between civs that like each other or are at least mutually willing to cooperate for a set period of time.

This isn't a tactical issue at all; these kinds of complaints wouldn't show up if the AI dropped the NAP as soon as you moved troops away. This is an uneven diplomacy issue, and the extent that it attempts to "correct" the AI's lack of tactical ability is somewhat silly. As you've already pointed out, someone who knows about this will simply avoid triggering it in the first place, thus bypassing the forced NAP and declaring as they please without the fake NAP-Stab penalty.

But if that's the case, and experienced players will simply DoW when the prompt shows because they'll only trigger it when ready to declare, what's the point of imposing this esoteric garbage on newer players? It doesn't serve the purpose you claim if "once you know about it", you can simply work around it anyway. At that point, there is almost 0 functional difference between a long NAP rule or simply having the request decay when you leave the area, because the player will only enter the area when ready. It's a botched mechanic that adds micromanagement without adding depth for experienced players and should be reworked, at least to some degree.

 

[beetle]

One of my major points IS that this is a case of uneven rules.

But so what? Should the game only be played at King because that's where the rule are closest to even?

Any mechanism that forces the human player to be more strategic improves the game experience.

What you write about game design may be valid, but I don't find it particularly on point. Between (1) leaving this particular feature alone, (2) removing it, or (3) the changes you suggest -- I think (1) results in the most best (most interesting, challenging) play experience.

these kinds of complaints wouldn't show up if the AI dropped the NAP as soon as you moved troops away.

No one has provided evidence (anecdote or code inspection) that this isn't the case.