"Your promise broken"

[cairnsy44]

Maybe that was referring to city-state suzerainty?

Maybe. But I don't THINK I had that status yet. It was very early.

 

[agonistes]

I agree we should be able to make the same requests/demands of the AI that they can make of us. And do something about the AI being upset about our troops when our troops are in our own borders. As it stands, you can't build and occupy a fort two hexes back from your border if you have a shared border? Isn't that the point of a fort (often, anyways)? To protect your border?

Also, it would be really nice if India could just once respect their agreement not to convert your cities. Maybe a request to stop this before its actually done would be nice too. Heck, maybe make faith units respect borders even? Or even better, be on a separate Open Borders plan altogether.

I expect, thankfully, that a diplomacy update will be coming in the future. Didn't the devs say, at some point, that they had done limited work with diplomacy so that other things could get finished before release? Or am I mistaken?

Anyways, requests/demands need to be bilateral. And 3 hexes clear in your own borders is insane. I'm willing to concede 1, reluctantly.

Hopefully not too far afield, but even after a civ has ceded me a city, I'm still getting impossible to overcome negative modifiers for being in their city. Interestingly, the modifier for razing a city is either completely wiped at some point, or is nowhere close to as massive. Lesson learned: its less a diplomatic breach to just annihilate a populace.

Yes, ha ha ha, I too had a civ (Greece) actually find the one hole in my borders and move a settler in and found a city 1 turn before I could get to him. On a 3x3 space. And then warn me to move my troops back. (Hence the razing of a city, noted above). I believe Rome just qualified for some similar treatment.

 

[Louis XXIV]

I think Civ5's "I'm not attacking for 25 turns" thing is probably better than the current one. That being said, a smart AI should be able to renew that request every 25 turns to make sure you aren't just playing the long game to lull them into a false sense of security. There's also the argument that troops on someone's border does spark tension in real life (also, the fact that there are troops is usually a sign of that tension as well).

I don't want to overcomplicate it, but it really should be four options:
1. We're Just Moving Our Troops Through - No diplomatic hit, but must move troops away from border
2. Our troops are Merely Defending the Border - Very minor diplomatic hit with the one Civ (-1 or -2), must not attack for 25 turns or else you get a major reputation hit.
3. You were Right to be Concerned (Declares War) - Warmonger hit, diplomatic hit for declaring war but no reputation hit.
4. Ignore Them - Larger diplomatic hit with the one Civ. No reputation hit.

Ideally, with the final option, the AI would respond by moving troops to counter your troops. With option 2, they would carry on with business as usual, but might make a few more units in response to the overall diplomatic situation.

 

[SpoonyGundam]

I had a similar problem. I converted one of Norway's cities, then promised him that I'd stop. I never converted another city, but he converted a bunch of mine, and then I got the "promise broken" notification. It's total BS.

I've had conversion promises broken because the AI kept suiciding apostles on my inquisitors to convert their own nearby cities.

 

[Patrick Fenton]

I can't figure out which troupes the AI is talking about. When a civ asks you to move your troops, I cannot figure out what they are talking about. Is there away to know which troops they are talking about, or do you just guess. I have been told by India that I broke my promise, but cannot find any troops near there border. I have even gone back to a save from a few turns before, and still can't figure it out. I do have 2 cities that are 2 spaces from there borders with troops in them. I mean there are my cities then 2 hexes then there border. That can't be what is triggering it can it?

 

[Patrick Fenton]

I give up. This game is a pos. It is really frustrating getting penalized for something that you cannot control. I am trying to play a clean game. I have not done anything to anyone. I move my troops when asked. Yet I get penalized for not moving troops. I would really like to know what they are talking about.

 

[Aenthin]

I found promises get buggy sometimes. There was a time where I somehow broke a promise when loading the first time, but didn't get it upon reloading.

 

[HF22]

I actually find it quite immersive boarder troops, even if defensive, cause tension. They should cause tension, even within your territory.

 

[Louis XXIV]

As I wrote above, I agree they should cause tension. What they shouldn't do is prompt you to declare war.

 

[Victoria]

The mechanics on this in Civ 5 BNW were perfect.
It took 3 units within 2 tiles to trigger such a thing and there was some compensation for if they were within your own borders.

I got the same issue with India in my current game after he banged a new city next to my capital.
After freaking out a bit because he has 10 Elephants within 3 squares of my city I realized how stupid I was.

This is not "Nuke Em" Ghandi but peaceful ruling with a stick much like (early aggressive)Teddy. I removed all my troops from my capital and Ghandi's ele's eventually ambled elsewhere. I can now see his hidden Agenda and feel completely safe with him despite him being now neutral to me.

In fact I think I'll remove the encampment and try and grow the city to as near 40 as I can despite him owning some potential tiles.... Why... coz I feel like it. I feel so much freer in this game to do alternative things.

 

[Lord_Azazel]

Is diplomacy this borked?

As a drunk dwarf in wow would have said: "Yesh!"

 

[Cymsdale]

I learned to quickly not care at all how pissed the AI is at me. If they are going to insist on throwing tantrums, I'm going to move as many troops up to their borders as I'm able, because I know they are about to do something stupid.

 

[Nathair]

I learned to quickly not care at all how pissed the AI is at me. If they are going to insist on throwing tantrums, I'm going to move as many troops up to their borders as I'm able, because I know they are about to do something stupid.

I've been playing the same way but it's disappointing that the promise mechanics have made diplomacy so unwieldy.

 

[MyOtherName]

I understand some of the basic reasoning, but this should not apply if the units are within your own borders, defensively.

It may be frustrating, but it's both reasonable, and realistic to boot. It's a source of contention, but close borders spark tensions -- it's just that now there is a concrete reason they do so, rather than an abstract diplomatic penalty (as in Civ 4).

 

[Valmighty]

When the first gameplay trailer is revealed, i honestly thought it was like Civ5. But i was optimistic that it's not like CBE, that it's a brand new game.

After finishing about 3 games, I'm really disappointed. The diplomacy is basically Civ5, the 1UPT mechanics is basically Civ5, the city state and natural wonder is basically Civ5, the culture/faith as resource is basically Civ5, the tourism/trade is basically Civ5, religion/espionage is basically Civ5. They didn't do this from scratch. They just expanded civ5 by giving it a different/additional mechanics.

Remember when civ5 was released? Nothing in Civ4 was in Civ5. Civ6? I keep seeing Civ5 and their failure here

 

[agonistes]

Its a shame, but diplomacy, for me, is mostly 'ignore' 'ignore' 'ignore' unless they are spamming missionaries, in which case I denounce then go to war. Which means everyone ends up denouncing me for warmonger. So the standard game, when I look at the row of faces in the upper right, is just a long row of red cherries.

Once I accepted that being hated is the norm, I become much less frustrated with diplomacy. Although my hopes of a diplomatic play-through are dashed.

Plus the conquer/cede vs. raze thing.

Nothing is bilateral.

Russia just dow'd on Germany, then denounced me (again) for being a warmonger. Why couldn't the other mongers be programmed to give a fellow monger a pat on the back, instead? Or denounce you for something else: 'Japan is ours, friend! We have a long and complicated history with them, and every intention of retaking land that rightfully belongs to us!'

Anyways, as it stands, the diplomacy is all screwed up. I think they forgot a few lines of code somewhere. I'm sure it'll get fixed.

Pro tip of the day: its rare for a faith civ to leave its capital protected with apostles, and they usually spawn missionaries at the capital (once I saw Arabia using another city for missionaries). So just blast the capitals with faith as early as possible (and the surrounding cities if need be). If you do it early enough, they won't even have a chance to spawn a single missionary.

This game has made me violent towards images of Gandhi. Thank you Firaxis.

edit: I was trying to figure out my amenity issue when I realized I had been at war with Japan and India for about 400 turns. > do NOT attempt to convert my cities < As a wise man once said, "I vill break you."

 

[Totibbs]

They seem to. I have 100% gotten negative Diplo modifier for troops near borders when the only thing buy the Civ is a scout

maybe Builders count as a unit as well. Im not sure though.
After I improved a resource I got a diplo hit. Maybe another unit moved in, maybe not. Stupid Ai

 

[UWHabs]

At the very least, if the sum power of my units near the border is less than the sum power of their units near the border, they shouldn't trigger. So yeah, if my army moves towards them, complain. But if you have 5-6 horsemen patrolling the border, I should definitely be allowed to keep a couple pikes and crossbowmen around.

 

[agonistes]

At the very least, if the sum power of my units near the border is less than the sum power of their units near the border, they shouldn't trigger. So yeah, if my army moves towards them, complain. But if you have 5-6 horsemen patrolling the border, I should definitely be allowed to keep a couple pikes and crossbowmen around.

Agree. Anything less than full bilateral equality in diplomacy is, in my opinion, unacceptable. It just looks foolish and breaks all immersion. If the fear is that it will break gameplay, find the work around for god's sake.

Oh, couple of other things I am missing....

1) The option to demand, discuss, and deal that a foreign power STOP an invasion. I know the devs left out the ability to ask a civ to go to war on purpose, but what about the opposite? If France attacks Geneva, I want to be able to warn France to bugger off, even if not Suzerain. Option would be nice.

2) To be able to liberate a city I got in a peace deal... . Isn't this a no-brainer? I went to war to free Zanzibar, because the amenities are so valuable... got it in trade. Can't liberate it. So do I gift it back, then liberate by war? But extending that... maybe be able to negotiate for the liberation of a city without actually having to have an at-war status.


I am finding that many a time I am opening the diplomacy screen and looking for the cause-belli option, and it just ain't there. What the heck? These guys (and gals) are pillaging, looting, raping, and conquering the civilized world, and I can't cause belli them? Its okay to dow a surprise war early on, but as the world gets more civilized, I can't throw down on Greece for an impromptu invasion of Carthage? I am not allowed to play the role of the good guy?

And how many missionaries must I suffer through before I can cause belli? Forget denounce... I want to be able to tell Arabia, 'Hey Chucky, you send one more missionary into my borders, I am deep-frying Cairo.' And then Causi Beli. I shouldn't have to wait for a conversion.

Well, I may be off my rocker, but I actually think Mr. Beach and I have similar views about many of the aspects of Civ, and I suspect that some of this will be changing in the months ahead.

 

[sidiust]

If I remember correctly, having bilateral Open Borders seems to prevent the "troops on borders" promise. In an emperor level game where I was bordering Rome, I had troops right up against his border and had no demands for me to move them away, because I had an Open Border treaty active. It probably works by offering unilateral open borders too.

Conclusion: if you're going to be friends, give the AI open border access. Otherwise, just ignore their request. Don't make the promise unless you really are just passing by, and intend to move your units 3 tiles away within 30 turns.