You're right to worry and it's time that you die

[Ceterius]

If an AI civ complains about military units near its borders, does lying about it cause any global diplomacy penalty? Or does it just affect relations with one leader?

How many turns does it take to be able to declare war without the diplomatic penalty if you told that the units are just passing through?

 

[Dreadnought]

It's a global penalty. As for the number of turns until you can declare war, I've heard conflicting reports. Some say 30 turns, some say no amount of turns will prevent a penalty.

 

[Ceterius]

It's a global penalty. As for the number of turns until you can declare war, I've heard conflicting reports. Some say 30 turns, some say no amount of turns will prevent a penalty.

Are you sure because I've seen the negative modifier in the diplomacy window of the leader who I lied to but never any other leaders?

 

[JamesCivFan]

I am only sure about the first part of your question so I will only answer this.
The AI's opinion of you has some certain thresholds (numbers) that determine its way to see you. These are as follows: OPINION_THRESHOLD_UNFORGIVABLE = 50
OPINION_THRESHOLD_ENEMY = 30
OPINION_THRESHOLD_FRIEND = -30
OPINION_THRESHOLD_ALLY = -50
(taken from GlobalDiplomacyAI.xml)
As you can see, the negative numbers represent the good attitudes towards the player.
The positive ones are the bad attitudes.

So again from the same xml file, Saying "Don't worry, our troops are merely passing by" , then attacking= 40 and= 15 with the rest of the world. Which means that you go to "unforgivable status" with that specific AI and take a pretty bad hit with everyone else. (if you were at 0 before). Saying that you're right to worry and declare war, is just the regular "war declared" diplomacy hit with everyone.

 

[Ex.plode]

I built a city near a neutral AI (England), got denounced by 2 other CIV's in 3 turns :|

 

[Ceterius]

So again from the same xml file, Saying "Don't worry, our troops are merely passing by" , then attacking= 40 and= 15 with the rest of the world. Which means that you go to "unforgivable status" with that specific AI and take a pretty bad hit with everyone else. (if you were at 0 before). Saying that you're right to worry and declare war, is just the regular "war declared" diplomacy hit with everyone.

Do you take a diplomacy hit with civs you haven't met yet?

 

[JamesCivFan]

No. Since they haven't met you yet. I am not sure of what happens when you deceive AI no1 and you don't know AI no2, but AI no1 knows him/her.

I doubt that you get a hit even then, because the logic behind it would not make any sense. It would be like... AIno1:"A player deceived me and attacked me, even though he said he was just passing by"
AIno2 "I don't know him, but I will hate him forever for that".

So, based on that logic, I'd say that you don't get a hit. Can anyone confirm this?

 

[qemist]

The AI's opinion of you has some certain thresholds (numbers) that determine its way to see you. These are as follows: OPINION_THRESHOLD_UNFORGIVABLE = 50
...
So again from the same xml file, Saying "Don't worry, our troops are merely passing by" , then attacking= 40 and= 15 with the rest of the world. Which means that you go to "unforgivable status" with that specific AI

40 is less than 50 so why? or do you mean the whole world when you say rest of the world?

I doubt that you get a hit even then, because the logic behind it would not make any sense.

When has that stopped Firaxis?

It would be like... AIno1:"A player deceived me and attacked me, even though he said he was just passing by"
AIno2 "I don't know him, but I will hate him forever for that".

I think that is over simple. You can know *of* someone without knowing them. For example, Rome and Han did not know each other, but they knew (a little) of each other. Another, many nations had heard of the Mongols long before they had (ahem) diplomatic relations with them.

 

[apocalypse105]

This penalty doesn't make sence because when I say yes you are right it is time to die I get a penalty when I say no just passing through and atack a few turns later penalty!!!!!

So whats the point?



I didn't get this penalty once because I denounced him first and then moved my forces neer his borders Still she said" you refused to move you're troops away' Say what? Can somebody explain these penalties.

Do you only get a global penalty if you atack without warning if you say passing through and didn't denounce?

 

[dexters]

A relevant question really is if decays at all, because you could be moving your troops to do something and later decide you want to attack them afterall. And I'm never sure if enough time has elapsed for me to do it.

 

[svett89]

A relevant question really is if decays at all, because you could be moving your troops to do something and later decide you want to attack them afterall. And I'm never sure if enough time has elapsed for me to do it.

This is indeed quite frustrating. Happened to me the other day when I decided to attack Mongolia who shared borders with Egypt. Since I was killing off stuff in the Mongolian territory Rammesses asked me if I intended to attack him. I said no and then spent at least a good 20-25 turns finishing of the Mongols. Add to that a few more turns to get my happiness back in line and then attacked Egypt. They still claimed that I broke my word, even though I had spent a lot of time finishing my other war.

 

[qemist]

This is indeed quite frustrating. Happened to me the other day when I decided to attack Mongolia who shared borders with Egypt. Since I was killing off stuff in the Mongolian territory Rammesses asked me if I intended to attack him. I said no and then spent at least a good 20-25 turns finishing of the Mongols. Add to that a few more turns to get my happiness back in line and then attacked Egypt. They still claimed that I broke my word, even though I had spent a lot of time finishing my other war.

Suggest if you (a) move your troops and (b) make war on someone else, then it should expire.

This mechanism is just an example of "obstacle-ism". You don't get to complain about the AI's troop movements. They don't get the diplo hit. I've had AIs make the complaint when they had their troops stacked two deep on our border and I had only a handful!

 

[Dralix]

Suggest if you (a) move your troops and (b) make war on someone else, then it should expire.

The problem is finding a balance between legitimate easing of tensions, and a way to game the system.

You don't get to complain about the AI's troop movements. They don't get the diplo hit.

You don't have to complain, and the AI doesn't need a diplo hit. The human isn't bound by diplo modifiers, you declare war whenever you feel like.

 

[Sporaticus]

I don't know about the "troops passing through" scenario, but I've had AIs come back and accuse me of violating my promise to "withdraw immediately" over 50 turns after I made/broke the promise to stop attacking a City State.

 

[qemist]

You don't have to complain, and the AI doesn't need a diplo hit. The human isn't bound by diplo modifiers, you declare war whenever you feel like.

So? negative diplo modifies affect how all other players treat you, not just the one you "lied to". So the AI is advantaged over the human player by never suffering this diplomatic penalty with the other AIs due to their interactions with the human. I don't believe they suffer it due to their interactions with other AIs either.

 

[Ceterius]

No. Since they haven't met you yet. I am not sure of what happens when you deceive AI no1 and you don't know AI no2, but AI no1 knows him/her.

I doubt that you get a hit even then, because the logic behind it would not make any sense. It would be like... AIno1:"A player deceived me and attacked me, even though he said he was just passing by"
AIno2 "I don't know him, but I will hate him forever for that".

So, based on that logic, I'd say that you don't get a hit. Can anyone confirm this?

I'm not sure. If you declare war against a DoF partner you'll take a diplomacy hit also with those civs which haven't met you yet.

 

[JamesCivFan]

40 is less than 50 so why? or do you mean the whole world when you say rest of the world?



When has that stopped Firaxis?



I think that is over simple. You can know *of* someone without knowing them. For example, Rome and Han did not know each other, but they knew (a little) of each other. Another, many nations had heard of the Mongols long before they had (ahem) diplomatic relations with them.

If you declare war though, it will be 40 + the penalty of declaring war. I don't know how much exactly that is, but it's surely much above 10. I don't know what happens if you sign a peace treaty. Maybe it falls back to 40 which means "enemy status" but, the diplomatic hit of declaring war will remain. About your last point. It's true but only in the real world. In Civilization games, there are certain rules and numbers behind everything. So if we knew the exact rule behind that concept, it would be helpful here.

 

[JamesCivFan]

I'm not sure. If you declare war against a DoF partner you'll take a diplomacy hit also with those civs which haven't met you yet.

Sorry for the double post. It's true that you take a hit with civilizations you haven't met yet when you do that, but maybe it's not true about the concept the Original Poster was talking about. So , that's why I asked if anyone knows for sure if that's the case with it too.

 

[Roxlimn]

gemist:

I think they do if they move their units around haphazardly in each other's territory. I have a lot of games where Alex just couldn't get along with anyone, even Civs he hasn't attacked yet.

 

[boxturtle]

What if everyone hates that civ?
I had a game where I lied to Ghandhi who was pretty much hated by everyone and I don't remember much of a diplo hit with other players.