What's the #@$#@ point of borders??? (rant)

[Blackadar1]

This is a rant. Agree or disagree, but don't whine because you "had" to read a rant.

What's the point of borders if the damn AI doesn't have to abide by them? I was playing an early game with the Russians and was on the same continent as the French, Greeks and English. I had built a lot of early cities and had a fairly contiguous border. I asked REPEATEDLY for my opposition to get out of my territory and they would for a turn, then they'd be right back in my face.

Then they started building cities. First, it was on the outskirts of my borders or in waste areas (deserts). Then they just started plunking down cities that actively interfered with my culture borders. I was getting a bit miffed, but it was still tolerable. Then, they just started building cities INSIDE MY ACTIVE ESTABLISHED CITY LIMITS. That's right. Not only inside my culture borders, but inside my @$#%# city borders - the 2 hex "X" border.

After that, my Civ 3 CD became a $50 frisbee.

Frankly, it's not friggin worth the frustration of trying to build a large, peaceful Civ and having the computer just start plopping down cities in the middle of my empire. It's one thing to do it outside my city borders, where their city won't interfere with mine. Or outside my culture borders, where my city may have not grown outside the 1 hex range yet. It's quite another to have the computer start plunking down cities RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE OF MY EMPIRE, perhaps because there's one hex that's not covered by any city, but by establishing that city their production radius interferes with a number of my cities. THAT SHOULD BE AN ACT OF WAR!!!

Firaxis forgot the attraction of Civ I and II - it's more fun to create and build than it is to destroy. You really can't play Civ 3 without being a warmonger. Which is a damn shame, because that's what made Civ I and II so great. You could actually play and win without actively pursuing war, at least on the lower difficulty levels.

Did anyone play test this for longer than 5 minutes to actually figure out this just might be frustrating rather than fun? Geez, SMAC actually had much better border implementation and game concepts. Regardless of future patches, this game is pretty friggin mediocre in its released state.

[Malkuth]

Look at the bright side, thier retards for doing it, but in 20 turns its going to be yours anyway due to your overwelming culture beating on the 1 point city. Its dumb, its a bug, and hopefully they will fix it. The biggest problem with this isnt the fact they they plant it in middle of your empire. Its the fact that your going to have a useless city in 20 turns.

[GNGSpam]

This is just smart play from the computer. I do the exact same thing to them, I think its just downright ignorant for you to expect the computer to not be intelligent, especially after we all pleaded for the AI to be smarter.

Why build in wasteland? Simple, saltpeter and oil show up in the desert. Youd be an idiot to not plunk down a city in the desert if for no other reason then to claim the area in case one of those resources appear.

Why build next to your culture boundries? Why build it so it interfers with your city radius and pushes your boundries back?

DUH

dumbass

its tactical. He controls your expansion by heeming you in, pushes your boundries back, and if he can get a superior culture, increases his chance of converting your cities.

I do it all the time, and quite succesfully.

Instead of *****ing, try learning from the CPU


BTW if they built INSIDE the culture boundries, thats a declaration of war

[MrBlud]

I totally agree nothing irritates me more then a civ plopping down cities on my space. There should be an option to totally deny right of passage. This would cover everything in your border +5 around your cuclture border. I like having a civ per continent, the british plunked down like three cities and I had to build some just to assimilate those into my civ. There should be a continent ban option that keeps an enemy civ off of your continent.

[Malkuth]

Actually GNG your lack of understanding culture, seems to forget the fact that his culture is going to overrun that city smack in the middle of his empire in 20 turns. Doesnt sound too smart of an AI to me in that respect.

But I am still having fun with the game, even though thiers little things that need to be fixed.

[Blackadar1]

GNGSpam, try reading the post a little closer...to use your favorite term...dumbass. The second full paragraph - the one that starts with "then they started building".

BTW if they built INSIDE the culture boundries, thats a declaration of war

Not only did they build inside of the culture boundries without it being an "act of war", they build cities that encroached upon my 2 hex "x" CITY boundary.

Like this:

City - X - X - O - X - X - City

(where X is part of the city boundary that gets improved and O is an unused hex, but all is enclosed as my "culture" border"

The computer came in and did this

City - X - Y - ENEMY CITY - Y - X - City (where Y is now his city border because they MUST have at least a 1 hex border like any brand new city). Sorry if it's a bit confusing, but that's the best way I can explain it.

So not only did the AI plunk down a city smack in the middle of my civ, but they did so in a way to screw up the production of my cities - in this case, one was my capital city. That should be an act of war, but the AI can do this with impunity.

And I really don't care about the fact that I'll get the cities eventually with "culture" as I don't want these crappy cities that have no room to grow that shouldn't be there in the first place.

[GNGSpam]

Not always the case.

Generally speaking I expand faster then the AI. Hence my "hinterlands" are closer to his capital then mine, giving him a culture advantage. I usually have to make the Temple my 3rd build (after 2 defensive units) in order to protect my borders.

But then im not playing Chieftan ethier

[PatriotPlayer]

Firaxis forgot the attraction of Civ I and II - it's more fun to create and build than it is to destroy. You really can't play Civ 3 without being a warmonger. Which is a damn shame, because that's what made Civ I and II so great. You could actually play and win without actively pursuing war, at least on the lower difficulty levels.

I spent a week trying to phrase this and you said it perfect.

This is exactly the problem, some of us enjoyed the building aspect of the earlier Civ's and only went to war when needed. now that's moot. I hope they can tone down the AI in lower levels and keep it in the aggressive in the higher for those who like that. Maybe even a war/economic toggle.

While I'm here I need coal, I'm playing a standard map and not a single coal deposit on the map, all areas seen, no trades, nothing to steal, no coal at all and it's been like that for at least 1000 years.

[GNGSpam]

Ive never seen that, im sorry. But if they built that close to your capital city youll absorb the city very quickly. (Quite frankly it seems impossible, ive never seen anything near that in my games)

[GNGSpam]

If all you want to do is build and have no war play chieftan

[Malkuth]

I had it happen in my recent game GNG. Thier was 1 square that was open near my capital and it planted a city thier. Few turns later it was absorbed. The problem is the city is useless and is taking from your other main cities.

[Hans2]

Not commenting on the cities issue, but I wholeheartedly agree with the AI not respecting your borders. Even though I'm the biggest and badest civ around and you'd think they'd try to topple me more overtly than constantly encroaching on my borders.

And you know what else gets me? The AI's attitude towards me WORSENS the more I kick his units out. As if he has a right to be pissed off when I ask him to leave my territory!

The borders for the most part are great Firaxis, big improvement over Civ 2, but some tweaking is needed-badly.

[GNGSpam]

Post a screenie please

[Blackadar1]

Um, that's kind of hard now. I wasn't joking about Civ 3 becoming a $50 frisbee.

[Steve Clark]

Two points:

1. Why would an AI civ (esp. one that could be militaristic and/or expansionists) allow YOU to become large and peaceful???

2. Name one civ in history that become large without having to fight off enemies, internally or externally???

If you want a passive and predictable AI, play Civ2 or SMAC. If you want to learn how to deal with an AI that is less predictable and perhaps, clever and frustrating at times, play Civ3.

[Pyrodrew]

I don't find that big of an issue with borders or AI aggressiveness at all.

You really can't play Civ 3 without being a warmonger.

As I've said before my games have been quite peaceful... in fact I often started worrying the AI was too peaceful. I was about to complain on this board until I saw all these "the AI is too agressive" posts.

I'm playing a standard map and not a single coal deposit on the map

The smaller the map the harder it is to find resources. Coal is the most rare resource it seems.

Thier was 1 square that was open near my capital and it planted a city thier. Few turns later it was absorbed.

I try avoiding having 1 square opening for the AI to plant cities in. And if I cannot avoid it, I send a warrior or worker to stand there for awhile.

Regarding the AI & Borders...
What I do is decide where the borders are before our main borders meet. Once I learn where an AI's borders are I immediately build cities near them so they don't expand my direction. Although this may leave an empty gap between my main borders & my cities on the AI's civs borders, I can fill in that gap later. Will the AI? Usually not! The AI likes to expand it's borders to obtain as much "new border" space as possible 1st. If you place cities near them early on it will force them to grow in other directions first. If the AI does build a city in the gap your culture gets to absorb it shortly. Too bad some people just give up so soon. See my attachment to see how I made the Persians grow vertically (instead of east towards me) and the Chinese to grow horizontally (instead of north towards me). Persians are a blue-grey & the Chinese are pink. My capital started on the Eastern shore... take a look how close my cities were built to the Persian Capital in the west...

[Pyrodrew]

AHHH! I had to cut off the mini-map to get the picture to fit. Anyways the Chinese empire looks like a wide flat pink pancake & the Persian empire looks like a tall thin blue-grey pole.

BTW, this is a HUGE map on Regent.

[PatriotPlayer]

The smaller the map the harder it is to find resources. Coal is the most rare resource it seems.

So how am I supposed to build railroads or is it like saltpeter that when you get more research you don't need it anymore? If that isn't true and I will never get coal what's the point in playing? I would think that every resource should at least be in one spot on any map.

Regarding the AI & Borders...

I see your point and it's a clever and elegant solution and if this game was some new game and not the DIRECT descendant of the Civilization series it would be good to have an AI that does that. But since this is CIV3 and not a brand new series I DON'T want to play Tetris with my cities.

I want to build an empire like I did in 1&2 but even better because this is Civ3.
Civilization 1&2 were empire building games not puzzle city placement war games. This is the WHOLE argument, Civ3 is not a bad game and I do enjoy it but Civ3 is not a Civilization game as Brian and Sid made 1&2 to be. At least in the way I played it which is minimal contact, good city placement, rush improvements, get all or most of the wonders and build caravans but most of all no wars and get into space as fast as possible. At most I would have a dozen cities about half which were 30+ in a clear concise nicely manageable area connected by rail and defended by 4 or 5 of the best units available. I would only war if made war upon or to consolidate my borders. Once my empire was set and "walled off" I went whole hog on building and research. To me that's the heart of Civ and darn near impossible to do in Civ3, there is too much city jockeying, AI intrusion and war. I want to be a Switzerland not a Poland.

Well, I did manage to get that kind of Empire but I wasn't able to give my cities perfect placement (maximum land and resource use and no overlaps) instead I had to PLOP them down so as to keep the AI from picking off that tiny land square on the coast and ruining my work. They still wander all over my land but I dare not do that to them.

Anyway this is only my opinion and the way I enjoyed playing Civilization. Remember I did not say the game was bad, just not what I expected from the true Civ series and there are plenty of real good innovations in diplomacy, trade and resources except for that coal thing.

Originally posted by Blackadar1
Um, that's kind of hard now. I wasn't joking about Civ 3 becoming a $50 frisbee.

So.......how did it fly?

[Pyrodrew]

Disclaimer: Even tho this strategy works for me, others may not like it since there is some risk involved in it. Which one will understand if they try it. It's a balancing act of risk vs. reward.

Resources: In the meantime, to best avoid this play on large maps with 60% water or huge maps. Resources seem to always cluster together in the same size regardless of map size. So it's not that resources are too rare, it's just the cluster sizes could be better for smaller maps. I think this is why some people can win Tiny Maps so fast as well... they start off with all the iron & horses on the map... AI is easy to kill.

TooMuchWar?: I'm on Regent & I'm usually the one who has to pick a fight & be the bully.

Borders: I didn't say that my suggestion was the only solution, I gave it simply to explain that solutions exist. But why not try different tactics or ask for suggestions in the strategy forum? I believe you didn't experience this with Civ2 because the Civ2 AI was weak. When my friends & I played "don't attack me" games ((for some reason they didn't want human vs. human fights - silly, but that's what they wanted & still do)) this did happen. 1st everyone started building their cities a little further out than normal... then everyone started building their cities much farther out than normal (no Civ3 distance corruption)... then they started building their cities behind where I placed my cities! So I'm not surprised at all this was implemented into the Civ3 AI.

Perfect City Placement: This should be rewarded more. This is why in the Creation Forum I suggested more "Ironworks" type buildings (which have 2 resources in city radius) be made to reward those who do set up perfect city placements.

[Dev]

I hear ya.

This wouldn't be so much of a problem if you could disband your OWN goddamn cities.

Whoever decided to kill the build settler at 1 pop (or 2 in CIV3s case) to disband the city ability should be taken outside and shot.


This is nothing but pure grief aimed at the player!

/dev

[Robert Plomp]

1. AI can't build cities within your borders. Only near thus it's up to you to keep your borders 'closed' and don't leave gapes where AI can build cities. Compared to civ2 a big plus. In civ2 the AI could build cities everywhere in your territory.

2. Compared to civ2 borders are a big plus. If any AI unit comes in your territory you can legally declare war. Of course you would prefer a peacefull solution. I can tell you, during WWII we, the dutch, prefered a peacefull solution as well but the germans ignored our borders.

I have problems as well with Germans and Romans fighting their war on my territory. I could declare a war and lose, but I prefer to keep silence and let them fight. It's good for me. I prefer them to leave but unfortunately they won't unless I start a war. In fact These guys don't harm me (they're a stay in the way but nothing more and nothing less) thus it's after all no big problem at all.

[Dev]

I kinda agree about #1 & #2 but I think that neither you nor the AI shouldn't be allowed to build a city that moves an existing border without declaring war.

I have problems as well with Germans and Romans fighting their war on my territory. I could declare a war and lose, but I prefer to keep silence and let them fight. It's good for me. I prefer them to leave but unfortunately they won't unless I start a war. In fact These guys don't harm me (they're a stay in the way but nothing more and nothing less) thus it's after all no big problem at all.

This is where you get lost though ;=

THEY should be forced to either DOW you or leave and stay out. Last time I checked the germans declared war on the netherlands the moment their troops crossed the border, not the other way around.

/dev

[PatriotPlayer]

TooMuchWar?

Well I guess I mean the threat of war, if I shoo them away too much it's almost certain war and certain situations come up a lot more often now that only war seems to fix.

Another thing is 2 AI's warring, why does it always have to be on my land? I'm playing a Y shaped Pangaia map and I'm in the leg and the Iroquois on the left and the Aztecs right. My cities have expanded up to the connection point and essentially have cut them off from each other but instead of either ending their war or taking it to the water they insist on fighting it right in my cities. I can't really sit back because I don't know if they will attack me or not, they have tons of units all over my lands and if I shoo them they get pissed and come back anyway. Ok, I have infantry and they are still using warriors and such but I really don't want the hassle of taking them out because I'm trying to win by going to space.

[duxup]

I have to agree, aside from resource ownership, borders seem somewhat useless. I don't mind the occasional violation of borders by the enemy for some reasons (building roads, or trying to get from one territory of theirs to another). Yet they never ask for a right of passage for any of the reasons I mentioned.

It would seem they can violate my territory and I always have to ask them three times to get out before they're forced out, yet sometimes they can force me out immediately. Why should I have to ask 3 times (especially when they obviously don't head back to their territory or habitually violate it)?

At the very least such border violations should cause a degradation in their reputation with other nations, and/or provide a legitimate reason for declaring war.

[Barchan]

Too bad they didn't include a casus belli concept to declaring war in the game. Obviously, there should be a heavy diplomatic penalty for delcaring war without reason (and no, declaring war to secure a coal mine is not good reason, diplomatically speaking...). But when a cause for war exists, the diplomatic penalty should be greatly reduced, if not eliminated entirely.

Traditionally, military attacks, breaking of treaties and generally encroaching on another soverign's territory are the most frequent casus belli. As it is now, if someone else won't stay out of your territory or builds so as to encroach it, when you (rightfully!) declare war on them the rest of the world looks at you like you're Hitler. It would be nice if the AI recognized you had a valid cause for declaring war and said "Oh, well, that's OK then" and went about its collective business.

Lastly, peace only issues forth from the muzzle of a gun (or pointy bit of the stick, depending on your epoch). Unless you have a strong military, other countries will seek to take advantage of you, particularly if you are richer, smarter, or have more stuff than they do. Don't think that Switzerland is neutral because everyone thinks they're a great bunch of people. The terrain makes a large-scale invasion almost impossible, virtually all Swiss citizens are all trained in the military and active in the milita, and many are armed (legally) to the teeth. Not just with those little Army knives, either. They've got the most sophisticated bicycle infanty in the world and know the interior of their country intimately, a huge bonus where the shortest distance from A to B might not involve a paved road. There's a also a vast network of secret weapons caches and bunkers all over Switzerland. Granted, they may refrain from choosing sides by choice, but they remain neutral because no one wants to get butchered by their defenses.

In the game and in real life, you've got to have a decent military to survive. A few spearmen here and there won't cut it. I've noticed that when you're weak, the AI runs all over your borders, both with military and non-military units. But when you're strong, they won't come across the line. When they start making forays into your territory again, your military strength is slipping comparatively....

It's unrealistic to think that just because you haven't done anything to anyone the AI should let you run away with the game because you're "neutral". World politics are playground politics writ large. When a country bigger than you wants your lunch money, unless you can beat him up, or have a big friend who can, he's going to take it from you. For better or worse, it's a Hobbesian world. In this regard, the game merely reflects our natural state of affairs.

[Blackadar1]

So.......how did it fly?

Not bad, but not as well as Sierra Football 2000.

Oh, I was looking over my post and there's more to the story.

So I booted the English out and razed the city, starting a war that immediately plunged my empire into war weariness. And since it takes multiple (like about 6) turns to change Government types, my entire empire is in revolt. However, I got my borders back, right?

Well, no. Here come the French...tromping across my borders. "Get out", I say. They ignore me. "Get out", I say. They ignore me. "Get out", I say. They ignore me. And proceeded to "found" a city IN THE EXACT SAME PLACE AS THE FORMER ENGLISH CITY. So I take my nice little settler and try to do the same. "Get out", they say. And the computer leaves me no choice but to leave or go to war.

WHIZZZZZZZZZZZZ (the sound of a flying CD)

[Max Webster]

Well in MY GAME i have some incidents of trespassing but I was mainly impressed with most of my bordering civs and how they honoured the borders. Like I said though i did have some problems but I'm a good enough civ player I know how to deal with it.

[Hans2]

Originally posted by Dev
I hear ya.

This wouldn't be so much of a problem if you could disband your OWN goddamn cities.

Whoever decided to kill the build settler at 1 pop (or 2 in CIV3s case) to disband the city ability should be taken outside and shot.


This is nothing but pure grief aimed at the player!

/dev

I'm currently playing a chieftan game and I can disband cities at pop 2 by building a settler.

[Dev]

hmm I tried in my first game (easiest level) and it wouldn't disban, it waited for the city to grow to size 3 before it produced the settler.

Might be a newby level thing, I'll check it when I get home.

/dev