'respect my borders' pact

Surgeon · November 19, 2001, 18:39

* Before you judge me as a newbie I'd just like to say I've been gaming since Civ1 and have played coutless hours of Civ1, Civ2 and CTP. This does not make me better than you but it helps me form an informed opinion.

I've been playing Civ3 for the past 3 days and personally I think it's almost perfect. The military isnt broken, not perfect but a complete revamp and bringing back firepower will not work. The only thing I'd like to see is fighters defend against bombers well and units shooting from frotresses fixed up.

The AI is pretty good at fighting wars. The AI needs to be fixed regarding its crazy expansionisim, a simple do not build a city here if it cant grow and is useless(pure desert) and do not build if corruption will render this city useless.BTW (i'm gonna get lynched for this), although corruption is a little harsh I think it's good, it limits size well and makes the game more playable by removing the problem of civ 'bloat' making your turns last forever.

My biggest want. A 'respect my borders' pact, a simple pact that if signed means that the AI stays out of your borders for 20 turns. This would solve the problem of 'the french just slapped a city in the middle of my domain where just one square was out of my control'. They have a right of passage agreement so a no right of passage agreement seems logical.

Personally I dont care if the AI cheats, I just want my game to be fun and it's hard having fun when you have to tell every civ to stay the hell outta your land every turn when you could automate it with the pact I mentioned above.

TreeWolf · November 19, 2001, 18:54

I enjoy the game as well and understand what you're saying about corruption, but I just like a lot of cities. Besides in my current game, on a large map and four other civs, the AI is building close to fifity cities. Units are being built in those cities and my spy tells me that instead of losing 19 of 20 shields, as I am in similarly placed cities, the AI is only losing about 10 out of 20. I am under Democracy with courthouse, etc. Courthouses had no effect in those cities so affected. You can adjust this in the editor though, in regard to optimal city number, so I don't know if really needs to dealt with in a patch.

Surgeon · November 19, 2001, 19:42

The corruption will be changed in the patch, we all know that. Maybe I'm wrong about it but what do you think about a 'respect my borders' agreement? Wouldnt it make things so much easier when you want those pesky french outta your country for good?

Surgeon · November 19, 2001, 22:54

bump

Solomyr · November 19, 2001, 23:09

i don't think a 'respect my borders pact' is necessary, but if they could fix the AI to do that when there is no RoP agreement that would be good. it would also help if i could have an option so that the AI units are automatically moved out, just like the AI has for me. this said, if it takes a formal agreement to kep the AI's fricken units out of my land, so be it. i just don;t like them pissing me offr when i want it nice and peaceful to build my civ.

Pyrodrew · November 19, 2001, 23:11

I think the "Respect My Borders Agreement" is a good idea.

Regarding Cities in Tundra & the Desert. Oil makes those cities all worth while, although due to the low growth potential they should be settled after the grasslands & plains & hills are expanded on 1st. Which the AI may do already, I'm not sure. You may be laughing at the AI now, but once oil is discovered the AI will be laughing all the way to the bank... or all the way to your bank in his new tank.

Edited to Add:However, I don't think a "Respect My Borders Agreement" should be added if it ends up making the AI more stupid and/or weaker. A smarter & tougher AI is more important, even if they are a little inconvenient.

klesh · November 19, 2001, 23:16

I think this would be great if the 'problem' here were actually how the game was intended. I am sure that they didn't mean for this "'The french just slapped a city in the middle of my domain where just one square was out of my control" thing to actually be how it is supposed to work. If they eliminate this, a new type of pact isnt needed. But I think it might add an element if they keep the border-disregarding AI-ICS and added this new pact.

This would make it such that only the Civs that you have a good relationship with would respect your borders... Sounds rather... natural doesnt it?

-FMK.

vovan · November 19, 2001, 23:36

I think that a 'respect my borders' agreement is actually a good idea. It would not only help solve the 'the french ... out of my control' problem, but improve your diplomatic abilities. Let's say you have an expansionistic civ to the one side of your empire and a vast space of unsettled land to the other side. You know they are going to send a settler out there and ultimately sandwich you. That happens. They enter your territory, you tell them to get out, and they do. Except they get out onthe other side. And to get rid of them there you have to wage war on them. (or wait till the city defects to you, which would take lots of time/can not happen at all). Solution: 'respect my borders' agreement. Easy.

Peterk · November 20, 2001, 00:03

Guys, are we getting soft here??? You could argue that "respect my borders" should be implicit - always! Any trangression should be seen as an act of war or provocation as it is in real life.

I think maybe adding a right-of-passage treaty for "NON-MILITARY" units only is a better alternative for letting the AI (or yourself) move workers across the border to reach a hard-to-get at city.

Hunter Hutchins · November 20, 2001, 00:10

You know what's just awful? When you tell a civ to get out, they say yes and just sit there. Very next turn sometimes they say go to war or get out. And they might say "Ok. Sorry. For now." or something like that. And they just sit there. Or, they start moving out...by walking through the longest route through your territory.

On the corruption...it's bad, but you can really rack up a high income by selling resources.

Magician · November 20, 2001, 00:13

I think the "Respect my border pact" is not necessary.

Naturally, if we sign a peace treaty with your rival, they should not step into our land (unfortunately, it doesn't). Unless they want to rage a war... Perhaps Firaxis should correct ths with a patch?

Surgeon · November 20, 2001, 00:30

Quote:

Originally posted by Magician
I think the "Respect my border pact" is not necessary.

Naturally, if we sign a peace treaty with your rival, they should not step into our land (unfortunately, it doesn't). Unless they want to rage a war... Perhaps Firaxis should correct ths with a patch?

But they do step onto my land and they seem to just be scouting and settling. Exactly what I want to stop but telling a settler or scout to piss off is nigh on impossible as they just say OK and keep doing what they were doing. I dont want war. Just a hostile peace

If I cant get the respect my borders pact maybe just make it so a kicked out unit goes back to their nearest city so they dont get popped out on the other side of my civ

Fistleaf · November 20, 2001, 01:14

If the AI puts troops on your land and refuse to get out, you can always declare war to get them out. If you do not declare war, that means you are too weak and deserved to be bullied by the AI. "Respect" must be earned by your military might.

Monoriu · November 20, 2001, 03:50

Quote:

Originally posted by Fistleaf
If the AI puts troops on your land and refuse to get out, you can always declare war to get them out. If you do not declare war, that means you are too weak and deserved to be bullied by the AI. "Respect" must be earned by your military might.

I agree.

Kekkonen · November 20, 2001, 03:52

I do find it annoying when the computer lays down cities inside my borders as well, but so far I haven't thought of it as a huge problem. You'll often end up assimilating those cities culturally, which means the computer just saved you a settler. And as many have said, the "respect my borders" pact is there -- it's called a state of peace.

If you meant a pact which would make it literally impossible for you to move your unit into enemy territory (and vice versa), I'm not sure I want that. It should always be "physically" possible. On the other hand, maybe attacking enemy units which are in your territory shouldn't be an _automatic_ act of war because territorial violations aren't either. It should seriously hurt your relations with the encroaching civ and have a good chance of escalating into a war, but maybe this shouldn't be automatic.

As for the AI expansionism, isn't building cities where they can't grow akin to "thinking ahead"? I do that if I have a chance -- that patch of desert could turn out to be the game equivalent of the Arabian peninsula once I figure out refining. A city may not be able to grow on a desert *now*, but when you get electricity and railroads, you can make every desert square produce two units of food. And while you're waiting, you just staked out some territory for future development.

Be Quicker · November 20, 2001, 05:28

I do not think we need an 'respect my border' pact. But what we do need (as magician already pointed out) is the ability to be able to say at their first intrusion: " leave or else WAR". And if they moreover would anticipate that they can nog get their settlers across unless they do some smart naval thing or declare war, then they would not do it so freaking often, that you spend each turn at least a minute telling other Civs to bugger off.

Apropos naval units, they also seem to not care about your borders, what happened to Hugo De Groot and the marine (sp?) zone?

TreeWolf · November 20, 2001, 19:09

Well the cultural borders works pretty well as far as extending your territory. I don't think you really need 'respect my borders'. I think you just have to be diligent about making them leave. After all you have to go to war sometime if only to establish your own territory.

Khaaan · November 21, 2001, 11:21

A respect my borders treaty is an absolute necessity. I don't think the Roman Empire would ever have accepted an egyptian colony in the middle of their area.
And since waging war even if justified (that means after being attacked) is extremely difficult in civ 3, this should really not be forced upon the player. As it is now, you can either accept those stupid AI behaviour and wait until another worthless minicity is sucked up by your cultural influence or declare war, which will prevent you from having a democracy or republic.

If I rule half the world and have tanks whereas my opponent has just finished inventing the wheel, he should definitely be a bit more respectful of my borders without me having to eradicate him with war!

Bradlei · November 21, 2001, 12:20

There's no need for a 'Respect my Borders Pact' because that represents the natural state of affairs between two peaceful neighbours.

You can't respect a nation that will not go to war to protect their sovereignty. If an opponent moves a unit within your borders ask them to leave. If they do it again, declare war on them.

Boracks · November 21, 2001, 13:12

I had a form of 'respect my border' pact with the French and Aztecs. It consisted of 3 horsemen, 5 archers and 8 warriors in a line from coast to coast.

Not the ideal but they seemed to respect me (I haven't had a problem with them) and I just looked on it as an early form of 'border patrol' units.

Of course, this means you have to do the 'rush the coast settlements and fill in the interior later' strategy that the English are so good at.

I do see your point but I don't think its that serious a problem. Overall, IMHO, there are other things that need addressing first.

redcloud · November 21, 2001, 13:25

I think the main problem is that the AI is being STUPID by placing these cities inside your borders, or at a spot where it is almost certain to be culturally assimilated. However, the expansionistic attitude of the computer isn't necessarily bad, we just need to find a way to stop him wanting to put cities in these locations.

A proposed fix would be to have the AI determine whether the cultural borders of a new city would come into contact with those of another Civ. If so, then you have to determine if this city would touch its own cultural border. If so, then yes, it would build the city. (It would be on your border, but at least it would be within its own cultural borders.) If not, then the AI would dismiss this location, as the risk of a cultural assimilation would be high. (No existing cultural infrastructure to support it.)

It wouldn't stop the AI expansion completely, it would just stop the AI building cities in stupid locations. (Like smack bang in the middle of your Civ.)

Ghengis Brom · November 21, 2001, 14:22

Something has to be done with AI and borders and trespassing. It wouldn't be such a problem except that when you are trespassing you only get so many chances before you're forced to either declare war or get the boot. I had the Egyptians travel over 10 squares through my territory, totally ignoring my requests to get out. In the same game I was moving in on the Persians and I think I got 2, maybe 3 turns within their borders before I had to declare war or get booted. I don't really agree with a "Respect My Borders Pact", I just think the AI should have to follow the same rules as we do where borders are concerned.

francoImpaler · November 22, 2001, 22:25

Respect borders should not be necessary. If you see AI in your territory you should demand withdrawal and poof they are gone.

Anyway, if AI built a city like that within my borders it would probably come to me via culture in 15-20 turns

pauli · November 22, 2001, 23:02

i agree with the sentiment that a "respect my borders" pact should not be necessary; however, i also agree with the sentiment that it is niecessary. the current setup is unacceptable.

what i'd like is a "respect my %#@)(*&%$ continent" pact.