Unable to attack

[anteos]

Hi

I've come across an issue, I'm not sure if its a bug but it was quite frustrating.

I'm in a war with civ1 when civ2 declares war on me. So I take civ1's starter city and make peace. The peace treaty lasts 10 turns.

Meanwhile civ2 has an open borders policy with civ1 and so he's able to move units through civ1 territory right next to the cities which I'd taken from civ1.

However, I'm unable to attack civ2 as his units are in civ1's territory, even though he's right next to my newly taken city. I can't declare war on civ1 as I'm locked into the 10 turn peace treaty. Meanwhile civ2 moves load of units next to a city and proceeds to take the city.

Very frustrating.

[eris]

Not a bug, certainly a frustration. I have also used it to my own advantage once or twice. It makes it very frustrating when you have the option for creating an Open Borders agreement redded out. You should be able to pay some exorbitant price to go chase your enemies again.

[snoopy369]

Indeed that is intended, albeit unfortunate. Lesson to be learned: don't make peace treaties.

[patcon]

Just like Cambodia during Vietnam.
You should be able to either (1) demand the "host" civ close its borders to your enemy, or (2) be allowed to attack the enemy forces even if they share a tile with non-enemy forces - maybe with the provision that your forces would be immediately withdrawn back into your terrritory (like when you kill one out of stack so the attackers can't advance). You'd have to make sure there isn't an exploit where displaced units are moved forward into a better attacking position.

[Unimatrix11]

Gosh ! Please say "Civ A / B..." instead of "civ1 / 2"... i got confused - why what you STILL be in war with civ1 ?