Ungrateful AI

[Supr49er]

I was in a war with Saladin, when Mansa Musa also declared war on him.
Mansa had a city on a chokepoint with Saladin to the north, and me (Darius of Persia) to the south.
I gifted Mansa 2 Mechanized Infantry to hold the city.
Did out relations improve by even +1? NO WAY.

Doesn't the gifting of units improve your relations with the AI?

[Wittlich]

I am not sure about gifting units increasing relations...but if it were myself, I would have just fortified the 2 Mech Inf units in Mansa's city.

[Jaybe]

When I gift units to the AI, I do so for my own motives (e.g., prevent their enemy from future gains). The AI recognize I have my own motivations, and do not reward me with relationship improvements.

This is as it should be.

[Supr49er]

Yeah, but a +1 "You assisted us in our struggle" would be nice.

@Wittlich - I always forget I can just move my own units into Mansa's city. I'll have to remember that.

[The Priest]

Out of interest - do you units in someone else's city gain the defensive bonus?

[TriMiro]

Originally posted by The Priest
Out of interest - do you units in someone else's city gain the defensive bonus?

For vassal city they should. I am not sure about allies.

Case one: civ A and civ B are both at war with civ C. C attacks a city that belongs to B and has a unit from A. Would the unit from A gain any bonuses.

Case two: civ A and civ C are both at war, but both have OB with civ B. Civ C attacks a unit from civ A that is in a civ B city. What happens then?

[Wittlich]

If you are at war with the person attacking the city - then yes, the attackers would have to kill your units as well to take over the city.

If you are at peace with the person attacking the city, the attackers will just move into the city with your units just sitting there (if you have open borders with them - if you don't have open borders with the attackers who take the city, then your unit(s) are automatically moved out).

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by TriMiro
Case two: civ A and civ C are both at war, but both have OB with civ B. Civ C attacks a unit from civ A that is in a civ B city. What happens then?

If C attacks the city belonging to B (it doesn't matter whos unit is in the city), civ C will immediately go to war with civ B for attacking his city.

[TriMiro]

Wittlich, thanks for the input. I have seen the first one happen, so I understand that, but if you are at war with the attacking civ, would your units get defensive bonus withing and allied city.

As for the second comment I have seen the case where the AI destroyed one of my units while I was in an allied city. I was playing Elizabeth, I was at war with Isabella and both Isabella and me had OB with the Portuguese. I figures I could use the Portuguese ports to hide my ships and pillage Isabella's fishing boars from there. However, just as I entered a Portuguese city, on the next turn a Spanish Macemen came and destroyed my ship while it was in the city. So navy units do not stand a chance against land units, however, if I had a Maceman of my own in there, would my Maceman receive defensive bonus.

[snoopy369]

Originally posted by Wittlich


If C attacks the city belonging to B (it doesn't matter whos unit is in the city), civ C will immediately go to war with civ B for attacking his city.

That's not what he is describing. He's saying that if you both have OB with Civ B, what happens if CivC moves into CivB's city (That he has full right to move into, having OB), with a CivA unit in it?

As for the first situation, I remember a Civ PTBS where this happened to a certain someone (I was attacking a city, and his units were in it, but he wasn't at war with me, so I won the city easily)...

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by TriMiro



Case two: civ A and civ C are both at war, but both have OB with civ B. Civ C attacks a unit from civ A that is in a civ B city. What happens then?

Logically, you would simply attack your enemy in the city but would not get the city if you won the battle.

[patcon]

Originally posted by couerdelion
Logically, you would simply attack your enemy in the city but would not get the city if you won the battle.

How would you attack your enemy in that city without doing significant damage to that city? You might not be attacking the city, but you certainly would be destroying the city. The same logic applies to battles waged outside cities, but to a far lesser extent.

It's kind of like the situation with Al-Qaeda forces in Pakistan or Viet Cong forces in Cambodia. If they hop across the border to attack and then go back, there is a very difficult political decision to be made.

I would like to see (as I've said in the past) a diplomatic option that would let you make the following request of a third party. "We wish to respect your neutrality in our current war. Stop allowing my enemy to use your territory as a route for attacking me. Close your borders to both of our military units." The only option right now is to ask your neighbor to break off all trade, which might not be a viable option.

In addition to the usual Open Borders, there could also be a limited "Right of Passage" (to bring back an old Civ term) which would allow military units to pass through a neutral civ, but only in a 'disarmed' state. Such a unit would be at half-strength until it has left the neutral civ, and becomes full-strength after moving into a non-neutral tile, where it rearms.

[TriMiro]

I was thinking something along those lines, two units fighting in foreign territory should create some sort of political scandal. Maybe if two civs are at war, they cannot attack each other if both are in "neutral" teritory (that is land belonging to a third party friendly to both).

I also hate the situation when I would have a city right on the border with someone and then a third civ would come declare war on me and start bombarding my city from my neighbor's land. I don't have OB so the only option is to declare war. Then the neighbor would be vassal to a powerful and friendly civ somewhere else. Then I will suffer more WW, and so on and so on.

[ColdPhoenix]

Originally posted by patcon

How would you attack your enemy in that city without doing significant damage to that city? You might not be attacking the city, but you certainly would be destroying the city. The same logic applies to battles waged outside cities, but to a far lesser extent.

Eh?! He was talking about CIV not real life.

[Blaupanzer]

Until everyone is armed with cannons, missiles, and rifles and such; two armed groups could fight each other in a third party city without affecting much (a little blood in the gutters, a few broken pieces of armor, a few bodies and dead horses. It's only in modern times (1500 AD and later) that the fighting itself tears up the target terrain. In the old days, it was the raping and pillaging after the fact that made a mess out of the locals.

Separately, it would be nice in Civ if we could offer something in trade to the neutrals in return for them refusing military passage to either side (or to our enemies at least).