How far is "near" in "do not settle near our sites"?

[MxM]

Can anyone confirm that it is 6 hexes between sites? Or is it 10? (The logic for 6 is that 3 is the city radius that can be worked, the logic for 10 is that 5 is city radius that can be acquired through culture, even if it is not worked by city, you still get all strategic and luxury resources on those)

[Jaybe]

From what I've gathered, IT VARIES with who it is, and even then it may vary from game to game because the leaders' traits will vary in degree.

E.g., Nappy's value for trait X is 7. At beginning of game X will be set at a value in the 6-8 range.

[MxM]

This is really bad. There is no way of knowing what is too close at any particular hex. This sux, seriously! Especially with the way how diplomacy work now, that you may be punished by everyone in time through waterfall of denouncement, 100 turns in future because your friend denounced you because you lied to him 100 turns in the past. Agggh!

[Jaybe]

To have no surprises/upsets in diplomacy would be EXCESSIVELY gamey. Did Poland have an out (from being co-conquered by Nazi Germany & USSR) in 1939? Did Japan realize ahead of time that their invasion of China would inspire USA's trade sanctions of oil, which would strangle their economy?

****e happens in war, but in politics especially. But good things should happen also (I don't have the experience yet to know whether they do or not). I've had a denouncement from nearby Mongols triggered by settling in their direction (I should have farted first!), but the other three continental AI's have not joined in and have always been just 'guarded'.

BTW, I do NOT like the game's tendency to avoid war until late-game. Really ahistorical.

[MxM]

To have no surprises/upsets in diplomacy would be EXCESSIVELY gamey.

I am of opinion that gameplay > realism. Not having idea what is considered "near" is absurd, unrealistic but more over, bad for gameplay. I would be fine if AI would have secret pacts or secret plans that would caught you off by surprise, this is different however from not being able to say if this particular SC is considered by civ withing influence zone, or that they would not like you to found city at the particular hex.

"BTW, I do NOT like the game's tendency to avoid war until late-game. Really ahistorical. "

From gameplay point of view, this makes the end-game even more tedious than it can be (end game is always more tedious, once your empire become large). Non-ending wars on multiple fronts just creates lots of micromanagement and removes fun from the game after you played it first time.

[LzPrst]

just chiming in to say:
I friggin HATE the AI.

France calls me up and asks that I build no cities near him. I say ok. Then he builds a city right next to one of mine. Songhai does the same. France DoW on me because apparently I have been stealing his land. I smash them and then decide to take that city Songhai settled. Got it. Hah. Won't accept peace. Won't accept peace. Won't accept peace. Won't accept peace. Won't accept peace. Won't accept peace. The tide of war turns (i misclick and lose 2 longswords and 2 trebs, my entire southern army). Aztecs (who has been sort of a friend the past 3000 years), French and everyone else's grandmother declares war on me... #%#¤ AI!!
(King level)

I really like the new hex tactics, but with crappy pathfinding and invisible ZoC, often I find my units running strange routes that lead to their death. Is that an AI cheat? Abusing pathfinding to put my trebuchets on flat land in front of their muskets?

[rah]

The one that irritated me the most is when a unit moving along a road has a partial movement point left but there's another unit on the road in the next square so it uses the last fraction to MOVE OFF THE ROAD to go around. Now the next turn it has to waste a turn to get back on the road. It drives me crazy.
Or calculates a path 3 times longer than the shortest path, just because it's momentarily blocked by another unit that won't be there when your unit would have gotten there. With 1upt, the auto pathfinding has to be real good. And it's just plain sucks.

[Arrian]

1UP sucks, IMO. I don't understand why the choice had to be between unlimited units per tile and 1UP. Why not a cap, scaled to map size? WTF?

-Arrian

[Quick]

The one that irritated me the most is when a unit moving along a road has a partial movement point left but there's another unit on the road in the next square so it uses the last fraction to MOVE OFF THE ROAD to go around. Now the next turn it has to waste a turn to get back on the road. It drives me crazy.
Or calculates a path 3 times longer than the shortest path, just because it's momentarily blocked by another unit that won't be there when your unit would have gotten there. With 1upt, the auto pathfinding has to be real good. And it's just plain sucks.

After the last update, I noticed that it is keeping units on the road with only a partial MP left. It looks like they fixed that part. The momentary blocker is one that is likely not to get fixed as how do you know how long a unit will stay.

[Quick]

1UP sucks, IMO. I don't understand why the choice had to be between unlimited units per tile and 1UP. Why not a cap, scaled to map size? WTF?

-Arrian

I actually like both ways. The 1UPT is common in a lot of the physical board games that I used to play. One benifit to 1UPT is that it helps keep the total number of units in play down. In Civ4 I had many games that were real slow in the late game due to the number of units. It also created larger save files. One game on a huge map that went more turns than normal got slow enough that I checked disk usage and found that the page file was in heavy use. My maxed out memory was no longer enough.

One strategy element of 1UPT is that ranged units are more vulnerable. One defender isn't always enough as you must now protect sides. This makes for some interesting strategy decisions. I do find that part interesting. That also applies to escorting settlers. Since both sides of a combat have the same restrictions, I find it acceptable.

[frenzyfol]

Now the next turn it has to waste a turn to get back on the road. It drives me crazy.
Or calculates a path 3 times longer than the shortest path, just because it's momentarily blocked by another unit

This ****s me too.
1UPT is a good idea, its just been badly implemented.
Why not have only 1 unit on a tile able to fight, all other units are considered in transit.

[Jaybe]

Why not have only 1 unit on a tile able to fight, all other units are considered in transit.

Because then you would have the bleepin' situation where the AI would stack everyone in the same tile as they did in civ2, perhaps? And then lose them all to a savvy attack by the player.

1UPT also has the GOOD (as in realistic) simulation of 'traffic congestion.' If the AI would just calculate the LONG TERM best route, then it wouldn't run off the road.

My main complaint is that non-military units can't move THROUGH foreign units of any type, while military units can (NOT that I'm complaining about military's ability to do so).

[rah]

Yeah, I keep thinking about that scene in the movie "Patton" where's he's directing traffic. There should be some of that, but the AI needs to be sharper in that regard.

[Felch]

Because then you would have the bleepin' situation where the AI would stack everyone in the same tile as they did in civ2, perhaps? And then lose them all to a savvy attack by the player.

Civ2 came out almost 15 years ago. You expect me to believe that they haven't improved the AI in that time?

I liked the Civ2 rule. You could stack units, but it was risky. Much better than the strict 1upt or the stacks of doom.

[Dinner]

Like so much about Civ5 it is a mystery.