Should the AI respect your borders?

[Dev]

Originally posted by CyberShy


Well, the germans didn't only cross the border,
they started to shoot as well.

THEY declared war and that by just moving their troops across the border.

Hitler didn't go "hahah our troops is on your soil, now you can either live with it or declare war and take the world opinion hit"
Which is basicly what the AI does by not removing its units or moving them back next turn-

Edit:
Of course this should go for the human player too, no treespassing without declaring war.

/dev

[dr.charm]

1) There were no German troops in the Netherlands in 1945, the Canadians had liberated the country by that time.

2) Churchill was not the Prime Minister of Britain until mid way through 1940, almost a year after the war had actually started with the invasion of Poland. The Prime Minister who 'allowed' Hitler to 'reunite provinces' was Neville Chamberlain.

3) IMHO, if requested to leave, the AI should have to keep his troops off your territory for at least a few turns.

Cheers,

Dr. Charm

[Zizka]

Ie Hitler analogy

Yes The reference to the Rhur and rhineland occupations are good. But you have to realize that withe the exception of the Rhur issue most of the occupations were after some diplomatic messages and assurance were made. Yet the moment a german army entered a nation which distinctly told the germans to "go bugger off" (Poland) we had the merry old tiem called WWII begin.

In terms of history people conveniently remeber only outcomes not process. Hitler did not enter Austria or Czechoslovakia (sudetenland) without the explicit (if gruding) ok of France and Britain (and Russia for Cz). Yes there weer a few momenst (mostly 20th century) wheer some "border violations" did occur, but in general, throughout history the presence of military force, on one's sovereign territory, without invitation was simply viewed as an act of war and teh relatiosn of teh "agressor suffred as a result.

Here's an example teh Duc D'Eghien masterminded a plot to try to kill Napoleon. nappy promplty sent a company across the rhine into Baden to capture him and bring him to trial 9and execution). the rest of europe reacted rather badly (and in part this action was cited as a part of the cuasus bellis on France hereafter)

Another example (from caesar's gallic war). Why did Ceasar lead an army into Helvetia and southern gaul .. to keep the helvetians (and later Germans) from making foothold (a bit generalized). Same for marius and sulla .. they hardly let teh Cimbri-teutones and Pamphalogians romp at will through roman territory.

The issue for me isnt "are you strong eenough to repulse me. them kick me out." The issue should be "why do i have to suffer the penalties of declaring aggressive war on someone who is clearly the aggressor!"

At a minimum I'd liek to see an option after the second transgression "Declare war for treaty /trespass"
A simple check (which is already in the game) wil do
IF -DOES X HAVE UNITS IN MY BORDERS
and
-DID I PROTEST THAT VIOLATION ALREADY
then
I HAVE THe right to declare war WITHOUT penalty (in essence the trespassing power should be seen as the agressor)

Z

[Grumbold]

Re: Haw

Originally posted by Vytae
You must not be thinking clearly or not remebering history. Plenty of times in our history have people said " Sure,well go away" only to invade next day,or do some other annoying politico thing.

Heres a rough example,when Hitler was starting his rise to power Churchill (British prime minister at the time) talked with Hitler and basicly asked him are you going to invade or what? Hitler said naw,just reuniting germans we wont cross any more borders we promise we bo good lil boys. Little while later Poland was occupied and WW2 starting to rage.

Incorrect analogy. Germany did not invade any country more than once, get asked to leave and come back later. They stormed in, declaring war or the right for lebensraum, and stayed. That is not the same thing.

If the Civ wants a rights of passage agreement (which exists in Civ 3) it should ask for one, and declare war if it does not get it and thinks it worth fighting over. The treaty exists in the game it just is not implemented properly.

[TheDarkside]

In the hundreds of hours of gameplay I experienced so far, borders are fine. The only times I experience blatant border intrusions is when I am a weak civ compared to the others, and that is really rare with the way I play (usually on regent though... monarch frightens me). There is one problem with escorted settlers though, apparently the AI does not consider his escorted settler as a tresspassing, since it will never stop marhcing his settlers though your land to get to that open field on the other side of your empire... Just use your units to block him from going