A.I. Trespassing, or, putting a price on Sid's head.

[Andrew_Jay]

It really does get pretty crazy when you are between two enemies. In one game I was on a kind of three pointed continent, with me occupying the centre, the French to the south-west Chinese to the south-east, and Indians to the North, eventually two other civs had a bit of land they took from teh Chinese, so pretty much every was involved the sides fighting on my land. It was really annoying when they were flying bombing sorties over my territory and shelling each other's units. I managed to restrained from fighting back though, and just lined my borders with stuff, and the one time the Perisans got through because I was upgrading teh units, I mangled them really good with my half dozen, brand new, modern armours That was fun, especially when I took all their cities on the continent in three turns.

[star mouse]

Originally posted by Wombat
A swarm of workers also entered my territory and started building a railway through my land.

Wow, the "Burma railway" approach in CIV3!

[Bubba_B]

Originally posted by yin26
I might post an image series on my current game. I played with the concept of this borders issue in mind. I think it will show quite effectively that the AI poses no threat doing this. My larger issue, though, is that the AI is actually hurting itself in many cases by throwing away so many cities.

Yin's got it right

No real threat, I let them build the city and my culture gobbles it up before long or its my first target in war. They build them in bad spots alot, but resources show up there later in the game.

[Dis]

I seem to remember the ai in smac violating my borders constantly.

maybe it is physically impossible to program the ai to stay out of your borders

[LRotan]

My first point was already stated above. Settlers, workers, and maybe one or two military units crossing my borders doesn't bother me much in most cases. However, sending hordes of military units through my territory to attack another civ or simply because they want to is something altogether different, especially when two warring civs start killing each other in my borders. Right about then it's time for them to leave.

I can see where forcing the AI to stay out of your borders could make it too passive, however it raises two questions. If there's no way to keep them out other than lining your borders with units, then why is there even an option in diplomacy to ask them to leave? Second, why is there a right of passage when they already have it? I'm not insulting anyone or being sarcastic, I'm genuinely curious.

There's always the option of going to war if they don't leave, but I don't want to have to fight a war every time a civ comes romping through my territory. I'd be at war constantly with just about everyone on the map.

LR

[D4everman]

Its unnerving.

In a game i started today Shaka asked to join his alliance against russia and for right of passage. i declined the alliance (didn't want a war) but gave him right of passage because then I could send my settlers through his territory instead of ferrying them around the continent in a galley. BUT....Shaka then asked the French to join his alliance and they did. So in a few turns there were about twenty french longbowmen running through my territory. I wasn't sure if they were going to attack me at first.

I asked Joan D'Arc to withdraw and she did...only to send the same troops back in another turn. Then to make it even more ludicrous, she plops a city on a tundra laden section of unclaimed land where I had a horsemen looking out of for barbarians and asks ME to leave her territory!

I think the "withdraw request" should last at least ten turns. If the offender trespasses before the time limit there should be an automatic act of war or at least a mandatory % of gold fine.

[star mouse]

Originally posted by LRotan
If there's no way to keep them out other than lining your borders with units...

Perhaps units in Fortresses should have had some Zone of Control? You'd still have to put units on your borders, but only in every second or third square.

[Venger]

I really don't want to hear how they can't program the AI to expand properly. It's ludicrous. It's simple look at a couple factors and that ought to God damn tell you if it should build a city there...

Will the square have unimpeded access to the ocean or their border? If it is completely surrounded, don't build.

Make the border, I dunno, a BORDER. If a settler plops down immediately against my border, he doesn't push my border back. That's BS. He should only be able to use the squares outside my border. As such, the AI should consider that as a cost in a cost/benefit examination of site suitability.

If a city is founded, is there sufficient room to expand again? If not, and the new city is not adjacent to their existing borders but is adjacent to another Civ, don't buld (unless on an island, or against the coast with enough tiles to support a decent city (see the first rule)).

I'm sure there's more basic common sense rules that are easy to translate to the gameplay engine.

Venger

[LRotan]

You're right, star mouse. That's something I thought should have been added. ZOCs associated with fortresses. If a unit is in a fortress within your borders, there should be a radius around it that units from other civs simply can't enter without first declaring war. Two things, though:

1) The radius of squares that they can't enter should not extend past your borders.

3) The AI must declare war before entering the ZOC of a manned fortress within your borders. The reason being that if you set it to be an automatic declaration of war if they enter the ZOC, I have a gut feeling the AI won't see this as much of a deterrant and would end up declaring war on you constantly because of its troop movement.

Just my opinion.

LR