'respect my borders' pact

[Surgeon]

* Before you judge me as a newbie I'd just like to say I've been gaming since Civ1 and have played coutless hours of Civ1, Civ2 and CTP. This does not make me better than you but it helps me form an informed opinion.

I've been playing Civ3 for the past 3 days and personally I think it's almost perfect. The military isnt broken, not perfect but a complete revamp and bringing back firepower will not work. The only thing I'd like to see is fighters defend against bombers well and units shooting from frotresses fixed up.

The AI is pretty good at fighting wars. The AI needs to be fixed regarding its crazy expansionisim, a simple do not build a city here if it cant grow and is useless(pure desert) and do not build if corruption will render this city useless.BTW (i'm gonna get lynched for this), although corruption is a little harsh I think it's good, it limits size well and makes the game more playable by removing the problem of civ 'bloat' making your turns last forever.

My biggest want. A 'respect my borders' pact, a simple pact that if signed means that the AI stays out of your borders for 20 turns. This would solve the problem of 'the french just slapped a city in the middle of my domain where just one square was out of my control'. They have a right of passage agreement so a no right of passage agreement seems logical.

Personally I dont care if the AI cheats, I just want my game to be fun and it's hard having fun when you have to tell every civ to stay the hell outta your land every turn when you could automate it with the pact I mentioned above.

[TreeWolf]

I enjoy the game as well and understand what you're saying about corruption, but I just like a lot of cities. Besides in my current game, on a large map and four other civs, the AI is building close to fifity cities. Units are being built in those cities and my spy tells me that instead of losing 19 of 20 shields, as I am in similarly placed cities, the AI is only losing about 10 out of 20. I am under Democracy with courthouse, etc. Courthouses had no effect in those cities so affected. You can adjust this in the editor though, in regard to optimal city number, so I don't know if really needs to dealt with in a patch.

[Surgeon]

The corruption will be changed in the patch, we all know that. Maybe I'm wrong about it but what do you think about a 'respect my borders' agreement? Wouldnt it make things so much easier when you want those pesky french outta your country for good?

[Surgeon]

bump

[Solomyr]

i don't think a 'respect my borders pact' is necessary, but if they could fix the AI to do that when there is no RoP agreement that would be good. it would also help if i could have an option so that the AI units are automatically moved out, just like the AI has for me. this said, if it takes a formal agreement to kep the AI's fricken units out of my land, so be it. i just don;t like them pissing me offr when i want it nice and peaceful to build my civ.

[Pyrodrew]

I think the "Respect My Borders Agreement" is a good idea.

Regarding Cities in Tundra & the Desert. Oil makes those cities all worth while, although due to the low growth potential they should be settled after the grasslands & plains & hills are expanded on 1st. Which the AI may do already, I'm not sure. You may be laughing at the AI now, but once oil is discovered the AI will be laughing all the way to the bank... or all the way to your bank in his new tank.

Edited to Add:However, I don't think a "Respect My Borders Agreement" should be added if it ends up making the AI more stupid and/or weaker. A smarter & tougher AI is more important, even if they are a little inconvenient.

[klesh]

Mutual border recognition pact.

I think this would be great if the 'problem' here were actually how the game was intended. I am sure that they didn't mean for this "'The french just slapped a city in the middle of my domain where just one square was out of my control" thing to actually be how it is supposed to work. If they eliminate this, a new type of pact isnt needed. But I think it might add an element if they keep the border-disregarding AI-ICS and added this new pact.

This would make it such that only the Civs that you have a good relationship with would respect your borders... Sounds rather... natural doesnt it?



-FMK.

[vovan]

I think that a 'respect my borders' agreement is actually a good idea. It would not only help solve the 'the french ... out of my control' problem, but improve your diplomatic abilities. Let's say you have an expansionistic civ to the one side of your empire and a vast space of unsettled land to the other side. You know they are going to send a settler out there and ultimately sandwich you. That happens. They enter your territory, you tell them to get out, and they do. Except they get out onthe other side. And to get rid of them there you have to wage war on them. (or wait till the city defects to you, which would take lots of time/can not happen at all). Solution: 'respect my borders' agreement. Easy.

[Peterk]

Guys, are we getting soft here??? You could argue that "respect my borders" should be implicit - always! Any trangression should be seen as an act of war or provocation as it is in real life.

I think maybe adding a right-of-passage treaty for "NON-MILITARY" units only is a better alternative for letting the AI (or yourself) move workers across the border to reach a hard-to-get at city.

[Hunter Hutchins]

You know what's just awful? When you tell a civ to get out, they say yes and just sit there. Very next turn sometimes they say go to war or get out. And they might say "Ok. Sorry. For now." or something like that. And they just sit there. Or, they start moving out...by walking through the longest route through your territory.

On the corruption...it's bad, but you can really rack up a high income by selling resources.

[Magician]

I think the "Respect my border pact" is not necessary.

Naturally, if we sign a peace treaty with your rival, they should not step into our land (unfortunately, it doesn't). Unless they want to rage a war... Perhaps Firaxis should correct ths with a patch?

[Surgeon]

Originally posted by Magician
I think the "Respect my border pact" is not necessary.

Naturally, if we sign a peace treaty with your rival, they should not step into our land (unfortunately, it doesn't). Unless they want to rage a war... Perhaps Firaxis should correct ths with a patch?

But they do step onto my land and they seem to just be scouting and settling. Exactly what I want to stop but telling a settler or scout to piss off is nigh on impossible as they just say OK and keep doing what they were doing. I dont want war. Just a hostile peace

If I cant get the respect my borders pact maybe just make it so a kicked out unit goes back to their nearest city so they dont get popped out on the other side of my civ

[Fistleaf]

If the AI puts troops on your land and refuse to get out, you can always declare war to get them out. If you do not declare war, that means you are too weak and deserved to be bullied by the AI. "Respect" must be earned by your military might.

[Monoriu]

Originally posted by Fistleaf
If the AI puts troops on your land and refuse to get out, you can always declare war to get them out. If you do not declare war, that means you are too weak and deserved to be bullied by the AI. "Respect" must be earned by your military might.

I agree.

[Kekkonen]

I do find it annoying when the computer lays down cities inside my borders as well, but so far I haven't thought of it as a huge problem. You'll often end up assimilating those cities culturally, which means the computer just saved you a settler. And as many have said, the "respect my borders" pact is there -- it's called a state of peace.

If you meant a pact which would make it literally impossible for you to move your unit into enemy territory (and vice versa), I'm not sure I want that. It should always be "physically" possible. On the other hand, maybe attacking enemy units which are in your territory shouldn't be an _automatic_ act of war because territorial violations aren't either. It should seriously hurt your relations with the encroaching civ and have a good chance of escalating into a war, but maybe this shouldn't be automatic.

As for the AI expansionism, isn't building cities where they can't grow akin to "thinking ahead"? I do that if I have a chance -- that patch of desert could turn out to be the game equivalent of the Arabian peninsula once I figure out refining. A city may not be able to grow on a desert *now*, but when you get electricity and railroads, you can make every desert square produce two units of food. And while you're waiting, you just staked out some territory for future development.