City building in MY land

[MarshalN]

I've encountered an act of aggression in my territory, and I'm not sure what to do with it.

It's the Indians who are messing with me. They're polite and all, but they decided that they want to plop a city RIGHT on my only iron square. The iron, mind you, is well within my cultural border and is NOT a free square. I tell the Indians to bugger off.... and they say "yeah yeah yeah", and still, the settler with the spearman wander inland, and build the city right on the spot.

I don't want to go to war with the Indians, but is that my only choice???

[rah]

You have a few choices.

First being, park a unit on it before they get there. At least make them declare war to take the resource. They usually won't if all that's escorting the settler is spearman. But be careful, they will build right next to it then.

Second, out culture them. If it's well inside yourinfluence, it should come over to your side before he has the temple built.
Assuming you have some decent culture yourself.

Three, Kick their butt before he can get other units there.

If you have a strong military, and they aren't at war with anybody else that will make them cross your territory, They are more likely to respect your boarders. You may want to remind them of your strong military.

If you have a wuss military, you have to take their crap. Which is why I try not to have a wuss military.

RAH

[MarshalN]

Tried #1, doesn't work, they just build next to it. I guess I can park 9 militaries surrouding the iron, but I'm sure there's a better way (and getting 9 to get to that point will take some time, plus, depriving my cities of some needed defense).

I was warring with two other civs already, so I don't want to start a war on a different front. Which is why I am trying to solve this peacefully.

The Indians are about on par with me in culture, and from reading the forum, it seems it could be years before I get this city to join me, even if I out-culture them. I need that iron, now! As I am fighting a war

Shouldn't there be some rules that don't allow you to do that (i.e. plopping a city right in the middle of your enemy's civ)? I mean, that's what the borders are supposed to be for in the first place....

[Bad Ax]

It was my understanding that building a city inside the cultural borders of another civ constituted an act of war. I've never had another civ actually do this to test it, but I thought it constituted war. If the city itself is built outside your borders but its influence extends inward then that's okay.

As for your situation, the only option is to declare war. You have no other expedient available to you. Do not wait for them to build the city -- warn the Indians once to remove the unit from your territory, and kill them the next turn if they do not leave.

Culture's a difficult route to take in this situation because the Indians are a religious civilization, so they get some culture advantages.

[mr.buddylee]

I have never had that happen, but I too thought that they would have to declair war on you... unless you don't have a peace agreement, then I guess they don't really care about you.

Check to see if you have a peace agreement or what. Also, didn't it give you the option to remove their forces or declare war?

[vmxa1]

I think that if your culture covers the area, but you have no improvements (roads) they can built a city with out being an act of war. Stepping on your road without a RoP is contempous, so they may ignore you. I do not allow incursions, I will attack and capture the settler. I know this leads to war, but I think it is worth it. You can not rely on culture to take it and I do not want the city anyway. Often, it will take a very long time to get it to come over and to take it by force requires extra troops once built. The AI loves to drop a settler on the very edge of the map next to my huge empire late in the game, so annoying.

[Osprey]

I have tried to do this same thing myself to other civs and was always presented with a warning that I would start a war if I did it so I would have thought it would have constituted an act of war on the AI's part if they tried it too.
The Osprey

[Ineffablebob]

Build your own city on the iron. Might not be the best city in the log term, but at least the Indians won't get it.

[MarshalN]

Well, I can build the city on the iron -- if I have a settler handy. I guess I can do it.... hmmmm

No, war was not declared once that happened. It just.... went on. I had a road on the iron, and nothing happened ..... no war, nothing.

I guess war's the only realistic option.

[Kolyana]

Well, you could build a colony on the iron, right?

This is like half a settler, right? It's a small town? Soveriegn territory and all of that?

This way the AI can't plop his city ...

No, wait a minute. This is CivIII.

Plop a city on top of that iron, boyee. You don't want to be the Indian's b**** now, do you?

[inca911]

Originally posted by MarshalN

Shouldn't there be some rules that don't allow you to do that (i.e. plopping a city right in the middle of your enemy's civ)? I mean, that's what the borders are supposed to be for in the first place....

Rules?! There are no rules prohibiting him from trying to get the Iron necessary for the survival of his civ. Borders are only as good as the troops enforcing them. If anyone gets too close to my continent, my artillery cruises via RR and blasts them. Too bad artillery alone can't sink ships. War over resources is one of the most enjoyable aspects of Civ3! It forces change and prevents stagnation throughout the game. Even the loss of a tradeable resource can be rough to a civ, much less a strategic resource like Coal, Oil, Aluminum, etc. Right now I'm in the process of securing 2/3 of the available coal in the world outside of the 4 already in my civ. In the process, I hope to additionally secure a source of gems and furs. The poor Persians declared war on my just as my armada was approaching Persiopolis and Parsegarde. Too bad for them.... If it weren't for resources, my motivation to attempt a coal monopoly would not exist and my game would be less enjoyable. To prevent an Iron squatter, either kill them or build on top of the Iron yourself.

[MarshalN]

Yes, I understand that resource grabbing is part of the game.

I have no problems with them declaring a war with me and wanting to fight for the iron. I'd do it. I'm having problems with them marching in with a settler, plop a city in my territory, and not having it go to war unless I declare on them. I don't really want to declare war on them, especially since that way I'd be the bad guy -- which is why I am saying there should be rules that they can't plop the city there unless they're at war with me. If they're at peace with me, then the borders should be firm in that sense -- if they want to take it, they can war me.

[inca911]

Acts of War

Certainly I understand that you want them to declare war on you. However, unless you fight them off your Iron, you are toast and similarly since they dropped on it successfully, you must now either goad them into war (try a stray worker near him when his attitude towards you is poor), or let them keep *your* Iron. Failure to effectively protect the Iron resource opened up a window of opportunity that the AI exploited. Wonderful stuff if you ask me! Anyway, without a decent military, your borders will be ignored by the AI, even to the point at which they will wage war within your territory against each other with no respect for you at all (I've read stories)....

[pchang]

I actually encouraged 2 AIs to battle with each other in my territory (part of my empire was between them). This allowed be to grant an RoP to the weaker party which gave them a tacital advantage and allowed them to prolong the war (which weakened both sides and allowed me to take the lead).

[MarshalN]

I don't think I failed to protect my iron at all. It's only 3 squares from one of my big cities and maybe 6 squares from my capital, and at least 8 tiles away from the border with the Indians. It's connected by a road to my trade network. It's not a free square. I just didn't expect at all that you can just plop a city inside someone's border (I know you can put one next to it and push the border back, but right in the middle of my land????), and not go to war over it. It's ridiculous, sort of like if the French just decided that they're going to ship 2000 people over to the East Coast and build a town in the middle of Virginia or something.....

I saw the settler going into my territory, and I thought "ok, they might just be crossing, but I'll tell them to go away", so I demanded them to leave. They just keep walking through my land even though Ghandi said "sorry, we'll leave". I demand them to leave every turn, and they're still polite to me and said "sorry, we'll leave". I don't want a war since I'm busy fighting other people, and the Indians were on the other side of my empire so I would be fighting a two front war. Then they built the city on my iron..... I was like, "uh, you can do that??"

If by protecting my iron you mean I should put a military unit over all my strategic resource, I'd say that's bull. I don't think anyone playing this game is doing it, and from what I've seen, I don't think people have seen this sort of thing happen. If you mean I should've killed the settler -- well, I had no reason to believe the settler was going to build a city smack in the middle of my land just because it didn't make any sense whatsoever. I didn't know it was possible to do that until that game. I doubt many knew that you can do this. At that point, going the peaceful route with the Indians was by far the better solution -- until I found out they can just put a city on my iron in the middle of my empire.