To tolerate trespassers or not?

[Harfang]

As everyone knows, AI civilizations are quite touchy about your units just putting a toe or an oar on their territory. It is equally true that they almost totally disregard your own borders, especially the maritime ones. I don't have any set policy, but I will often tolerate a few trespassers, especially in ancient times, for my military is rarely my strong point. I will myself scrupulously respect fellow civilizations' borders, except for the odd scout or galley that just has to make a one-turn stop-over.

My question is: does this makes you look weaker in the AI's eyes? Does it encourage them to attack you or at least to disregard your borders even more?

Here's an example: in my last game, I had a fantastic start, quickly establishing myself as #1 out of 16, with a good army to boot and no aggression on my part. I did tolerate the odd unit on my territory. After a while, half the civilizations declared war on me after I refused them tribute. I know that part of it is just being the top dog, but I wonder whether my tolerance might have encouraged them to be more aggressive. For once, it certainly was not my army.

[Arrian]

Actually, if you're the top dog in military power, they won't demand things from you. If you're rich, have a tech lead, and have a less-than-overpowering military, you will get the demands. I suspect you had a solid military, but not a huge one. Huge armies are hard to maintain. The key is paying civs off to join you against the first civ that picks a fight with you. Then you won't get the pile-on effect. Especially if you have a strong army - you can send that army to go kill the offending civ quickly.

Anyway, respecting other civ's borders is a good idea, because repeatedly trespassing will piss them off. You're not viewed as "weak" if you stay out. You're viewed as "weak" if you have a small military or you cave in to demands.

Let them trespass. Kicking them out is only really an option when they have units directly next to one of your cities, or have had units in your territory for several turns. In the latter case, by the time you get the "remove or declare war" option, they're closer to their destination than their own land, so kicking them out will actually move them to where they want to go. You're helping the bastards at that point.

-Arrian

[The diplomat]

I have plenty of games where the AI will actually fight their wars in the middle of my territory.

In one game, the English and the Americans brought at least 30 units (I am not kidding) and started duking it out RIGHT IN THE MIDDLE of my territory.

The funny thing is that the two civs actually were adjacent to each other, but separated by a strip of water. So, instead of building a few transports to jump the 3 tiles of water, the AI prefered to take the long way around by land. I happened to be half way in between, so I got to "host" their little war.

I felt like saying to both:"I don't mind you two fighting it out, your little war is none of my business, but could you take it somewhere else, please!"

[Arrian]

I've had similar situations, but I tend to pick one side and give them a RoP agreement.

-Arrian

[KingJoff]

I'd love to give one side ROP in that situation, but often, even though the nation clearly needs to pass through my territory to get to it's enemy and my roads would save him decades of travel time, and there's nothing on the other side of his land I want to go near, _he_ still wants _me_ to pay _him_ to consent to an ROP treaty. Irritating.
(I suppose he might be planning to attack me in less than 20 turns and doesn't want a reputation hit, but I really doubt that the AI thinks that far ahead...)

[miccofl]

Originally posted by: Arrian
Actually, if you're the top dog in military power, they won't demand things from you.

I’m sorry but that statement is not true. It may be the case most of the time, but not all of the time. In my last game I occupied 90% of the land mass and10% of the water (sea cities – don’t go there.) I had at my disposal over 400 modern armor, 100 mechanized infantry, 200 radar artillery, 50 battleships, etc. It’s down to the Romans, the Greeks and me, the Americans. I was on future tech 20, the Romans were on either laser or superconductor and the Greeks were just entering the modern age. My total culture is around 180K. I have a ROP, an MPP and many trades for cash going with the Romans. So here comes Cesar Goofycuss, “Give me rubber or else!” When I could finally stop laughing I gave it to him. It wasn’t like he was going to have it long enough to use.

[Theseus]

miccofl, that's insane! What are you trying to do?

To Arrian's point, that was probably a bluff on Caesar's part.

Regarding the AI civs fighting on my turf, the worst ever was the German fiasco in MT2 (?)... I forget who the civs were, but my last ditch effort was to get them specifically to do that... I had insane visions of vast destruction, and then mopping up the remnants.

Yeah, right. After they had like three or four turns of actual war, the AI commanders said, "Hey, what are WE fighting for? I'll tell you what, let's make up. Between us we've got like 300 MIs in the middle of Germany!!! You take the north half, and I'll take the south. Shake on it!!"

[DrFell]

The AI takes in to account the size of your army mainly when it decides to go to war. The main problem with letting them move troops into your territory is the high chance of a sneak attack, if you let them walk their settlers through your homelands the only problems you'll face are when they rudely wander onto your roads.

As I often leave a lot of cities undefended in my big ICS-style empires I occasionally find my self the target of AI aggression. Sometimes they can take a few of my cities if they attack swiftly enough and in force, but in the end I usually end up eating them up with the huge production and drafing/pop rushing bonuses my empire provides The AIs sneak attack attempts are always obvious though... they march as stack of units up to your borders, invariably heading for the most poorly defended city. When you see one of those stacks approaching, you know it's time to get pop-rushing.

BTW, always bow down to tribute demands if you're not ready or willing for a major war. Refusing the extortionate demands early on deity, for example, is a one way ticket to 'ctrl-Q' country (gotta love those stacks of archers picking off your warriors in 3000BC, not my idea of an epic game).

[kring]

Once my military is big enough, I create teams to deal with trespassing. Basically, these teams form a line preventing movement around them. They are best in a minimum of 3 units to prevent gettting around them. I have used them effectively to waste another civ's settler team's time.

[DrFell]

Another fun way of keeping the AI settlers tied up is to periodically block and unblock choke points.. works a treat

[miccofl]

Originally posted by: Theseus
miccofl, that's insane! What are you trying to do?

Of course it is! Conquest only on a huge map always gets a bit crazy toward the end especially if corruption is turned down enough to allow a huge super-empire to function. I was trying to win!

And no, I do not allow trespassers but I always trespass. It’s interesting to watch how the AI will refuse to leave until a large force surrounds it. If you leave your troops back a few cities, it will not leave even after repeated warnings. But move those troops up close and they run like scalded dogs.

[jshelr]

"I was trying to win!"

That comment applied to the situation in this thread reminds me that it would be great to get an internal version of the "concede" move in chess. There ought to be a way, before domination is reached but when you get to future tech 50 and a 4 to 1 modern-unit lead on all other civs, for the game to tell you alright already, enough is enough. We surrender.

[dunk]

If I am in AI territory and on good terms with that AI, I only get one request for my troops to be removed. Even if I continue to move through their territory, they will not ask again. If I am on bad terms with this AI, they will grumble each turn until I get "Leave or declare war".

I think it depends on your relations with the civ you are "violating".

I usually tolerate ships in my territory. I won't if it looks like their going to land troops. If they're passing through, I let them do so.

[miccofl]

Originally posted by: jshelr
That comment applied to the situation in this thread reminds me that it would be great to get an internal version of the "concede" move in chess. There ought to be a way, before domination is reached but when you get to future tech 50 and a 4 to 1 modern-unit lead on all other civs, for the game to tell you alright already, enough is enough. We surrender.

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of a conquest victory? I had been at this huge map game for eight days with conquest as the only way to achieve victory. For the AI to have said, “I quit, you win” at that point would have been intolerable and frustrating. (There’s something to be said for beating a dead horse ) One thing a lot of us sometimes overlook is the fact that civ3 has so many different options and ways to win and therefore many different playing styles and strategies can be accommodated to satisfy the diverse player base that the game satisfies on a regular basis. (Should make multi-player most interesting!)

[candybo]

Originally posted by KingJoff
I'd love to give one side ROP in that situation, but often, even though the nation clearly needs to pass through my territory to get to it's enemy and my roads would save him decades of travel time, and there's nothing on the other side of his land I want to go near, _he_ still wants _me_ to pay _him_ to consent to an ROP treaty. Irritating.
(I suppose he might be planning to attack me in less than 20 turns and doesn't want a reputation hit, but I really doubt that the AI thinks that far ahead...)

This is SO aggravating
Happens all the time... You try to do a slob a favor with a RoP or MPP, and they want a pound of flesh, too!!