WHy SHOULD the AI respect your borders??

Steve Clark · November 12, 2001, 23:03

This is a tangental thought from Blackie's rant. In it, I asked two questions relating to an AI building right within your city borders...

Quote:

1. Why would an AI civ (esp. one that could be militaristic and/or expansionists) allow YOU to become large and peaceful???

2. Name one civ in history that become large without having to fight off enemies, internally or externally???

Here's the other point. I agree with the poster in saying this was brilliant move on the part of the AI. Try it on them sometime. It's just ludicrous in thinking that the AI will sit back and "respect" your borders. If they encroach upon your domain, either accept them as a neighbor or fight to get rid of them. Throwing a temper tantrum because it caused you to deviate from your expected path, is not a solution.

As much as I fought against the thinking that civ should be a historical simulator, this seems to be a page right out of history.

kimmygibler · November 12, 2001, 23:08

My main problem is when they circle units around for no reason every turn. I mean are they just taunting you? They want to make you have to ask every turn to leave? If they have no reason to enter, they should just stay out and wander around on thier own time.

yin26 · November 12, 2001, 23:10

There's one good reason: At some point, it's city-suicide for the AI. In other words, the basic premise is a solid one and has added a great deal to the game. But if Soren's comment that they are looking at telling the AI *not* to build when its borders will be completely or mostly surrounded is any indication, I think we'll see the AI knowing when it should let off the expansion gas and begin homeland production.

klesh · November 12, 2001, 23:13

I understand and recognize your point Steve. But, in every single game I have played so far, if there is 1 empty square not covored by anyones culture yet.. the AI makes a B line right to it and will throw up a city. This last time it did it again, and the small little AI city was very close to my 2 wonder Capital (early game). No envelopment of their city by my culture at all. Whats worse is that I was waiting in the next square over with a settler and 2 workers who were clearing some forest for a city site of my own.

I just dont like it when the AI will go through my perfectly established borders only to plop down on the one tile that is theorhetically buildable. Having 2 very well defined countries while one of them keep try to build cities on the other's hind end.
Cant tell you how many times I have had little frech cities pop up on my border opposite France. They get to be very annoyinh indeed.

-FMK.

Steve Clark · November 12, 2001, 23:15

But not if they use it properly, like a cultural bomb or harbor foothold if it falls on the coast. If they just keep it as a size 1 city, then it becomes a minor nuisance to get rid of it. I just don't see why it's a big deal at all. If you don't want to fight them, at least temporarily, then you deserve whatever loss such a city would bring.

yin26 · November 12, 2001, 23:17

So then we agree, a good number of these AI foundings are simply a waste of AI resources. I'd like to see that improved.

Hans2 · November 12, 2001, 23:19

My arguments on this issue are limited to units, not cities. If the AI wants to plop down a billion cities right on my border let them, I always absorb them anyway.

Now units constantly encroaching is what ticks me off. We are civs I have excellent relations with and that are MUCH smaller than me. Let me give you an example. Recently I played a game as the Americans with the Egyptians as my nieghbor. I got the land in the continent and he got a thin strip of land (bout one city radius thick) betweem me and the sea. My military was vastly superior, with cannons, musketmen, knights and cavalry versus his spearmen and war charriots. You'd think he'd want to kiss up. Noooo, the AI kept on encroaching and I kept kicking him out until he finally declared war.

I took his capitol and another major city in 3 turns. I crushed him so badly I got another city in the peace deal I never even threatened. My point? This was completely idiotic and ilogical of the AI. I have no problem with the AI provoking me if they want too, but in situations like this where we started out with excellent relations and good trade agreements and gradually become enemies over hundreds of years solely because he doesn't know enough to stay out of my territory is silly. Under the current system, I don't think the AI grasps the signifigance of borders. You might as well not even have them for all they pay attention to them.

yin26 · November 12, 2001, 23:21

Precisely. *Smart* use of the AI ignoring your borders is fine by me. I know that isn't an easy thing to program, mind you, but that's what we should be working on.

Malkuth · November 12, 2001, 23:27

Again thiers no point in the AI making a Town around your Other more advanced towns, when your Culture is going to overrun it in 20 turns. Its pointless. Outside borders yes, but not between 4 cities. Four Cities Culure beating on One 1 Point city is not smart AI.

Baloo · November 12, 2001, 23:36

I understand that there are many instances border violations in ancient history, but should not be that often in Modern Age.

Well in Modern Times (let's say after the UN is built), countries have to respect borders or face the consequences for violating an internationally sanctioned treaty in the UN. So your army's movement has to stop at the enemy border unless you have declared war. If you don't declare war beforehand, your integrity has to drop and the whole UN (except your close Allies) might turn against you.

You say this is a historical simulator. Border-respecting nations in Modern times, unless you want to instigate a war, will not move their war machines into enemy territory. Civ III has a mish-mash way to describe history. Here it shows so clearly.

Venger · November 13, 2001, 00:00

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Precisely. *Smart* use of the AI ignoring your borders is fine by me. I know that isn't an easy thing to program, mind you, but that's what we should be working on.

Exactly - I would like some sense to AI expansion rather than just a settler bum rush to any open square on the map.

I think the AI does overexpand into the nothingness, but advanced cultures do have a history of exapanding into untamed areas like Africa where there were locals but not truly powerful Civs...

I'm not sure where to stand on the issue overall...

Venger

Steve Clark · November 13, 2001, 11:58

Quote:

Originally posted by yin26
Precisely. *Smart* use of the AI ignoring your borders is fine by me. I know that isn't an easy thing to program, mind you, but that's what we should be working on.

I can accept that. We'll have to see if any changes solve one problem but create two more.

Grumbold · November 13, 2001, 12:07

Yep. I haven't seen superb AI border control yet, but SMAC and CtP1/2 did better than the instances people describe here (that could be post-mod but honestly I don't remember). There's no point in having borders and rights of passage agreements if the AI simply doesn't care that they exist. It has taught me one thing though - if I intend to leave a gap in my city spacing, I'll put a warrior in it.

chequita guevara · November 13, 2001, 12:11

If you fail to defend your borders, your borders will not be respected. I am preparing to go to war with the Iroquoi for just such a reason. Bastards sent a worker over my border and cut down a forest. I kept ordering them out, but they never left. Screw that. I'm building my military and going to war.

dexters · November 13, 2001, 13:09

On a related note, AI units not leaving your borders all of the time you ask it to is not a bug.

It is tied in with how the computer perceives you.

dexters · November 13, 2001, 13:14

And on another note, Borders are a human creation, in real life, do you think god will come in and throw out illegal migrants that are intruding your border?

No. You had to defend it yourself, as said earlier.

And if the enemy AI intrudes on your border constantly, it means it
a) does not respect your culture
b) wants to pick a fight

And picking a fight is usually what is happening. Talk to them in diplomacy and they'll want to declare war on you at the drop of a hat. let them. you'll have less war weariness to worry about if they declare war on you.

But i can't stress enough that you need to garrison troops in forts at key points around your border, usually with cannons/cataputs/artillery, enough so that you have a pretty good cover of all the possible entry points for an invading army.

In a previous war, the Aztecs jungle warriors streamed though my borders like there was no tomorrow. I had artillery set up bombarding the incoming units and using my riflemen to finish them off. Then i cut off the border crossing they are using, trapping their Army and killing it. I then took the war to them, took their Capital and several big cities, and now the the Aztecs are licking my boots. I've effectively extended our peace treaty for another 20 turns, with substantial per turn gold tribute from the aztecs

Gyromancer · November 13, 2001, 14:09

Quote:

Originally posted by Field Marshal Klesh
.... Whats worse is that I was waiting in the next square over with a settler and 2 workers who were clearing some forest for a city site of my own.
...
-FMK.

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but doesn't the act of building a city automatically clear the forest/jungle away from that square?

HalfLotus · November 13, 2001, 15:28

This may have been said already, but if you have a few squares that are not in your borders yet and you see an annoying settler going for it, just put a unit (read:warrior) on the square. No more annoying cities.
I just let them build the city usually. It's a waste of resources for them, and I usually absorb it anyway. Them I can give it away for a couple of techs.