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]

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.

[inca911]

Definitely an opportunist AI if you ask me, and I like games where the AI breaks the rules just like the human player! What I find interesting is this:

If you demanded that they leave on Turn #1.
What I have always seen is that on Turn #2 if you ask them to leave you can give them the Leave or War ultimatum.
Did you not have that option? If you did not, how many successive turns would you estimate that you demanded they leave?

[henry296]

Have you tried contacted the spearman and not the Settler? Not sure why it should make a difference, but I think non-combat units like Settlers and Workers it will not give you the option to ask them to withdraw or declare war. Maybe you should talk to the military unit?

Todd

[HunterAssasin]

There should be a rule where if another empire starts walking through your territory you should be able to attack them without war being declared. In my current game where I'm the strongest civ all the other ones still insist on sending settlers/defensive units through my territory no matter how much I tell them to get out, and sometimes it does take like 3 or 4 turns until they have to remove them or they declare war and when that does happen they just send them back in the next turn. I'm assuming if you can start killing all the people they send through your territory they would learn to not send all those settlers through your territory every friggin turn. It's really annoying to have to contact them every turn to demand they remove them and they still send them through your terrritory. Sorry for the rant it's just really annoying.

[Sevorak]

Report it as a bug.

Founding a city in someone else's borders should be war, according to Soren. If that is not the case for the AI, then it is a bug.

-Sev

[blc]

I've never tried this but if you have a worker available build a colony on the iron. This might stop him building the city and Iif he does and steals the colony that would probably force the war.

I get the impression that there are times where the AI tries to force you to declare war. They ignore your requests to leave your territory unless you give them RoP (at which point they do whatever they want) or declare war. Maybe the AI has noticed that this is an extremely bad time for you to start fighting a war and said (like any human player).

AI Thinking...
Hey, he's got 1 iron, in the middle of a war and I'm just as strong as he is. Hmmm what do I do now? Move in, build a city, steal the iron, cause a war and then hit him in the flanks, he'll be toast.

Just my thoughts.

[vmxa1]

Just so you know, I had a colony of long standing, but the English dropped a settler right next to it and built a city and then told me to get my calv unit off their land. I love it. I had taken so many cities from them in the three wars we already. It was coal and I did not really need it.

[blc]

But when they took the colony, no war got declared? I wonder if this is a wierd culture takeover. If the AI manages to get to one not culturally controlled square and builds the on it colony then it shouldn't start a war. Hmmm

[Grim Legacy]

Originally posted by inca911
Definitely an opportunist AI if you ask me, and I like games where the AI breaks the rules just like the human player! What I find interesting is this:

If you demanded that they leave on Turn #1.
What I have always seen is that on Turn #2 if you ask them to leave you can give them the Leave or War ultimatum.
Did you not have that option? If you did not, how many successive turns would you estimate that you demanded they leave?

The human player can not break the rules like in this case has happened. After the initial request to leave, the second request is always: "leave or war" -certainly when *you* are tresspassing. You can't keep saying "yeah yeah" and not doing it with impunity. I think he hit a bug of some sort.

[xane]

I've learnt that Colonies are really just a stop-gap method.

After you build a Colony to get the resource in, you need to get a Settler up there ASAP and build a city either on or next to the resource tile. There is simply no other way to prevent the enemy making his way towards it.

A colony is exactly that, you hope to establish something there later ...

[Pizarro]

Don´t know if this tip will give you any help with your current problem but perhaps for future games. I haven´t experienced an AI-civ building a city within my cultural border yet. But they tend to use my territory like a highway to the first free square they encounter and found a city there. When i demand them to leave my territory the just say the will but then they keep on going in my land. To me it seems like this cultural-border thing doesn´t work as well as it should. I solve the problem by constructing my own borders. It works better if you have decided from the beginning where you want your empires borders to be. It is easier if you play on a scenario-map instead of a random one.
Build a lot of defensive units and move them to your borderlands. Place them square to square so there will be no empty space between them, preferrably on good defensive terrain like mountains, hills and forests. Then fortify your units there and you have constructed a border that will be hard to penetrate for the AI:s. I also use to build fortresses in those squares as soon as i have gotten the Constuction-advance. And when i have Engineering i transform any plain or grassland in the square to forest for better defensive value. This strategy works is a good one if you want to play defensively, build up your civ peacefully and dont want AI:units running around on your territory. As you start the game with Despotism and then probably change to Monarchy, you can afford the great number of units. When you change to Rebublic or Democracy hopefully your economy will be strong enough to cope with this. Nevertheless it´s worth the cost. It keep your rivals outside your territory and you can improve it peacefully.

[MarshalN]

Um, Pizarro, that's an expensive solution.

I think if I remember correctly (since that was like two days ago.... I'm not playing that game anymore) I was saying things like "get out or war" but they just called my bluff and since I don't really want a war, there's nothing I can do in that respect. I just think there should be some sort of limit on what you can do within someone's border, and building a city should be one of the things you can't do, not without going to war anyway. Otherwise the AI can just theoretically drop cities all over you!

[rah]

If they fear your military, they will respect your borders. Another cheaper option is building that solid wall of units out of captured workers. I usually have so many, I don't know what to do with all of them. Put a few fast response units in range behind them. Of course try to minimize the size of your border. If they take the bait, it's war. If they don't want war, there's nothing they can do. If they do want war, (it will happen) and the workers are a juicy target that they never ignore and you will get a turn warning of their intent and their units will end up spread out instead of grouped. Easier pickings. Many turns I just hit the spacebar on 20-30 slave workers because I have nothing to do with them. (there is a limit to how much pop-rushing building you want to do)

RAH

[Pizarro]

I know this strategy can be expensive but that depends on how long borders you,ve got. I never build this kind of borders along coastal regions for example and with that in mind inland lakes can serve as natural borders.

MarshalN: I fully understand if you dont play that specific game with the Indians anymore. This was just a suggestion for your or anyone elses future games. I fully agree with you in this cultural territory thing. It really should include hard restrictions for the AI:s (and yourself in their territory). If you tell a AI to withdraw his unit (even settlers and workers) from your territory
he should have no other option than obeying or cause a war. In Civ II trespassing units was relocated to the closest friendly city. In Civ III they just seem to ignore this and continue deeper into your territory, and that pisses me of. Because of that i started with this border-strategy, but yes, of course it can be expensive. It depends mostly on how long borders you´ve got.

rah: Agree partly with this worker thing. When a AI:civ decides to start a war against you he really does. If he concentrates his units he can punch trough your border defense. But with good defensive units in good defensive terrain (and with fortress) it will cost them a lot and give you the opportunity to strike back, perhaps with the neighboring border unit or try negotiations. Workers cant even defend themselves against an attacker and you can soon enough find enemy units outside your cities. With regular units you can at least delay them and probably throw them back on their side of the border.

Finally i have to admit that this border-strategy intends to keep AI-units outside your territory. With strong neighboring AI:s i have sometimes found myself obeying their demands for gold or tech in the beginning of the game in order to avoid war. But in the meantime my civ only gets stronger and in the Industrial era
i most often get the upper hand in negotiations.

[rah]

Originally posted by Pizarro
:
rah: Agree partly with this worker thing. When a AI:civ decides to start a war against you he really does. If he concentrates his units he can punch trough your border defense. But with good defensive units in good defensive terrain (and with fortress) it will cost them a lot and give you the opportunity to strike back, perhaps with the neighboring border unit or try negotiations. Workers cant even defend themselves against an attacker and you can soon enough find enemy units outside your cities. With regular units you can at least delay them and probably throw them back on their side of the border.

The only problem with that is that the AI has a tendency to avoid the tough defensive positions and will just find a weak point and go around. (unless a resource or luxury is involved) The workers strat (which i rarely use because my neighbors are usually scared so sh*tless of my military, that they wouldn't think of pissing me off) just informs me of their intent and buys a turn or two to respond. It does spread them out nice for counter attacks. And even if you lose and just nick them, They'll scurry back to their holes to heal. And it forces them to declare war on me, instead of me declaring war on them for encroaching.

[vmxa1]

blc there is no need to declare war in that case as no borders are violated. By definition a colony is outside of your city, if it is not you would only need a road. So the colony is out in no mans land, no city for any one. They drop a new city next to it, no violation, its borders now emcompass your colony, so your colony is dissolved. If you had a unit on it, that unit is in their borders. If the concept is your are really just a squatters, that is legit. If you where a legal owner of the land, then it would be any other story. If in the land rush days, someone claimed to own the land and you paid them to use it before the goverment annex the territory, you could expect compensation, since we have no one to pay, we are just squatters.