Bug or not?

Carolus Rex · April 5, 2003, 11:17

I played an OCC game last night and something weird (at first glance) happened.

I had built a fortress to protect my city and had some units in it. Then the usual thing happened in the late game: the AI founds a city so that my fortress is within that city's radius, and I get the message to withdraw my troops or face the consequences.

I didn't want to risk a government collapse by refusing so "What the heck, ok". Before retreating I wanted to destroy the fortress, but got the pop-up that "It would cause a major international incident" and I got to choose between "Cancel action/Break treaty". First I thought it was a bug, but it seems that the fortress became the AI's once it was in the city radius. Even if I built the thing it was no longer mine, there was a change in property rights?

Carolus

Bloody Monk · April 5, 2003, 12:52

All the game sees is that you are pillaging in another's city radius. Their city = their fortress.

Surprised you have not noticed this before. Probably never let an AI settler get the chance before this. You can probably 'hold' the fort with an engineer, if there is a spare one around.

Interesting isn't it, how new things keep turning up.

Monk

SCG · April 5, 2003, 16:43

in the case of a tie, its always in the AI's domain - happens with expelling diplomats, bribing units, etc...

Caesar the Great · April 6, 2003, 13:21

and we all know the AI needs all the help it can get

Ming · April 7, 2003, 02:14

The rule sucks... You just have to keep them from getting the city in place.

Carolus Rex · April 7, 2003, 09:59

Yes.

Monk, I think I've never left a fortress due to AI demands before.

Carolus

-Jrabbit · April 7, 2003, 14:06

Quote:

Originally posted by Bloody Monk
All the game sees is that you are pillaging in another's city radius. Their city = their fortress.

Surprised you have not noticed this before. Probably never let an AI settler get the chance before this. You can probably 'hold' the fort with an engineer, if there is a spare one around.

Monk

BM is right -- and it's a two-way street. You can ask the "offending" pieces from the other civ to leave "your" square just as easily.

I believe you can hold the fort with settler/engineers, diplomat/spies, explorers, or caravan/freights -- all the land-based pieces without offensive power. In other words, if you had a spy in that fortress, he could stay and hold the fort. In the Luddite succession game, we've been using AI fortresses to bunk our freights -- and they never get attacked!!

But the pillaging thing -- no can do.

atawa · April 8, 2003, 12:01

I thought you couldnt do it with explorers though, I've been asked many times to remove my explorers from AI lands.

rah · April 8, 2003, 12:18

The real question is what type of unit is the best to use in this situation. (i.e. which one is the AI less likely to kill in a sneak attack after military units.) Settlers are usually juicy targets, and I remember a few times were I was surprised when they didn't trash a caravan. What are your experiences?

RAH

-Jrabbit · April 8, 2003, 13:52

In the current Space Luddite succession game, we've used fortresses within the Celtic island nation to store freights for future delivery, sometimes using as many as 3 of their facilities.

In the 8 turns I just played (around 1780 AD), no attacks to any of the bunkered freights. After a few turns, I didn't even bother fortifying.

Carolus Rex · April 8, 2003, 14:46

Mm, but settlers are quite robust. I avoid attacking them in the early game if they're in hills or mountains, they're tough! A fortress on top of that...

Before reading -Jrabbit's post I'd be more careful about sending out a camel. Still, two (or more) diplos seems more attractive to me. Can't be expelled and if one of them is killed, the war is not my fault and the others can bribe the attacking unit if needed.

Carolus

rah · April 9, 2003, 14:10

I guess I should have rephrased the question.
Will the AI attack a caravan less often then a settler or a diplo. In my experience the ai will almost always attack a settler but I've seen them ignore caravans sometimes. I just hoped to hear others perception or results of tests if they've been done.

Smash · April 9, 2003, 16:31

I'd have to agree with that based on my play.Not always,but often camels are left alone.Settlers are often sneak attacked and dips are always expelled if not attacked.

One particularily annoying incident comes to mind from an early OCC game where I marched a camel for what seemed like 600 turns thru hostile enemy territory.Passed umpteen cities enroute to the demander.You know what happened.They killed it just before it made it's destination

I've had CR's situation in a number of OCC games.You have to keep that square occupied if it is a special,or anything for that matter.The AI will constantly try to change your silk forests and/or work the square.I put something non offensive like a camel and a defensive unit.I just keep putting it back with the camel after every "get out" order.

Sometimes its possible to use ZoC from outside a city radius to keep the square clear.No good if allied though.

atawa · April 10, 2003, 12:29

If you are allied the AI wont take your special anyway.

Smash · April 10, 2003, 15:24

It will if you don't work the square which is quite likely when the city is less than max pop.There may be a better square to work at the time.Ok,its a stretch

but I have had situations where "allies" stole squares from me.

rah · April 10, 2003, 16:27

Quote:

Originally posted by atawa
If you are allied the AI wont take your special anyway.

Tougher to get and keep alliances in the MP version 2.42.

The other question is how to keep their settlers from encroaching. It's has always been my belief that if you are at war with a civ, that an AI settler will not build a city if you have an offensive unit next to it. Have people seen an exception to this?

RAH

Scouse Gits · April 10, 2003, 16:34

Yes ... I agree. I remember a game with a re-starting civ where I had an explorer who tracked the new settler preventing it founding a city.

----------------

SG(2)

Smash · April 10, 2003, 17:33

no the ai won't build with a unit next to it.Move 1 square away and wait a turn,and poof,easy capture.

rah · April 10, 2003, 18:25

So it would seem to be quite easy to keep a settler from encroaching on your occ city as long as you have a few extra troops.

Smash · April 10, 2003, 21:56

So it would seem.Not always the case though.The AI does have some tricks it likes to do.Avoiding war is often the cause of OCC problems and laziness.Even losing 1 unit can be disastrous,like a camel or your non settler
.Close AI cities are desired for the road and RR connection which can be done quickly.Maybe thats a little too close

rah · April 11, 2003, 08:16

Yeah,

that's why I have decent OCC launch years but never the record. I like to build that fortress on the mountain blocking the rail network stuffed with bribed non-units. Even if they declare war, they spend their effort splatting against the mountain. They're so darn predictable

atawa · April 11, 2003, 11:06

The most anoying thing about AI settlers is they always seem to want to irigate your spice, anyone know a good way to stop them except for bribing?

Scouse Gits · April 11, 2003, 11:46

Quote:

Originally posted by atawa
The most anoying thing about AI settlers is they always seem to want to irigate your spice, anyone know a good way to stop them except for bribing?

Settler bribing is very expensive. The best value (if not playing OCC) is to bribe the city.

------------------

SG(2)

rah · April 11, 2003, 11:57

Quote:

Originally posted by atawa
The most anoying thing about AI settlers is they always seem to want to irigate your spice, anyone know a good way to stop them except for bribing?

A gun to the head

Aren't they removed also when you demand they withdraw. (as long as there is a military unit near so you're able to demand it without getting the no units message) It's been awhile since I bothered chatting to AI's.

Carolus Rex · April 11, 2003, 14:02

Talking about annoying... What about when you have a nice little continent on your own, and you haven't covered every square within your cities' radii? Poof! A lone AI settler is dropped off and founds a city...

Still, I prefer to have to put a unit in such territory than having borders.

Carolus

rah · April 11, 2003, 16:13

A gun to the head solves that one too

Especially if you find it quick enough.

RAH
MPers aren't warmongers by nature.

Straybow · April 15, 2003, 02:39

How 'bout this? Late in a solo game, MGE, with a NONE Engr in a city on grassland. I intended to hit "M" for displaying the map location of the city (in the City popup) but I brushed the escape or enter key, so the "M" command went to the Engr, and it started to mine the city square!

rah · April 15, 2003, 08:04

In MGE, we mine city grassland river squares to forest river squares all the time for the extra defense. Or we do it to prework the settler for building instant fortresses later. (for settlers anyway)

Straybow · April 15, 2003, 09:57

So, it will let you mine a grassland under the city but not a hill? I know Engr Transformation is allowed. I thought it simply didn't allow any mining at all. I suppose you could found a city on a swamp and mine it into forest as well?

Cyrion · April 15, 2003, 10:47

I think the difference comes from what you do to the terrain: even if you use the same command in both case (M), in the first you "build a mine" but the terrain remains a hill, while in the second case you "transform" it to a forest!

So you can't "improve" your terrain under a city (unless you start before building the city), but you can "transform" it.