Borg999

Join Date 02/2006

+59

Passing through an AI border

Suggestion for changing current game mechanic

Right now, if you can't pass through another factions territory within 1 turn, you are asked to leave.

The logic behind this, of course, is to prevent the human player from declaring war when at AI's doorstep.

However, there is already a amechanic in the game that requires that you be outside of the AI's territory before declaring war, so the request to leave the territory is unecessary.

In my current game, I'm boxed in and can't expand because I'm surrounded by AI factions that I can't pass through in one turn. I'm in the middle of the pack strength wise, but that will rapidly change if I can't expand. I'm not currently strong enough to attack the two AI's boxing me in. (and without the ability to expand I will never be strong enough). The game is effectively over.

My suggestion to minimize the box-in. (but not eliminate it):

If your relations with an AI are neutral or better, AND if you have trade and/or economic treaty with a faction, they should allow you to pass through their territory.

Locked Post

Advanced Search

Watch this post

Do not email me updates for this post Email me updates for this post

Successfully updated karma reason!

DsRaider

Join Date 11/2008

+70

Non-Aggression pacts and Alliances allow you to do move through their territory, although they can be hard to get unless you plan ahead diplomatically.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Borg999

Join Date 02/2006

+59

Quoting DsRaider,

reply 1

I thought of suggesting a "safe passage treaty" integrated into the diplomacy screen, but the way the diplomacy mechanics work currently, the AI would probably want a small fortune for it....making it a useless option.

Non-Aggression pacts and Alliances allow you to do move through their territory, although they can be hard to get unless you plan ahead diplomatically.

Thanks, you're right, but the alliance tech is far down the tech tree, and this is mostly an early to mid game issue. And like you implied, if you're the weaker faction, non-agression pacts cost a fortune. (thus hard to get). so, I think my suggeestion is a reasonable compromise.

And if you're the stronger faction, diplomacy is irrelevant...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Game is WAD no need to change anything. Just chalk it up as a loss and start another game. Just be sure to keep track of all the games the AI BEAT YOU.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Borg999

Join Date 02/2006

+59

Quoting willie sanderson,

reply 3

Game is WAD no need to change anything. Just chalk it up as a loss and start another game. Just be sure to keep track of all the games the AI BEAT YOU.

I've seen all of your post, I seriously doubt you truely believe that there is no need to change anything.

Successfully updated karma reason!

mqpiffle

Join Date 10/2010

+44

I think if you enter an opponent's borders without a NAP and they need to ask you to leave, you should take a -1 diplo hit for say 10 turns, stackable.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting mqpiffle,

reply 6

I think if you enter an opponent's borders without a NAP and they need to ask you to leave, you should take a -1 diplo hit for say 10 turns, stackable.

Yeah kinda like the US and Pakistan. The US has been doing whatever they please on the Pakistan borders and even far inside the borders and they haven't gone to war....YET! I think it should probably be determined by POWER of who's doing the marching into and through. Since the US is the most powerful Pakistan has no choice but to let them do it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting mqpiffle,

reply 6

I think if you enter an opponent's borders without a NAP and they need to ask you to leave, you should take a -1 diplo hit for say 10 turns, stackable.

I like your idea piffle.

~ K

Successfully updated karma reason!

Borg999

Join Date 02/2006

+59

Quoting mqpiffle,

reply 6

I think if you enter an opponent's borders without a NAP and they need to ask you to leave, you should take a -1 diplo hit for say 10 turns, stackable.

I think that would just lead to early game wars. No need for any other type of diplomacy, no need for city development, etc.

There's a group of people who want a civ like game, and there are those who just want a fanatsy empire total war. Not sure if this game can satisfy both groups.

Civ 4 had an "always war" setting. Maybe SD should put that in FE.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Your only choice in the scenario you have described is to build troops.

One of two things will happen: 1) you will exceed a neighbor AI on power rating and be able to get a Non Aggression Pact (and thus permission to pass through), or 2) you won't be able to exceed a neighbor AI on power rating and you will be ready to attempt to expand via conquest.

The NAP treaty doesn't require "alliances" tech from deep in the magic tech tree. In fact, a NAP treaty can be obtained from the beginning of the game. It does generally require your power rating to be competitive with the AI, however. If you are playing the game on Insane difficulty setting and have no hope of ever achieving power rating parity with an AI, then I think your issue can be summed up in your difficulty rating nomenclature.

If your first few military battles are successful, you will likely have carved a pathway to further settlement expansion. Of course, the occupation unrest penalty in the default game is a bit brutal, so those conquered cities will be useless for 100 turns or so (or until you pump significant gold into rush buying their unrest reducing building queue). If you can rush a bell tower, a cleric (if there's a few essence), and make the city contiguous to your capital's borders... it should start to resemble something useful eventually. Or you could raze it and rebuild with a new pioneer if it's an undeveloped city that's not worth the wait.

In summary, the main problem of "getting out" should be solved via a short military buildup. You'll either be free... or have lost the game gloriously and be free to restart. In my current game, I was boxed in by Resoln and Magnar, and used this strategy to good effect. Don't wait overlong to make this kind of decision though, or you'll be hopelessly outnumbered.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Borg999,

reply 9

Quoting mqpiffle, reply 6I think if you enter an opponent's borders without a NAP and they need to ask you to leave, you should take a -1 diplo hit for say 10 turns, stackable.

I think that would just lead to early game wars. No need for any other type of diplomacy, no need for city development, etc.

There's a group of people who want a civ like game, and there are those who just want a fanatsy empire total war. Not sure if this game can satisfy both groups.

Civ 4 had an "always war" setting. Maybe SD should put that in FE.

What do you mean borg? unless you endlessly spam units into other peoples border's I can't see this as a big deal .
Personally I try to steer clear off the border's, because I have some idea that that's how the rules should be

That said, I would think the original suggestion would have to be modified a tiny bit by Army size, If I am moving a scout into an enemy's border's, I think it should give -1 diplomacy hit for each 2-3 times I do that (still only lasting the short amount of time of 10-15 turns.
But if I move my squadron of Armoured Tanks with Helicopter support (oh yes, I cheat like that ) The AI should react immediately (because this could only mean one of few things)

That said, it would be nice to see some early game agreements of crossing borders, I think its wrong that the treaties are unlocked by technology.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

Successfully updated karma reason!

(oh yes, I cheat like that

I thought you did, now I have proof from the horse's mouth.

Successfully updated karma reason!