Trespassing and the AI » Forum Post by LordTheRon

Or some way to autoate the go away command. Its very tedious telling them to go every. single. turn.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Lord Reliant

Join Date 03/2006

+39

Last I knew when you would trespass in the AI's territory, you would teleport out somewhere. Does it do this to the AI when you tell the AI to get out?

Successfully updated karma reason!

Once again, may I suggest an "open borders" / "close borders" diplomatic option - so you can close borders for enemy AIs without having to go to war, and open borders for them if you would like...

Successfully updated karma reason!

Seconded on requiring Open Borders agreements - all the current system does is increase the number of clicks to keep stuff out of your borders. If the concern is players getting contained by AI, make Open Borders cheap in terms of base diplomatic value.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting Lord Reliant,

reply 2

Last I knew when you would trespass in the AI's territory, you would teleport out somewhere. Does it do this to the AI when you tell the AI to get out?

Yes, but the next turn the AI is back in your territory, especially if you are in between the AI's army and his homefront. Really annoying.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I enjoy the open concept and the ability to kick someone out of your turf....or to be kicked out. Must keep in mind that this is not Civ. There are quests to do and that means crossing other factions territory. I don't really like how harsh some factions are when you try to cross their territory. Understandably, if I'm headed for one of their cities, they should want to respond. But if I'm just cutting the corner of their empire...I should be able to get away with it, to set up an agreement that allows me to cross for the 2-5 turns needed to cross...

Open boarder agreements are great....and they exist! In the form of non-agression pacts. The 50 turns is too long sometimes and not long enough in others. Imo, the turn limit should be variable and partially dependant on your relation to the faction and partially dependant on what the faction is trying to accomplish. Thus, the weight of such a trade can be different as the game progresses.

Closed-border agreements are an interesting concept. Essencially boycotting another faction. Naturally, if you boycott someone, odds are they'll boycott you. This can lead to embargos as the faction's allies are beginning to share fated decisions. I would definately be for such an inclusion, including the chance that boycotting a faction (like Kraxis) could all of a sudden find yourself completely shut in. Oops.

Successfully updated karma reason!

you could make it a trade-off where a closed border treaty prevents you from establishing a trade treaty (and trade requires open borders) and could cost you relationship points with the other party.

Successfully updated karma reason!

You could also make it so that anyone who crosses your territory without a treaty is fair game for attack. They know that they are at fault, so there would be no declaration of war. If they manage to sneak through, then they have pulled one over on you, but if you catch them in your territory, they risk losing the units. That way you don't have to worry about constantly threatening war (that never happens), only to do so again next turn. Either they sneak by or they are killed.

Perhaps the threatening would give you some sort of causus belli every time you do so, so eventually you could declare war without angering other factions for your warring ways.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Lord Reliant

Join Date 03/2006

+39

Quoting DexCisco,

reply 9

You could also make it so that anyone who crosses your territory without a treaty is fair game for attack. They know that they are at fault, so there would be no declaration of war. If they manage to sneak through, then they have pulled one over on you, but if you catch them in your territory, they risk losing the units. That way you don't have to worry about constantly threatening war (that never happens), only to do so again next turn. Either they sneak by or they are killed.

Perhaps the threatening would give you some sort of causus belli every time you do so, so eventually you could declare war without angering other factions for your warring ways.

I do hate it that war is a binary option right now. If the expectation was, "we're friendly as long as you don't enter our turf", that seems reasonable. If you take that stance now, though, it's all-out war. Granted, killing AI troops in self-defense won't make them very friendly toward you, but at least it wouldn't have to trigger automatic dissolution of relations. The AI could just make sure it doesn't travel in your borders (assuming it can tell the path it's going to take).

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting DexCisco,

reply 9

You could also make it so that anyone who crosses your territory without a treaty is fair game for attack. They know that they are at fault, so there would be no declaration of war. If they manage to sneak through, then they have pulled one over on you, but if you catch them in your territory, they risk losing the units. That way you don't have to worry about constantly threatening war (that never happens), only to do so again next turn. Either they sneak by or they are killed.

Perhaps the threatening would give you some sort of causus belli every time you do so, so eventually you could declare war without angering other factions for your warring ways.

I like that concept, thought it might be hard for the AI to comprehend. Closed borders might be easier to do. Main thing is that the current solution isn't working as it should since the AI is too persistent in trying to cross your borders or kick you out if you do it to them.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting GFireflyE,

reply 7

I enjoy the open concept and the ability to kick someone out of your turf....or to be kicked out.

Dont you have to do it every turn? For me anyway they just wont stop coming 90 percent of the time.

Its also an invitation to blitz the AI. I always start wars hiting a city first turn, realistic or not, its not good for the AI. A hard no entry or war rule would prevent this.

Successfully updated karma reason!

I kind of like the idea that we can go into diplomacy and demand they leave. It is exactly the kind of aggressive posturing diplomacy is full of. But once they back down and leave, they should be physically impeded from reentering for 12 turns. All trade should stop for those 4 years and at the end, the AI should contact you for a deal to pass.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting seanw3,

reply 13

I kind of like the idea that we can go into diplomacy and demand they leave. It is exactly the kind of aggressive posturing diplomacy is full of. But once they back down and leave, they should be physically impeded from reentering for 12 turns. All trade should stop for those 4 years and at the end, the AI should contact you for a deal to pass.

That would be an elegant way to solve it.

Successfully updated karma reason!

Quoting leroy105,

reply 1

Or some way to autoate the go away command. Its very tedious telling them to go every. single. turn.

This. "Insanity is trying the same thing over and over and expecting a different outcome. " - Albert Einstein

Successfully updated karma reason!

I don't mind leaving the border issue as is. The only reason I deny border access is to try and contain an AI player from expanding into territory I want. Instead of changing how border access works I would add in either a "Influence" function (similar to mines and colonies in Gal Civ 2 where outlying outpost revert to a more access friendly city) or at least an abandoned installation penalty (outpost or city dissapears after a time period) for outposts/cities that do not have direct access to your main lands.

Successfully updated karma reason!