Wizard Pact Territorial Violations

[massone]

I have found the accidental territorial violations on Wizard's Pacts to be extremely annoying on larger maps. I spend far too much time trying to figure out exactly where I violated the territory, only to get the Pact dissolved anyways because I accidentally violated it somewhere else. The problem is not the 3-turn limit, it's the distance limit. 2 squares, especially the diagonals, is impossible to manage when there are so many cities packed tightly on the map, shared tiles, and the AI settling everywhere with extreme border gore.

I'm okay with giving up nodes when forming a pact, and even empty Floating Islands counting as violations because theoretically there could be invisible units there even though the AI sees invisible units anyways, but all these accidental violations are really frustrating. After getting warned and trying to respect their territorial integrity, giving away two nodes, FAILING to get all of my troops, I reloaded from backup on the third turn, spent over half an hour checking 26 towns one by one to find where my violations were, and moving more of my units away, only to find that I had STILL violated it somewhere else in a new move, even after THREE reloads.

I suggest that the 3-turn limit needs to count individual stacks rather than the whole map so that if I move my unit away, the AI should recognize that I've done as they asked. This is probably quite difficult to program though, so maybe there can be a warning when trying to move a unit into a territorial violation, and there should especially be something to prevent the automatic path-finding from ending the turn on a violating square mid-way through for long distance trips. At the very least, diagonals should stop counting as violations, they are the hardest to notice.

Otherwise, the whole territorial violation mechanics should be reconsidered, as it's making me not want to bother with Pacts, period, with anyone except someone in a nice corner of the map where I can clearly see where they are and avoid them. It's just too frustrating trying to micromanage this with an AI who owns towns all over the place. It's especially annoying because I'm not even the one who wanted the Pact in the first place. I didn't want the hassle when the AI first offered it to me, but then they surprisingly offered me a thousand gold for it, and I decided it wouldn't be too much trouble since I didn't plan to make war on them any time soon. Yet I was proven wrong. The micromanagement hell was not worth it.

[Slingers]

The AI-wizard could point at the unit while he is complaining.

[ichthyosaurus]

What is the 3-turn limit?

Sent from my Pixel 3 using Tapatalk

[Seravy]

Did you try looking for the units on the Cartographer? It's much easier to find that way.

The 3 turn "limit" is, if you violate the wizard's pact in 3 consecutive turns, the AI will break it.

I suggest that the 3-turn limit needs to count individual stacks rather than the whole map so that if I move my unit away, the AI should recognize that I've done as they asked.

Yes, this is pretty much near impossible to do. Also from the AI's perspective, why should it care if you replaced the violating unit with another one? It's still a violation.

and there should especially be something to prevent the automatic path-finding from ending the turn on a violating square mid-way through for long distance trips.

That's even more impossible not just to program but also as a problem to solve. Assuming the city is on all mountain terrain between 2 shores, it can require a unit having up to 21 movement to get through without stopping. Even on Grasslands it can require up to 6 moves in the worst case.
Also, as all movement is done through automatic pathfinding this would make those tiles pretty much unaccessible even if the player intentionally wants to violate their pacts.
Speaking of pathfinding, that is the bottleneck for AI turn times. Any change there will make the game slower.

Removing the diagonals is probably possible and I even considered it before but makes little sense. If the AI thinks they are in danger if you can reach their town in 2 steps, the diagonals are no different from any other range 2 tile, as diagonal movement speed is the same.

[massone]

Did you try looking for the units on the Cartographer? It's much easier to find that way.

That is how I looked for them, but it was unfortunately still difficult. The cartographer distances don't seem to correspond exactly to the actual map, or it they do, the diagonals don't look like they're close. There are also places where there are tons of units from multiple wizards clogging the area and they make it harder to notice the one lone violating unit among them.

Yes, this is pretty much near impossible to do. Also from the AI's perspective, why should it care if you replaced the violating unit with another one? It's still a violation.

Because it's the same logic for why the AI isn't subject to territory violations. They can't handle it in a timely manner--but neither can a relatively peaceful player on a huge map. If turn times take way longer either way, I'd rather wait for the system to resolve it automatically than be forced to do it manually. But in practical terms, it seems like I'm probably spending more time than it would take the system to calculate. But I realize the extra programming isn't practical/possible either, so I'm suggesting that we use the same solution for the player as for the AI--just don't apply the violation rule where it is too difficult.

That's even more impossible not just to program but also as a problem to solve. Assuming the city is on all mountain terrain between 2 shores, it can require a unit having up to 21 movement to get through without stopping. Even on Grasslands it can require up to 6 moves in the worst case.
Also, as all movement is done through automatic pathfinding this would make those tiles pretty much unaccessible even if the player intentionally wants to violate their pacts.
Speaking of pathfinding, that is the bottleneck for AI turn times. Any change there will make the game slower.

Removing the diagonals is probably possible and I even considered it before but makes little sense. If the AI thinks they are in danger if you can reach their town in 2 steps, the diagonals are no different from any other range 2 tile, as diagonal movement speed is the same.

Well, it now seems to be the bottleneck on my own turn times. Actually, this wasn't even the first time I've dealt with this, but this was just the most extreme case as the AI being an Aggressive Lizardman Expansionist on Lunatic had grown to a massive size very early, and I had an emotional investment in keeping the Pact to see where it led because I was paid a lot for it, something that is extremely rare in the game in the first place. I was turning only a 300 gold profit/turn at that point in 1408 after getting out-settled badly by 2 Lizardmen Wizards, so 1200 gold was an impressive offer. Usually, I would just keep going with the game without the Pact but here was an interesting situation in which the AI seemed to really want the Pact. I could have just did a turn-face literally 3 turns after the Pact started, thus getting the gold for free, but I was trying to adhere to house rules to make the Pact fair for the AI.

Again, it doesn't make sense for the AI not to be subject to territoriality, but we do it because of practical limitations on pathfinding. This is simply the same situation in reverse. Pacts are too tedious to manage because of this. In my case, it would have been to the AI's own benefit not to have wasted their gold on the Pact only to break it 3 turns later even when neither side wanted to.

[Seravy]

Because it's the same logic for why the AI isn't subject to territory violations.

That's not the (only) reason. The AI isn't allowed to cancel the treaty and attack the same turn. The player is. So the AI asks for this to guarantee their safety instead or more like, the game uses this to make sure there is some sort of a cost on the human player's side and it's not a one-sided benefit of "I won't get attacked by this guy and I can backstab them whenever I want to".
I've added this to the FAQ section for the next update's documentation because everyone seems to misunderstand what the treaty actually is and not read the actual explanation in the diplomacy chapter.

I might as well also copy the entire design philosophy from the docs here :

Due to the assymmetric nature of Diplomacy, the Wizard's Pact is assymetric as well. While the human player can reliably expect the AI to not violate the treaty and the AI is literally unable to do so and thus is guaranteed to not attack the player until the treaty is broken officially, the human player is allowed to backstab. This wouldn't be fair and the benefit would be entirely one-sided, so the human player and ONLY the human player, agrees to not enter the territory of the AI in exchange. While players generally dislike this fact, and hate seeing AI troops in their territory, that unfortunately can't be helped : The AI uses a dozen different movement and targeting functions of various types and lacks the ability to do complex moves like using a ship to avoid walking through the player's territory. Also, this enables the AI's troops to be in good position, so when the human player does backstab the AI, the AI is ready to retaliate immediately instead of having no troops to do so. Let's face it : the 2 tile range with 3 turns of tolerance, will not make it any harder for the human to attack the AI, either. Finally, this much inconvenience is a really good deal in exchange for the benefits of a Wizard's Pact most of the time, and seems to work surprisingly well as more aggressive and impatient human players violate it intentionally and tend to have problems taking advantage of the diplomacy system as a consequence which is pretty realistic. No one likes that attitude in diplomacy.

So the short answer is the only "price" for the wizard's pact is this inconvenience (beyond a successful treaty roll to have it accepted) so it's a necessary evil.
(this is pretty much 100% the original game design by the way, if you know something better that makes the treaty have a "cost" for the human player proportional to being able to backstab the AI or curse their cities during the treaty, let me know. I can't think of anything beyond making the treaty ridiculously hard to get but that's bad for the game.)

[massone]

Because it's the same logic for why the AI isn't subject to territory violations.

That's not the (only) reason. The AI isn't allowed to cancel the treaty and attack the same turn. The player is. So the AI asks for this to guarantee their safety instead or more like, the game uses this to make sure there is some sort of a cost on the human player's side and it's not a one-sided benefit of "I won't get attacked by this guy and I can backstab them whenever I want to".
I've added this to the FAQ section for the next update's documentation because everyone seems to misunderstand what the treaty actually is and not read the actual explanation in the diplomacy chapter.

I might as well also copy the entire design philosophy from the docs here :

Due to the assymmetric nature of Diplomacy, the Wizard's Pact is assymetric as well. While the human player can reliably expect the AI to not violate the treaty and the AI is literally unable to do so and thus is guaranteed to not attack the player until the treaty is broken officially, the human player is allowed to backstab. This wouldn't be fair and the benefit would be entirely one-sided, so the human player and ONLY the human player, agrees to not enter the territory of the AI in exchange. While players generally dislike this fact, and hate seeing AI troops in their territory, that unfortunately can't be helped : The AI uses a dozen different movement and targeting functions of various types and lacks the ability to do complex moves like using a ship to avoid walking through the player's territory. Also, this enables the AI's troops to be in good position, so when the human player does backstab the AI, the AI is ready to retaliate immediately instead of having no troops to do so. Let's face it : the 2 tile range with 3 turns of tolerance, will not make it any harder for the human to attack the AI, either. Finally, this much inconvenience is a really good deal in exchange for the benefits of a Wizard's Pact most of the time, and seems to work surprisingly well as more aggressive and impatient human players violate it intentionally and tend to have problems taking advantage of the diplomacy system as a consequence which is pretty realistic. No one likes that attitude in diplomacy.

So the short answer is the only "price" for the wizard's pact is this inconvenience (beyond a successful treaty roll to have it accepted) so it's a necessary evil.
(this is pretty much 100% the original game design by the way, if you know something better that makes the treaty have a "cost" for the human player proportional to being able to backstab the AI or curse their cities during the treaty, let me know. I can't think of anything beyond making the treaty ridiculously hard to get but that's bad for the game.)

No, I have read the explanation before, and I think you misunderstood my point. I am asking for the change precisely because of the reasons you listed in the philosophy document. It is BECAUSE it's unfair that I can immediately backstab the AI that I did not want to break the Wizard Pact, and enforced a house rule for my game which mandated that I follow the Wizard Pact and remove my forces from their territory. The fact is that the mechanic is PREVENTING me from executing on this rule, whose purpose is to prevent my ability to backstab them and effectively receive the 1200 gold for "free" because we were neutral before the AI asked ME for the Pact, and then they broke the Pact they wanted themselves at 0 cost to me, even letting me reclaim the 2 previously garrisoned nodes I gave them as part of the Pact rules.

The best solution would be to apply my house rule as a hard rule barring the player from attacking at all during the Pact, but I think most players would rail against limiting their freedom in such a way even though the AI is literally not allowed to do the same to the player.

That's why I suggested a few other options instead. Alternatively, make it so the AI can backstab the player whenever they want. Then it would be fair too, and let the Chaotic/Maniacal/Ruthless AI actually use backstabs at opportune times.

[massone]

Just throwing in some more ideas on how to handle this.

I take inspiration from the Paradox games which have an excellent and very complicated diplomacy system for hundreds of AIs.

-You cannot attack without declaring war.
-Declaring war is not allowed within ___ number of turns after breaking alliance or pact.
-Attacking during a treaty of "truce" incurs large penalties (internal instability for having a crazed ruler who doesn't respect the law + diplo reputation loss with all other known AIs penalizing future deals + diplo relations loss with existing allies and treaty partners who are wary of you breaking their treaty next)
-Engaging in hostile acts without war status (curses in this case, or spies if you implement the idea from the mass brainstorming thread, or blocking a square necessary for naval transportation/land movement) results in diplo penalties with the affected parties and lesser penalties with other Wizards
-When a diplo-penalty for hostile actions is incurred with another Wizard, there are additional penalties for other Wizards which are modified based on their relation to the affected Party. Lawful/Peaceful Wizards who expect Treaties to always be respected have huge penalties, Wizards allied to the affected party get large penalties, Wizards of the same "faction" in terms of Realms or Pacts also get lesser penalties, and Wizards physically close to you and/or the affected party are more threatened by your hostility than faraway wizards who don't care.


Ideas to work within the existing system:
-New icon/highlight on the Cartographer for units violating Pacts
-Vary the penalty to the Pact depending on the size of the violation (fewer/individual/weak units don't matter as much as a big threatening stack, and depending on their personality (Expansionists and Perfectionists might hate when you're in their territory, for example), then make it so that they break if the threat value reaches a certain point-threshold instead of just 3 turns
-When you do anything that looks like it might break the Pact, the AI responds by gathering forces for war despite the treaty, and moving to threaten your own cities
-The AI is allowed to attack your units that violate the Pact with no penalty
-When your units violate a Pact, there is a random chance that your troops refuse the order and/or some units desert/disband when the AI says they're in violation, perhaps modified by some kind of stat relating to loyalty (length of time the unit has served with you, gold/mana cost of the unit?)

[Seravy]

and enforced a house rule for my game

I understand but how is the AI supposed to know about that? I can't put a checkbox on the UI that says "I promise I won't backstab the AI".

The best solution would be to apply my house rule as a hard rule barring the player from attacking at all during the Pact,

Certainly but that changes the core foundation of the entire diplomacy system so that's like asking for a different game entirely.

I don't believe a diplomacy system where the AI is free to do anything, nor one where the player isn't, would be fun to play.
If the AI can break the rules, the system is meaningless, it's just for show, it's fake. Might as well not have it in the game, as it does nothing.

If the rules are enforced for the player that's also bad but impractical to implement as well. For starters, every single city curse, including those that target land tiles, would need to have a restriction implemented to fail targeting that AI's cities.
Then, pacts raise visible relation, and visible relation, through treaty rolls, forces the AI to accept the player's further requests at a higher chance. So then then instead of the player saying yes or no they'd be forced to accept or refuse the AI's offer depending on the game's dice roll and rules. And so on, ultimately if we impose the AI's rules on the player, the player will have no choice in anything in diplomacy, the game will decide when and what they trade with the AI and so on.
Again, this is not a viable route.
Of course we can also say the player is free to do anything except attacking the AI but then we're back to square one, the player benefits more from the treaty than the AIs. Unlike the AI the player can and will plan for their invasion, formally break the treaty the turn before the attack, and go through with it. The AI meanwhile cannot do that and has to break the treaty through the game rules allowing it to do so (either through a "move to war" trigger or a "repeated diplomacy warning" trigger)

[prokolyo]

Maybe stacks of up to 1-2 units or up to some very minimal strength shouldn't count as violation.