 |
| |
|
|
finbar
|
 |
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:14
|
|
According to the "Civ 2 Official Strategy Guide", a book written by David Ellis, a writer and designer for MicroProse at the time, the Reputation Scale works basically as follows:
Your reputation is based on the number of "black marks" you have. Black marks are essentially penalty points you incur for doing underhanded and dishonourable things. Generally, black marks are accrued when you break treaties. Each treaty you break results in 2 black marks. But there are exceptions:
1) If you are incited to break a treaty by another civ with whom you have a treaty, you receive only one black mark, and the civ who incited you to break the treaty doesn't count the black mark. This is the only situation that can cause your reputation to vary from one civ to another.
2) If you control the Eiffel Tower, you receive only one black mark when you break a treaty.
The effect of having a bad reputation is that your rivals are less likely to trust you when you negotiate treaties. The AI adheres to the following reputation parameters when negotiating peace with you:
* No alliances unless your reputation is Excellent of better;
* No permanent treaties unless your reputation is Questionable or better;
* If your reputation is Atrocious, the AI feels no compulsion to adhere to cease-fires or existing treaties with you.
Civ players with MGE will, of course, already know that the AI rarely respects any treaty in any way, shape or form. 
The Reputation Scale is as follows:
0 black marks = Spotless
1 = Excellent
2 = Honourable
3 = Questionable
4 = Dishonourable
5 = Poor
6 = Despicable
7 and 7+ = Atrocious
Reputation points can be regained. If you ever feel the need. Black marks are deleted one at a time, over a number of game turns. And the formula is as follows:
(24xDifficulty Level)Turns
Where Difficulty Level = 1 for Chieftain, 2 for Warlord, etc.
(Note. Some of the other forumlae in the book have been questioned due to peculiar parameters, and I'm not a mathematician, so I can't vouch for this equation)
Reputation is gained at the twice the normal rate if you control the Eiffel Tower.
That's it in a nutshell, GP. In theory anyway. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
EOL
|
|
Oxford
Dec 2000
time: 05:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by finbar
* No alliances unless your reputation is Excellent of better;
* No permanent treaties unless your reputation is Questionable |
The book isn't strictly correct on these points, as I posted on Solo's thread below, I've gained an aliiance when I've had a dishonourable rep with a bit of tech trading followed by a tech gift.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Scouse Gits
I agree War ... Despicable is a nice word. Atrocious sounds too much like school reports ....  |
Too right, lads. Atrocious should be abolished as a ranking. The rankings should read - in descending order - Despicable, Really Despicable, Totally Despicable, Absolutely Despicable, Utterly Despicable, Absolutely Totally Utterly and Unredeemably Despicable, and so on.
Personally, whenever I play a SP game, I like to get my reputation as terrible as possible as quickly as possible.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Edward
|
|
finbar,
Thanks for the reputation reference. It seems it takes 144 deity turns of being good to gain back one level of reputation (about the length of an entire Ribannah game!).
quote:
Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Also, any civ you betray will treat you as having a lower reputation than the one the Foreign Minister reports. |
Yes, I've noticed this as well. An individual civ can act unto you in a manner conflicting with both your spotless reputation and their supposedly favorable attitude. I think that, like conveniently forgetting a peace treaty and not offering you the option to demand removal of troops, the AI sometimes puts up a deceiving friendly attitude when really it's about to sneak attack you (Pearl Harbor anyone?). A civ needn't be hostile to sneak attack you.
And even without this attitude deception, the AI definitely remembers successful subversions, unit bribes, and tech stealings - even if the spy isn't caught and there's no reputation hit. They know full well who's to blame (as do you in regard to their underhandedness).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
debeest
|
|
I agree, "atrocious" should be changed to "despicable. And there should be a little cartoon of Sylvester the cat to s(thpr)ay it, too.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blaupanzer
|
 |
Fairfax, VA
Oct 2000
time: 00:14
|
|
The disappearing treaty problem cannot be entirely explained by any one pattern of events. However, I have noticed that if you let an AI's troops into your territory while a treaty is in effect (that is, you don't immediately protest), the treaty is soon vaporized. Similarly, bribing one or two troops from a civ will also vaporize it; I have tested this recently, albeit not rigorously. Also a " no incident bribe may send the treaty into the ether.
I will note, however, that I recently had a treaty mysteriously disappear in that most frustrating of manners. The AI moves troops into my city space. I call to say "I object," but find no option for requesting the withdrawal of troops. I offer a treaty (that option is available, so there must not be one already). They give me one of the usual "No, you minipulative jerk" responses. Therefore, I'm free to attack their troops. So, I do, only to get the message, "We have a treaty with ____, are you sure you want to break it?" THAT is frustrating! In this case, I had not bribed troops or citiesfrom that civ, or even had much contact except thru the diplo screens. Go figure.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:14
|
|
Yes, the Case of the Disappearing Treaty is a puzzler. It seems to manifest itself in two ways -
1. You have a peace treaty with another Civ. Suddenly, they arrive and offer you peace. There was a theory that, somewhere else on the map, one of the other Civs has, at some point, convinced the other Civ to break its treaty with you and they're restoring it. It might be the case in some examples, but, as often as not, it will happen when you're at peace with everyone else and treaty breaking wouldn't arise.
2. The immensely frustrating disappearance of the option to ask another Civ to withdraw its troops even though you have a peace treaty with them. Doesn't happen often, but it happens.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Blaupanzer
|
|
Fairfax, VA
Oct 2000
time: 00:14
|
|
Did your reputation actually drop? (That's the one your foreign minister tells you: spotless, honorable, etc.) Their attitude, from worshipful to icy, etc., is not based solely on your reputation. The fact that you took a city produces a response, most likely based on your power rating (supreme, pathetic, etc.). This seems to reflect their fear, if you will, expressed as defiance (e.g., sneak attacks, no treaties, etc). Not a bad reflection of real-world politics in that the other powers were concerned when you took the city of a nation you were at peace with two turns before. These actions lead this way in attitude because for the AI the first goal is to survive, not elect the "man of the year." They don't care if you were innocent, they do care if you are dangerous.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
finbar
|
|
Castiglion Fiorentino, Italy
Jan 1970
time: 06:14
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by fittstim
With respect to not being able to demand the removal of troops that move into your land, you have to wait until the next turn (after making peace) in order to kick them out. That is, the option doesn't come up until the next turn. |
That's right. But there are occasions when you still don't get the option to ask them to withdraw even though you have a peace treaty. It's either a glitch, or a deliberate piece of programming to give the AI an advantage.
quote:
The next turn my reputation with every civ had degraded two steps to "hostile".
So does a civ get "black marks" for demanding the removal of troops from it's own land??? |
The AI's attitude to you - worshipful, etc - and your reputation - spotless, etc - aren't specifically related. They should be, you'd think, but they're not. Particularly in the MGE version of the game, the AI will be almost constantly hostile. Give an AI Civ a bundle of techs and they'll be worshipful. Next turn, they'll be hostile. It's stupid programming, probably conceived to make life more difficult for the human player when the AI is so basically incompetent.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Edward
|
|
Luckily the Playstation version is very faithful to the reputation mark system. I've never had my reputation go down after demanding the withdraw of troops. The civ's attitude almost always drops after such a request. Requesting the withdraw of troops can even provoke a sneak attack. However my reputation has never suffered.
Alas the AI lawyers can still create the "You can't attack us without breaking a treaty yet simultaneously you can't ask us to withdraw either" situation. It's generally a sign that the AI hates you, regardless of its stated attitude. I think it's more likely that the AI cheats in this way to set up for a sneak attack than that it's a simple glitch or bug - but perhaps I'm crediting the AI with too much forethought.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:14.
Apolyton Time is 00:14. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
27-07-2001 21:56
)
)
).
|