 |
|
theNiceOne
|
|
Spectator, you're only half right by saying that you get a good reputation back by allying with someone. You're right, because your ally will stop caring about all the wrongs you've done against your common victim, and even like you more for a lot of it.
But you're wrong, because as soon as the war ends, either since you eliminated the victim or declared peace, then your former ally goes back to pre-war attitude and despises you for all you did to your common victim again.
Check Bamspeedy's excellent reputation thread at CFC.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Zachriel
|
 |
U.S.A.
Dec 2001
time: 00:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Jaybe
Hurts their Attitude* (when they are not also at war with the victim) towards you, but your reputation??
*Per Bamspeedy's article |
Under "Permanent Attitude Changes"
+1 if you raze the city of another AI.
I would be happy to concede the point. This may not be the same as Reputation, and I have little personal experience with razing.  Still, if you raze a lot of cities, you won't be very popular. Starting a couple of wars may make other Civs a little cautious, but razing a couple of dozen cities is another matter.
Bamspeedy admits there are many unknowns as he could only measure attitude. Reputation is hidden, though Bamspeedy indicates he believes it is all or nothing. In other words, don't break a Peace Treaty (or other deal) before the expiration date.
Bamspeedy
Note: Some of the attitude changes you do to a victim during war is hard to test, since it’s hard to find the difference between acts, because you can’t find the attitude level until the war is over with. And figuring the difference between what penalties are just from being at war, and what was caused by breaking treaties, razing cities, etc.
quote:
Originally posted by Jaybe
You are STILL declaring war however, and will still incur an attitude hit. Again, reference Bamspeedy's AI Attitude article at Civfanatic's Civ3 War Academy. |
Absolutely. If you declare war, there is no doubt your victim won't like you very much (attitude). Of course, the question of reputation is what other Civs think.
Bamspeedy says there is a +1 permanent attitude change in all other non-involved Civs when you declare war. Nevertheless, my superstitious beliefs indicate this is not exactly the same as reputation. I declare war in nearly every game, and no one ever says anything bad about my reputation, and they are always willing to make deals. They trust me to keep my word, though they may despise me as a warmonger.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Catt
|
 |
California - SF Bay Area
May 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Zachriel
Absolutely. If you declare war, there is no doubt your victim won't like you very much (attitude). Of course, the question of reputation is what other Civs think.
|
I think it's a little bit different than that, Zachriel. I define reputation as a measure of other civs' willingness to enter into certain 20-turn deals with you; attitude, on the other hand, seems to represent a default state of mind towards your civ from all the other civs (and as Bamspeedy deciphered, has many, many influences -- so much so that Civ B's attitude of you is lessened if you raze a Civ A city even if Civ A is an enemy of Civ B).
I tend to guard my reputation carefully because I may very well need (or just strongly want) to be able to make certain 20-turn deals in the later game. As long as I take care not to break deals, a "furious" attitude does not prevent such deals (though it seems to make them mildly more expensive). For example, let's assume that early in the game I go to war against my neighbor. I may have several wars with this neighbor and during the course of the conflict I raze numerous enemy cities (I never do this, but it's a hypothetical  ). My declarations of war are honorable, and I break no deals (RoP, resource trade, or 20-turn peace) through my declarations. Given my now dominant position in the world, my refusal to enter into trades with others, my refusal to offer gifts, and the umpteen city razings I did against my enemy, the entire world is "furious" towards me. Nonetheless, I can still trade 3 excess luxuries and a strategic resource for a bypassed technology from another civ -- they may be furious, but they have no cause to believe that I will not honor my 20-turn deal in exchange for their one time asset (technology) and they will do the deal. It works the other way too. If, in declaring war against my neighbor I RoP-raped him, broke an existing 20-turn peace treaty, and also suspended my 20-turn payments I agreed to make in exchange for the technology I purchased from him, then I will be very hard-pressed to get another "risky" deal (20 turn deliveries from me in exchange for assest from an AI) from any other civ, even if, due to my decision never to raze, my willingness to give tribute often, and my smaller world stature -- I enjoy varying worldwide opinions from "cautious" to "gracious."
I think (but don't know) that attitude (1) effects trade prices modestly; (2) influences the willingness of an AI to join a military alliance with or against you; (3) influences an AI's willingness to demand tribute; and (4) influences any UN vote (this is off the top of my head, there may very well be more). By contrast, I think reputation (1) determines whether an AI is willing to accept 20-turn promises in exchange for up-front assets; (2) determines whether certain 20-turn for 20-turn deals are acceptable (RoP's and peace treaties, principally); and (3) influences any UN vote. I am also not sure of whether reputation is "all or nothing" or there are varying degrees -- I personally think that there are varying "versions" of reputation -- anecdotally, declaring war with troops in enemy territory can greatly complicate future RoP negotiations with third-party civs; declaring war with troops in enemy territory AND with an active RoP dooms any attempt at future RoP negotiations.
I usually try to sum up my views on the differences between attitude and reputation by saying that the entire world can be gracious with you and still respond to a trade proposal with: "I'm sorry. After your despicable betrayal of the XXX, we can entertain no such deal." Similarly, the entire world can be furious with you, but respond to the same trade proposal with: "We'll take it. I'm so happy we could come to agreement."
Catt
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
badams52
|
 |
near the magic kingdom
May 2002
time: 21:26
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Catt
I am also not sure of whether reputation is "all or nothing" or there are varying degrees -- I personally think that there are varying "versions" of reputation -- anecdotally, declaring war with troops in enemy territory can greatly complicate future RoP negotiations with third-party civs; declaring war with troops in enemy territory AND with an active RoP dooms any attempt at future RoP negotiations. |
To extend this out a bit, one time I essentially RoP raped India. The RoP ended on my turn with troops in his territory. I declared war on India and destroyed him to 1 city. Later when I contacted India, I could offer him an RoP but even at 14000+ gold for the RoP and 300+ gpt, horses, iron and saltpeter, my advisor said he doubted India would take the deal. But France, America and Russia (on the other continent with lots of land) would take the deal if I offered them around 1000 gold, and China, Persia, and Rome (each with 1 city near my continent) were happy to accept RoP deals with me.
And Maybe you implied this Catt, but I thought this next part should be stated outright.
In addition to varying degrees, I think there is also a separate reputation for peace treaties, rop's, alliances, and gpt deals.
If I break a gpt deal by going to war, say a 135 gpt I was giving to any other civ, then I've found that no other civ will ever accept any gpt deals from me in the future. I can be getting "close" to a deal from my advisor, then I add gpt and he immediately says "never." But if I ask for an RoP, the other civs would be fine with that.
|
|
| |
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:26.
Apolyton Time is 00:26. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
11-03-2003 18:02
). I was extremely put out. I massed a few galleon loads of Cavalry and sent them to Berlin, and removed it from the map, Great Library and all.
I just contradicted myself didn't I?
|