20 Turns and Reputation

[Dactyl]

I've seen references in some posts to the idea that, after making peace with a civ, you have to wait 20 turns to go to war again in order not to damage your reputation with the rest of the civs. Is that true? If it is true, I have a couple of questions. One, does that mean 20 turns until you can declare war on that particular civ, or on any civ? Two, does it really matter what your reputation is if you're not going for a diplomatic victory? Also, is there an easy way to compute the 20 turns other than using the dates displayed in the lower left hand corner of the screen? I find that I sometimes forget to check the date when a war ends and, of course, you have to allow for the way the number of years per turn changes. It can be annoying.

[CerberusIV]

When you sign a peace treaty that particular deal lasts 20 turns. You can go to war with someone else straight away without penalty. Watch out for MPP's dragging the first civ back to war with you though.

You can check your current deals in the F4 screen.

[Tall Stranger]

Let me try to answer your questions. To make it easier, I'm going to assume you were at war with the French:

1. The 20-turn rule means only that you can not declare war on the French after signing a peace treaty with them. Note that a) it does not affect your ability to declare war on other civs; b) it DOES mean that, if you are a party to an MPP (say with England) and the French attack England within the 20 turns, YOU will have to declare war and WILL take a reputation hit; and c) the rule does NOT apply to the AIs, so the French can declare war on you within 20 turns without a rep hit (since reputation does not apply to the AI).

2. There is a simple way to determine how many turns are left in the treaty. In the box on the right side of the diplomacy screen, there is a tab that says something like "Current deals" (the others are Treaties and Trade, or something like that. Make sure that tab is at the front, and then click on the civ. If you see the words "Peace Treaty (5)" it means that you still have 5 turns left in the treaty. If it says "Peace Treaty" with no number beside it, it means that you've completed the 20 turns and are free to redeclare war on them without taking a reputation hit.

3. You can also find out how much longer the peace treaty will last by starting a discussion with Joan, then look at the bottom of the dialogue screen. You will see the words "New" and "Current" (or something like that). Again, click on the current, and you'll see the words "Peace Treaty" with or without numbers next to it.

4. Your reputation does matter, even if you do not plan to win via diplomatic means. If you declare war within the 20 turns, the other AIs will see you as unreliable and will not enter into other 20 turn deals with you. Thus, you will not be able to get luxuries from them, nor will they join in alliances with you against anyone else.

[Brundlefly]

Dactyl, Use F4 screen like Cerverus said or go into preferences and select the "Always renegotiate deals" option to be reminded when a deal expires.

***

I was just thinking of starting a thread about reputation.

Does anyone know if your reputation improves over time? It doesnt seem so. It seems if you've accidently broken a deal once, you might as well just keep breaking deals because the same gpt trade restrictions will be in effect the whole game either way.

I wish there was an Eiffel Tower Wonder to repair rep like in Civ2.

Does rep get worse if you keep breaking deals? I dont think so. Like I said before I think it's like an on/off switch for gpt trade restrictions once you've broken a deal w/ AI.

What about broken deals with civs that that have been wiped out? Do other countries hold that against you or do they forget? Is it a good strategy to break any deals (assuming there is a financial reason to do so) with a civ that will get destroyed next turn?

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Tall Stranger
If you declare war within the 20 turns, the other AIs will see you as unreliable and will not enter into other 20 turn deals with you. Thus, you will not be able to get luxuries from them, nor will they join in alliances with you against anyone else.

That is not entirely true. It just means that they will not trade you their fixed amount for your per-turn amount. For example, they will not trade you a tech or a lump sum of gold for your saltpeter resource, they will however trade you gpt or a resource for your saltpeter.

They will trade you resources and alliances however the trade must conform to what I've just explained.

[Tall Stranger]

Originally posted by bfg9000
What about broken deals with civs that that have been wiped out? Do other countries hold that against you or do they forget? Is it a good strategy to break any deals (assuming there is a financial reason to do so) with a civ that will get destroyed next turn?

Ah, you speak of the beloved "Arrian deception." Basically, it plays out as follows: you are on a continent with, say, 2 other civs. Early on, you can cheat, swindle, break deals, and do pretty much whatever you want to those two civs, and, PROVIDED you destroy them both before they make contact with the other civs, your reputation will remain pure in the eyes of the rest of the world. Essentially, think of it this way: if the civs don't survive, they can't tell the rest of the world what a b*stard you are.

Once everyone has contact with each other, however, all civs know if you break a deal with any civ, and you will take a rep hit.

[Arrian]

Beware the builders' bane: the reputation hit you take when a deal with another civ is broken for reasons beyond your control.

Example:

In my most recent game, I set up an iron+lux for lux trade with the Celts (I was the big dog already, so I had to given them lots for their luxury).

Several turns later, a volcano erupted in Celtic territory, and the very next popup informed me I had lost my source of silks. The iron+lux for lux deal was broken.

From that point on, my rep was sullied, with other civs telling me they knew all about how I had cheated the Celts.

In this particular case, there was little or nothing I could have done, because of the sheer randomness of what occurred. However, this sort of thing has happened to me several times when I've tried to prop up a civ that is at war, and they've lost ground and the trade route gets cut. In that situation, beware the potential danger.

-Arrian

p.s. This issue has been discussed with Firaxis at length, and IIRC, the problem with changing it is that it is too easily abuseable. The human could arrange a trade and then pillage a road or sell a harbor, nullifying the trade blamelessly, with zero negative impact.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Tall Stranger
Ah, you speak of the beloved "Arrian deception."

No, I'm talking about a civ that all the others have already met. The civ won't be around next turn and I was just wondering if the others will forget the treaties I broke with him this turn.

[Tall Stranger]

bfg9000:

Civs WILL remember that you broke a deal, even with a civ that no longer exists.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Arrian

p.s. This issue has been discussed with Firaxis at length, and IIRC, the problem with changing it is that it is too easily abuseable. The human could arrange a trade and then pillage a road or sell a harbor, nullifying the trade blamelessly, with zero negative impact.

Well, I have an easy workaround for these random occurances. If a trade route gets broken for any reason, the affected parties get the opportunity to negotiate a settlement to preserve the reputation of the one who nullified the trade.

Regardless of whether the AI or the player was "at fault", a negotiation window will appear to the player during the AI turn. So if the AI was at fault, the window appears immediately. If the player was at fault, window appears after the end of his turn.

[Arrian]

But what is fair compensation?

-Arrian

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Arrian
But what is fair compensation?

-Arrian

(20-turn lost resource value in gold / 20 ) * number of turns left in the agreement.

Upon further thought, I cant imagine the AI ever accepting blame for a random trade disruption occurrence within its own borders like your volcano. Or for other events that break a trade route where a third nation is involved unintentionally.

So since it is always your fault for breaking the trade essentially you are paying blackmail to keep your reputation from being damaged. Not the best solution, but it would be nice to have that option.

What would be good is if you only took a reputation hit for broken trades that the AI has paid you in full. That is not the case. Even if they are paying you gpt for a resource you get a rep hit.

[Drachen]

Bamspeedy did some great work using PTW which probably still applies... [URL=http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3acad_ai_attitude.shtml]

Edit:
hmm...I thought the link would be active. Oh well...copy, paste, and be merry.

[Brundlefly]

Originally posted by Drachen
Bamspeedy did some great work using PTW which probably still applies... [URL=http://www.civfanatics.com/civ3acad_ai_attitude.shtml]

Edit:
hmm...I thought the link would be active. Oh well...copy, paste, and be merry.

Drachen, that is an awesome link. I wonder if Bamspeedy has updated this for C3C.

Why doesn't Firaxis publish this information? I paid full price for Civ3, PTW, and C3C, is that too much too ask?

[Drachen]

Originally posted by bfg9000



Drachen, that is an awesome link. I wonder if Bamspeedy has updated this for C3C.

I haven't heard of an update although I wish there were. In a similar vein I've been using a spreadsheet developed to predict probable AI research. It was based on some of Alexman's work and seems to have been a bit of a group project over at Fanatics. Unfortunately it hasn't helped me very much in obtaining accurate predictions in Conquests and that may be due to my using it improperly, variation from normal patterns due to small sample size, or perhaps there have been changes in Conquests. So at present I'm just hoping that all that great work done on understanding Civ III and PTW is still mostly valid until the questions get reexamined. You only have to look at Alexman’s Corruption post to realize that the work is very likely to get done at some point. Lucky us!