Persistent bug.

[Kramsib]

This bug remains from first version of Civ III.

When you are trading some sources to a civ (Civ X) and that Civ is conquered by another one (Civ Y), your reputation is harmed because the AI consider that you have broken a treaty.

This bug is still present in C3C v.15 it happened to me in my last game.

Does someone know if it has been corrected in C3C v1.22?

Thank you.

[alexman]

It's not a bug - it's the way the game works, which was done that way to avoid exploits.

Otherwise you would be able to trade per turn quantities for lump sum quantities, even though you know the civ will not last the full 20 turns to receive its payment.

[vmxa1]

I have not heard this one in quite awhile. Never thought it was a concern.

[Arrian]

I do believe that Firaxis decided not to fix that/take it out.

I personally hate it.

-Arrian

[Robert]

I think it's very well executed.
If you trade resources for big money to your neighbours, defend it.

And as said before, otherwise you could easily exploit it, by giving the resource, let an enemy take the city, and take the city back. (and sell the resource again)

[Aqualung71]

It's still there and I personally hate it too. Cybershy's point about defending your trade partners is valid, but difficult to implement on a practical level in the context of the current unsophisticated diplomacy system, which IMHO is too shallow to allow trade-related and war-related diplomacy to interact much.

[bongo]

The problem is that you can make some poor sucker pay you up front for a deal you know won't last 20 turns.

If no up-front payment were involved, I think there should be no diplomatic hit.

Side question, if you want to help some small civ and *gift* them a resource. Do you still get punished if the 'deal' ends early cause they are wiped out or have their trade lanes cut?

[Aqualung71]

I believe yes, you will still get punished. The AI recognises the resource trade, and will not take your magnanimous benevolence into account

[DrSpike]

The exploit arguments are of course valid, but I empathise with the first poster because it is damn annoying when you get blamed for something that isn't your fault.

[bongo]

Shouldn't be too hard to distinguish between deals involving up-front payments and pure per-turn deals.

[Arrian]

Side question, if you want to help some small civ and *gift* them a resource. Do you still get punished if the 'deal' ends early cause they are wiped out or have their trade lanes cut?

Yes, you do, and that's one of the big reasons I came to hate this part of the game.

-Arrian

[TheArsenal]

Originally posted by Aqualung71
I believe yes, you will still get punished. The AI recognises the resource trade, and will not take your magnanimous benevolence into account

I didn’t realize this and this explains much. Part of my regular game play involves gifting critical resources (horses, iron, etc.) to try to keep dying civs viable and slow the formation of a KAI that intends to swallow it. I can understand taking a rep hit from the civ the my gift recipient, but the entire world is just unfair.

[Fistleaf]

Reputation also gets hit if somehow the only road(or sea route) connecting your two empires is broken due to war/pillage through no fault of your own.

[bongo]

For successful trading without reputation hits:
Only accept trades where there are multiple trade lanes or you control them anyway.

Examples:
Be careful with early naval trade. As the tradelanes only can follow the coast, one barb galley is enough to interrupt it. After astronomy life becomes easier, but cultural borders of enemies will still block trade. After navigation/magnetism you are home free, almost. Harbors can still be destroyed.

Tradelanes can follow roads on foreign ground but as war will block these lanes, my general advice is to trade to neighbours only.

[vmxa1]

Play Dom's NTTC style and then you do not have to sweat it.