reputation computation

[TCO]

ANybody know a good place for describing the different levels of reputation and how affected? I can't find it in the civopedia. In particular, I've been noticing that my reputation will be perfect and go to atrociaous with one misdeed. Is it storing helf-misdeeds like tribute demands or border crossings?

[War4ever]

i know if your asked to break a treat or declare war it costs you a hit....

if you do a sneak attack it costs you at least two hits....

i have seen four or five hits in one deed but i think its because others declare war on you too.....maybe causing a war by more than one civ ups the ante....

[finbar]

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.

[TCO]

Thanks. I have noticed at deity that I never regain any repuitation. This makes sense based on the multiplier of difficulty.

[EOL]

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.

[DarkCloud]

When can reputation repair?
Other than the Eiffel tower... does it... I heard it doesn't.

[Blaupanzer]

As a practical matter, repairing your reputation only has value if you are not supreme (e.g., OCC?). Also, any civ you betray will treat you as having a lower reputation than the one the Foreign Minister reports. The AI does not correspondingly reward you for keeping treaties or alliances over time, with them or anyone else. The issue of alliances and how many you may have at the various power levels is addressed in another recent thread from Solo. Bottom Line: Once your reputation goes down, forget about it, it's not coming back. Oh well.

[War4ever]

personally if i see atrocious...... i feel cheated.... as a warmonger i would rather be know as War4ever the despicable...... then War4ever the atrocious.....

at least despicable means i can't be trusted.....atrocious could mean a poor leader

[Scouse Gits]

I agree War ... Despicable is a nice word. Atrocious sounds too much like school reports ....

----------------

SG(2)

[TCO]

(sorta related to reputation)

I just noticed that the AI won't ever declare war when I blow up it's buildings. Doesn't seem right. they lodge complaints and all (that have no effect I assume) but they never go to war over it.

[finbar]

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.

[shade]

a way to regain reputation is give them(the AI) gifts:simple you just pick the most retarded civ in game and give them some techgifts,there goes your reputation.I know it doesn't help against sneak attacks,but at least you can say they're the bad guy's )
and after a sneakattack you can wipe them out.

Shade

[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!).

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).

[TCO]

I don't think the AI cares about unit bribes. He does get POed about city subversion.

[War4ever]

while i can't verify for sure... i believe that bribing of troops causes the ai to look at you slightly differently.

their attitude towards you seems to decline quickly if you make a habit of bribing their cities or units..... even without a war declaration....


as for rep......

honourable
questionable
despicable.....

thats it.... you either have honour or are in a state of losing it..... so if you screw up once.... its questionable.... but after that your a despicable ........ well you catch my drift...

i dont' let people screw me more than once would you ?