Reputation: What's the point?

[Catt]

I did a very limited test -- used just one saved game, and found that AI attitude towards me had absolutely no affect on trade prices (i.e., deal offered at "Polite" was same deal offered at "Furious"). This was a very small test, and I never folllowed through with a more robust sample.

It is also important to remember however that attitude and reputation are two differnt (but related) things -- you can have a bad reputation (you broke an RoP) which will prevent or severely hinder your ability to trade RoPs or gold-per-turn deals, while at the same time the same AI civ will be "Polite" to you.

The inter-realtionship between attitude and reputation are frankly a bit of a mystery.

For a thread (now dead) I started on a similar vein, you can click here.

Catt

[kring]

I would like to see your rep mean more; as noted now, what's the point?

I read about how other players do all sorts of things that would result IRL consequences, yet the AI doesn't do much.

[nato]

I did a very limited test -- used just one saved game, and found that AI attitude towards me had absolutely no affect on trade prices

Ah, that was you Catt. Sorry, I couldn't remember who it was to credit. That was what I was talking about.

I agree that reputation doesn't matter much. In fact, my current major strategy takes heavy advantage of this. It is one of the things that helps make Civ3 so war monger.

[SlowwHand]

Trade.

[Zachriel]

Mt 16:26

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? -- Jesus of Nazareth

Besides, it's too easy to win by military means only, and is often exploitive of the AI. I always try to win honorably. That way they may not tear down my statues when they discover the truth -- and the truth will be known.

Ten years, fifty days and three,
Clau-Clau-Clau shall given be
A gift that all desire but he.

To a fawning fellowship
He shall stammer, cluck and trip,
Dribbling always with his lip.

But when he's dumb and no more here,
Nineteen hundred years or near,
Clau-Clau-Claudius shall speak clear.

-- I, Claudius

[nato]

Wow you're laying it down here Zachriel!

I don't know about all that honor talk though; I've read your very very cool website. You declare war and conquer civs with no justification! You simply have to do that to succede at Civ. Mostly because you MUST HAVE that land to win.

When I first started with Civ1 I played like myself, nice and honorable. The problem is that tends to lead to slightly boring games. With war mostly removed as an option (can only do it when AI chooses and declares) there isn't much to do except sit, wait, and build the space ship. I guess now we can also sit, wait, and do diplomatic and cultural. I still find all those victory conditions somewhat empty.

With Civ1 Sid made the choice to make Civ focused on the units. Those are the main things the player controls and interacts with. A result of that is that besides terraforming, all you have to work with is military stuff. I think this unit emphasis is one of the things helping to make Civ a pseudo war game, and thus reputation and diplomacy less important.

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by nato
Wow you're laying it down here Zachriel!

I don't know about all that honor talk though; I've read your very very cool website. You declare war and conquer civs with no justification! You simply have to do that to succede at Civ. Mostly because you MUST HAVE that land to win.

It is not a dishonor to declare a war. It is only a dishonor to promise one thing and do another. Declare war before attacking.



(A good war now and again helps keep the soldiers in fighting trim. )

[kring]

Re: Mt 16:26

Originally posted by Zachriel
For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? -- Jesus of Nazareth

Besides, it's too easy to win by military means only, and is often exploitive of the AI. I always try to win honorably. That way they may not tear down my statues when they discover the truth -- and the truth will be known.

Good points. I wish reputation meant more in the game. I honor my agreements with the other civs, because there is no honor in not doing so. Just because the AI doesn't honor its agreements doesn't make it right for me to treat it the same way.

I agree it is harder to win a nonmilitary victory which is how I try to win. And I do win military ones. It is just not a challenge. The AI military tactics and strategies (or lack thereof) are too predictable.

[Christantine The Great]

I prefer to establish my border rights by viciously pounding my neighboring AI until I'm up to the natural border I choose (mountains, mostly). After that, I'm an angel, though.

[Panag]

Re: Reputation: What's the point?

Originally posted by Nuctemeronn
Is reputation really important to you? Does it plays a major role in your strategy?
I always break teatries, backstabbing, pillage, demand gold or techs, violate ROP, conduct espionage actions and win! (i found this the only way to win, at least in Emperor or Monarch). What's the point then?
What "black marks" affect the curse of the game? Bad reputation neither gives you negative points (like pollution in civ2), so...
Is this different in Deity? (plan my next game in deity, so i wonder if reputation become a big issue in this difficulty level).

Cya

hi ,

its definatly worth to look in to those options as you use them , ...

but n its possible to win a higher game , with other options to , ....

always try to keep good relations , ...
it can be usefull , and the AI seems to be reasonable with you sometimes , example , he comes in your territory several times , he leaves , but at one point you have enough of it , when you attack , after a peace deal , he seems to remember a bit as to why you did attack him , ....

its also helpfull to give certain nations a small amount of gold , ones ever so many turns , ....

as for reputation , making a civ in the editor , a civ with a big smile , can change to have the reputation of being "a warmonger" , .......

yes its important in deity , more then on other levels , ...

one thing the AI does not like , maybe its because he does not use it , is the breaking of a ROP , .....aldo a road to a win , yet its not fair , and the other civ's shall remember that to , ....

have a nice day

[JoeDaddy715]

Bottom line, if you make a rop or MPP with one civ and break it, other civs won't trade stuff you need. They'll just flat out refuse. SO.... it's of value if you are a student of machevelli or jesus....
If you want to be a backstabbing, deceitful leader, you make them think you're cool and open them up just when they think you're they're soulmate. Wait till you're marching troops past rome for a fake invasion of persia. Keep that ROP up, maybe even trade rome a real "steal" in payments to be made over time (resources, gold per turn, MPP) for something of great value to you (like say a good tech or a lot of gold up front) and then suprise attack antuim, rome, and neapolis before your own units even know what happened. If it's done right, you can get him to send most of his units of to some other war, and sack several cities in one turn. How's that for backstabbing??
OR....
You can play the straight and narrow, if you do, people will sell you techs like feudalism and flight. My most recent game has 16 civs on a tiny map. I haven't researched any techs seriously, but I'm still up near the lead in tech, because people sell them to me at prices I can manage. Odds are, I'll royally screw one or two of my neighbors eventually, but the wait is part of the fun. It's not that I haven't made war, war is important on a map this crowded. I just have only warred with enemies of mine or my friends...
One thing that sucks though is that if you crush a civ that nobody else meets, they still hear rumors of the betrayal. Really, it's not that realistic, I mean, nobody would trade with America now if the real world ran by CIV3 rules. How many treaties did the US gov't break with the native americans? (i'm thinking all of them...)
My point here is that your rep is important regardless of what style of play you choose. Ignoring it is just like ignoring any game mechanic, sloppy play. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's not supposed to be work, you know. I let my governors take care of managing moods, how's that for sloppy?

[HazieDaVampire]

Originally posted by Ninot
reputation is vital to keeping a better economy, i believe. Reputation is almost as important as what you have in your borders.

Your correct there, if you got a good rep, you don't need much in your boarders cuz you can buy it cheaply!

In my games i always have a 'gracius' civ, they love me. And i just use that for fuel my war with a civ that hates me!

[kring]

I have seen the AI break several RoP's against me, and if I believe my advisor against other AI civs; other posters have made similar comments.

I had a RoP with Japan, a couple of turns after getting it, Japan sneak attacks. It wasn't too sneaky since I noticed their moving military units near my cities so I moved extra defenders into those cities. It was definitely the RoP rape situation.

I don't use that tactic since I prefer the old fashioned declare war, then invade. I have tried it and it's too easy to win that way.

[Zachriel]

It is not "wrong" in gameplay to break treaties (short of exploits, of course). However, it is not necessary to break treaties in order to win the game. If you want to be ruthless, hey it's your game. Just don't say the game made you do it or whine when they won't trade with you.

I role play and expect that there are consequences to breaking treaties, even beyond what is represented in the game. On the other hand, there is much incentive to break treaties, too, which is historical and appropriate.

[nato]

The only treaty I actually break is a peace treaty (of course that is the most important one!). I never break trade deals, MPP, or ROPs - but I never make MMPs or ROPs to begin with.

I'd consider using ROP to position my troops for an attack an exploit, speaking for myself. The AI goes down fine with normal on-the-border attacks.

I would have a hard time playing if I could never break a peace treaty. It would also be very hard to get the land you need.

I think its odd to consider it ok to break a peace treaty, but not ok to break MPP, ROP, or trade deals. Certainly peace is the most fundamental, important one.

With my conquer the world strat, I break peace treaties all the time. I also break them right after getting a defeated civ's techs, to finish him off. Thats very dishonorable. But I was surprised to find it doesn't matter to the other AIs. I still could make trade deals, and I was still able to maintain peace with them all (until their turn came up!).

Maybe I'll drop my conquest strat and go back to "role playing" like I used to in Civ1. It would certainly be more challenging to win without going to war to get land when needed.