Openciv3/Clash - Reputation

[heardie]

Reputation

Reputation is another thing that needs to be realistically modeled in
OC3. Instead of the Civ2 system, this system actually needs to affect the way other
civilizations at towards you. Building a wonder like the Eiffel Tower, should not increase
your Reputation, in fact, something like the ‘Cure for Cancer’ would be more
likely to effect it.

So this is the system I propose:

The way other civs act towards you is based on a ranking, from 0 - 100.  If you are
100, then your Civilization is very trustworthy.  On the other hand, if your
Civilization has a rating of 0, than everybody is bound to hate you, and you allies will
have long abandoned you, unless they are your slaves.  A ranking of 0, or a ranking
of 100, should be practically impossible to get.  This is to create realism. 
There is no Civilization in the world that could possibly be that cruel, or that
nice.  A ranking of 50 is default, if you get it up to 75-80, than you are well
respected, and others will approach you.  If you have a rating of 20-25, than other
Civs will approach you with caution.

So what things effect your rating?

There are a number of things.  Here are a few I can think of off the top of my head.
They are all based on, if you don't have a valid reason to do it.  Also for some, it
depends on whether you get caught or not.  Using spys is one example of this.  
If another civ catches you doing this than you will lost reputation points, but if you
don't get caught, than you don't lose any points. The same thing would happen with
Spy's.  '-' or '+' represents whether it negatively or positively affects your
ranking:

1. Taking an opposition city(-)

2. Breaking a peace treaty(-)

3. Using Slaves(-)

4. Nuclear Warfare(-)

5. Using Spy's

6. An act of goodwill ((+) (see below))

7. Refusing to aid a minor civilization in an emergency.

In the ancient age however, a
feared leader was also a respected leader. Throughout history, the world has turned more
critical to violent acts. So, concentration camps might not be an atrocity until the
Geneva Convention Wonder, for instance.

Prehaps we can go even more relistic:  Up to modern age there has been small or no
penalties for war. So the year in game should affect on the amount of penalty. Small in
beginning and large in late game.



What exactly is an act of goodwill?  Well, it could be anything like,
discovering a cure for AIDS, and then sharing it with the rest of the world free of cause,
or maybe it could be helping a friend in a time of need whether it be sharing units, or
something else.



You can 'undo' the effects of your act, if you want.  Say you have taken Civ A's city
in 1940, and it is size 11.  You had a peace treaty with them.  This might cost
you 15 reputation points. (Default 10 for taking a partners city + (size)/2 - always round
down).  If you give it back in 1945 as a size 8 city, then you should get
back 4 reputaion points.  (5 - (size lost / 2).  However if you give it back in
1960, as a size 8 than you shall get nothing back (1 - (size lost / 2).  For taking a
civ's city that you have a treaty with here is the system I propose:

-Taking the city (10 + (size / 2)

+Return within 5 years (5 - (size lost /
2)

+Return within 5-10 years (3 - (size lost /
2)

+Return within 10-20 years (1 - (size lost /
2)

+Return within >20 years (0)

Note:  It is possible for these to return a negative value.  If this is the
case, than it should just stay at zero.

If you do this to an allied city than the penalty for taking a city is doubled, but the
bonus for returning it stays the same.  This makes its:

-Taking the city (20 + size) - doubled

+Return within 5-10 years (3 - (size lost /
2) - stayed the same
Reputation shoud increase at the rate of 4 points every 100 years, without an act that
minus's from your reputation.

Riots

Riots are a spin-off of your reputation.  If your reputation drops
below, say 15 for example, than there is obviously a problem with your leadership, and
your people my riot or strike.  If it drops below 10, well then you could have people
leaving your cites, or you could have a military coup even.
So using this here is a hypothetical:

Civ A (Roman's) are allied with Civ B(German's).  The Roman's are at
war with CivC(Turks), but the German's have a peace treaty with them.  Here is an
example set in 1940(note:  this is an original, in this example there were no world
wars).

Current Reputations:

Romans: 51

Germans: 57

Turks: 73
The Turks approach the Germans, asking to sign a peace treaty.  The Germans are
in a tricky situation.  The want the Turks to be at peace with them, as the Turks are
very strong, but they are allied with the Roman's who are at war with the Turks.  
They take a risk. The Roman's find out and are enraged, cancelling there allied status,
and declaring war.  Normally they would lose 5 points for declaring war, but as there
allies have betrayed them they lose just 1 point.  The Germans here this, and
upgraded there treaty to a pact with the Turks, and also decare war on the Romans..  
The Germans then recive 3 points for initating a treaty, but lose 1 point for declaring
war with a valid reason, and lose 5, for disobeying their allies. Their reputations now
stand as follows:

Romans: 50

Germans: 54

Turks: 73
The war rages for years until, the Roman's are on the brink of defeat.  Knowing
that they are on the verge of being defeated they unleash their deadliest weapon: the
A-bomb.  The drop the bomb on the Turks in 1944.

Dropping a nuclear bomb is one of the most serious offences, containing a massive 20
reputation points loss.  As the Germans and Turks do not have Nuclear bombs, they
accept the Romans offer of a cease fire.  The Romans will have lost 17 points. (20
for dropping a bomb - 3 for offering a cease fire), while the Germans and
Turks will both have gained 2 (for accepting the cease fire).  However all is not
well.  The Turks, send a diplomat to the German's capital, and find that they were
holding the Roman's in Concentration Camps. (Concentration Camps, are something that will
have a 50% chance of occuring if a war strectches for longer than 4 years, and a civ has a
reputation of <55, or maybe it could be choosen by the player.) The rest of the world
hears this and the German's lose 7 points for having slaves (I believe that
slaves/prisoners, should be treated as the same thing)

Now their reputations are like this:

Romans: 33

Germans: 49

Turks: 75
What do you think of this system?  What other scenarios/examples can you come up
with, or what other point's system's can you propose (like my taking a city one).  
Please post your comments.

 

[amjayee]

I think reputation is not that straighforward. Also the things that cause dislike in other civs are not necessarily actions. Communist civ would not like a capitalist civ, for example.

Also the effects of normal, fair war should not cause too much bad reputation. The reputation should also normalize more quickly than in former games. Think of most European countries - we have a history of endless wars between each other, but still we have been able to create the European Union, and cooperation is smooth. We don't remember the old wars, even those fought during the 19th century are forgotten.

Also consider Germany - it's 50 years to WW2, and Germany is a respected member of EU. That's because the government that caused the terrible war has been overthrown. But if a fascist government would rise into power in Germany , we wouldn't trust them. Just consider the situation in Austria.

So, each civilization should list the things they don't like in every other civ's history and actions, and also what kind of situation caused those actions; what kind of government was in rule, who was the starter of war for example, were there atrocities committed in the war etc. Then, how much those things affect the reputation should also be listed - this is affected by the government type of the civ, and the other civ, how much time has passed, perhaps also the statistics of that civ; some civ could forget the bad deeds slower, or it could be more eager to blame others.

If some civ wants to enhance his reputation in the eyes of some other civ, some negotiations could be taking place. The other civ could demand money, returning some conquered area, breaking down the empire, doing some favors, etc. These things could be demanded also, if you want a peace treaty after a terrible war.

About using slaves; in ancient world, everyone used slaves. A civ should be unhappy only, if a) their fellow countrymen are used as slaves b) their nationals are taken slaves during a war c) they have discovered some ideology that considers slavery inhuman; that wouldn't usually happen very early in the game. Slaves are the cornerstone of ancient and medieval economics. Using them should be encouraged, but some reputation penalties should be caused in the civ, whose people are enslaved... and that is affected also by the government type of that civ. Enslaving your own people shouldnt't bother anyone - unless you enslave only people living in your civ, that originally come from another civ.

Nuclear warfare certainly affects your reputation. Also building and owning nuclear weapons might affect it. But consider Japan; are they very hostile towards the US, because they were nuked in WW2? It should depend on the situation. I think the reason for Japan/US thing is, that a) Japan started the war b) Japan lost the war c) US has treated Japan well after they won the war d) those were the first nukes used in war, their effects were not known, and they were not considered bad anywhere. If Japan would have won, and US started, the situation would be completely different. That's what I meant when I said reputation is not as straightforward as in older games. Many things needs to be taken into consideration.

Using spies also isn't as straighforward. Everyone uses spies. If one spy is caught, the government the spy works for denies it, and nothing happens... usually only major incidents cause international scandals. Also if espionage is detected, you can't always be absolutely sure who is guilty of that. I'm not absolutely sure how this should be handled, but we'll see...

Generally, we shouldn't have only one number telling your reputation in the eyes of other nations. Instead, each civ should have a "reputation chart" for each other nation, telling what we don't like, and why. Also there could be an "overall reputation figure" that tells the general trustworthyness of other civs in your eyes. Then these figures are read depending on the situation.

Messy, yes, but might give some ideas.
[This message has been edited by amjayee (edited July 04, 2000).]