I have watched this forum for the past week hoping someone else would ask this but I haven't seen it (or missed it). So I registered and decided to ask myself.

How/when do you take the hit for trading with someone's enemy? It seems like it may be variable as I've expected it to happen when you trade with a civ that another civ is Furious with. That doesn't happen 100% of the time though. I've also had it happen when the civ I'm trading with is only regarded as Annoyed. Last night, the relations were only Cautious but the two civs had founded their own religions.

So does anyone have any idea what the variables might be? There also may be a modifier for how "sweet" the deal is. You get positives for fair trades, maybe you get more negatives for fair trades too with the angry civ? So trading a worthless tech might not tick them off.

It would be nice if there was a window with each leader's name in the trade screen that showed how your actions might affect their relations with you if you trade with a certain civ. I generally try not to piss off the psycho AI's like Alexander, Isabella, or Montezuma.

I like that window idea. Along the same lines, when a civ asks me to cancel deals with another civ I click on the diplmacy icon and make sure that civ I'd be cancelling with isn't friends with any other civ I really care about.

I'm not sure how to prevent or even be aware of the "worst enemy" scenario. I usually don't worry about it. If a civ has a tech I want and will trade for it I figure having that tech in my hands off-sets the threat of an angry civ.

yeah that´s anoying, not being able to check diplomacy or trades when thos exigencies are laid in front of you. That would be a good adition.
I´s also like a more flexible AI memory for the traded with our worst enemy or declared war on our friend negative factors just as the positives are easy to wipe off the negative should have a time spam to be forgot [4ex: you wipping very early a civilization "A" wich had no trade with civilization "B" but were not friends also and keeping a -1 or -2 you declared war to our friends for the rest of the game.

and also a easier reference of other leaders relations between themselves... it´s just tedious to have to ask about it each time you want to check. [i migh be failing to see some game tool i had not discovered]

You can hit F4 and click on each leader head, then mouse over the other leaders to see the relationships.

I don't like the way the "Trading with worst enemy" works, either. Sometimes I'll be trades with two "pleased" and not notice when or why they stopped liking each other. Maybe they switched religions or something, but I get a hit before "Stop trading" dialog comes up.

How/when do you take the hit for trading with someone's enemy? It seems like it may be variable as I've expected it to happen when you trade with a civ that another civ is Furious with. That doesn't happen 100% of the time though. I've also had it happen when the civ I'm trading with is only regarded as Annoyed. Last night, the relations were only Cautious but the two civs had founded their own religions.

So does anyone have any idea what the variables might be?

There dont have to be any other variables, because the only one we have information on is subjective to begin with.

"Our worst enemy" doesnt translate to "We feel Furious" or "We are Annoyed" with them, it translates to "We are more angry with them than anyone else." So if they are "coordial" with 9 civs on the map, but "frustrated" with the 10th civ, then "frustrated" is the tipping point in the analysis.

So if you wanted to make it very easy and transparent, so that you'd know at all times who is the worst enemy of anyone else, maybe make it another line drawn between leaderheads in the Diplomacy screen, you'd have to know 1) what civs each other civ's know, and 2) of those known civs, the sum of all the positive and negative influences in order to choose the lowest number to declare it the "worst enemy" of a civ.

A little off topic, but I wish there were more alliances in the game. I don't know if I've played a game where relations between ANY two nations were good enough to where they had an alliance. I want a world war once in a while!

That makes sense. I suppose the player starts off as everyone's worst enemy, so as your relationship goes up, someone else gets bumped down giving you the unavoidable hit. I think that sucks. :mad:

I like the idea of having another "worst enemy" line, but if it does work this way, it still wouldn't help avoid the eventual hit when your relationship goes up with a civ.

Having the same religion is almost the same effect as an alliance. If you want a world war, set it up with 2 blocks of opposing religions.

palantir got that right... i still remember a game i had when i spread judaism to just about every city on the pangaea map, then i did a mass conversion (ie bribing every single AI to convert to judaism on the same turn), which should have made everyone friendly with each other. and next turn that psycho***** isabella demands that i stop trading with someone, so i went to check their relations and...holy ****, they had only a single -1 and a +1 from same religion. and they were just cautious status. man...

and the thing is, i wasn't even trading resources with that civ, i was merely sharing open borders. open borders really shouldnt be considered as trading imho, mebbe firaxis can consider that?

and the thing is, i wasn't even trading resources with that civ, i was merely sharing open borders. open borders really shouldnt be considered as trading imho, mebbe firaxis can consider that?

Open Borders enables trade routes between foreign cities, so it IS trading

There dont have to be any other variables, because the only one we have information on is subjective to begin with.

"Our worst enemy" doesnt translate to "We feel Furious" or "We are Annoyed" with them, it translates to "We are more angry with them than anyone else." So if they are "coordial" with 9 civs on the map, but "frustrated" with the 10th civ, then "frustrated" is the tipping point in the analysis.

So if you wanted to make it very easy and transparent, so that you'd know at all times who is the worst enemy of anyone else, maybe make it another line drawn between leaderheads in the Diplomacy screen, you'd have to know 1) what civs each other civ's know, and 2) of those known civs, the sum of all the positive and negative influences in order to choose the lowest number to declare it the "worst enemy" of a civ.


That's an interesting thought. I'd always looked at it like you were trading with someone they didn't like. If I understand you correctly, you are saying each civ has a "worst enemy" determined by the worst relations. That sure adds another element to the game I'd never thought of. Maybe you only have a worst enemy when one civ stands alone with the worst relations. So when the game starts, there are no worst enemies as all are equal. As trade relations happen those hates develop. There's got to be a minimum modifer amount or formula to determine that too. If you are only +1 with a leader but +10 with all others, I don't think a worst enemy attitude is warranted.

The downside to all this, if it is true, is that it is now much more difficult to determine how a trade might affect you. If it were simply an Annoyed or Furious thing, you could just click on the leader's name that wants to trade and see who is Annoyed or Furious with him/her. By this scenario you have to do the same thing to see who is furious/annoyed, and then further click on each leader that feels that way and make sure they aren't MOST furious/annoyed with your trading partner.