I spent a few weeks with an unpatched version of PTW and no internet access (to dowload the patch), so I decided to spend some of that time testing AI attitudes. This test was with the 1.01 version of PTW, so there might be a possibility that some of this was changed in a patch, but most likely this all still applies to the latest patch.

Attitudes
In the debug mode of PTW there are numbers beside the attitude to give a more accurate rank of the AI attitude towards you. I ran my test on a map made entirely of desert (to prevent the AI from building cities), sometimes making an island to determine whether being on the same landmass made a difference. The test was sometimes with 24 civs, but most of the test was with 2 AI civs. I did some of this test with every civ starting with the same techs, so the value of techs wouldn’t alter power rankings, although map exploration would affect power rankings, especially for expansionists.

If you consider that the default attitudes of AI towards you starts at 0 the following things will affect this number.

KEY NOTE: Good things actually give you a negative number, and bad things give you a positive number.

Here are the attitude ranks:
-11 and lower = Gracious
-1 through -10 = Polite
0 = Cautious
1-10 = Annoyed
11 through 100 = Furious

At the very start (4000 B.C. before ending your turn), power rankings are equal, so the following determines the ‘default’ attitudes before power rankings affect things or if the AI has a power lead:
Remember, negative numbers are GOOD.

Starting attitudes:

Start (no factors taken into consideration): 0

-1 You are in the same culture group
Example: So the Americans would have -1 for the Iroquois and Aztecs (all in the ‘American’ culture group), France would have -1 for all civs in the European culture group.

Aggression level of AI:
Chieftain-Warlord
5 = +2 (Germany, Zulu, Mongols)
4 = +1 (9 Civs)
3 = 0 (6 Civs)
2 = -1 (China, Iroquois, Carthage, Korea)
1 = -1 (France, India)
Regent-Monarch
5 = +3
4 = +2
3 = +1
2 = 0
1 = -1
Emperor-Deity
5 = +3
4 = +3
3 = +2
2 = +1
1 = 0
You could look at it as Regent-Monarch is the default level and Chieftain-Warlord decreases the aggression levels by 1, and Emperor-Deity increases the aggression levels by 1 when figuring out attitudes.

On Chieftain-Warlord, only Germany will automatically start out as annoyed (+1), unless you are in the European culture group, then there are 5 civs or so that will be cautious with you. Everyone else will be polite.

On Emperor-Deity, everyone starts out annoyed with you, except the 5 civs that have despotism as their favorite government (explained below), and the 2 civs with the lowest aggression level (India, France), and there are 4 civs who will be cautious (because of aggressive level of 2, but will be polite if you are in their culture group)- Iroquois, China, Carthage, Korea. But once the AI has a culture lead (explained below), India and france will be cautious and the 4 civs who were cautious, will be annoyed (unless you are in their culture group).

Situational/temporary Attitudes (may change during the game).

-1 You are in the same government as the AI (of course at the start, everyone is in despotism).
Because everyone is in despot in the beginning, this gives the impression that a higher aggression level gives the default 0 (cautious). Start at 0, -1 for same government, then +1 for aggression level of 4 on chieftain for example, brings it back to 0.

AI’s favorite/shunned governments:
-5 Favorite government (only applies if both you and the AI are in this government)
+4 Shunned government (only applies if you are in this government and the AI is not)

The worst that can happen is you switch from the AI’s favorite government, that you both are in, then only you switch to the AI’s shunned government (net result +9). An example would be if you switch from despotism to republic and Egypt, Zulu, or Celts stays in despotism or goes to Monarchy. Or you go to Monarchy and the Aztecs stay in Despotism or goes to Republic. Mongols is the other civ that favors despotism, but democracy is their shunned government.

For the most part, the AI is in Republic-Democracy while at peace and monarchy-communism while at war, regardless of what their favorite/shunned government is. So even though there are an even 6 AI for both republic and Monarchy, the Republic would apply more often for favorite government because the AI would also be in that same government. For attitude purposes, republic would only be bad for you if most of the other AI is still in despotism or going to a war-time government because of wars. If you are still in despotism, while the rest of the world has switched governments (more frequently seen on higher levels), you’ll see the AI attitudes worsen.

-1 if you have done any recent trades (maps or techs) or currently have a 20 turn deal with them (gold/turn, trade embargo against another civ). Trading maps every turn does not help improve attitude! It would only help if the map knowledge is being the decisive factor in who has the power lead. Offering very generous trades (example: giving them 5,000 gold for Alphabet) does not help. You sometimes lose this point every once in awhile usually due to some tiles that you have uncovered/improved, or simply as time goes by. You usually lose it more often than every 20 turns, but certainly not every turn or two in most cases. Just remember to trade maps once in a while. Multiple trades does not increase this bonus, either you get the point or you don’t. If techs or gold is used in combination with another treaty this point will apply.

-1 If you sign a trade embargo against another civ. This counts in the same category as having a recent trade, so if you’ve already recently traded maps/techs, signing a trade embargo won’t help.

+10 for the victim of the trade embargo.

-1 If you have a culture lead. +1 if the AI has the culture lead.

-1 You pay tribute to the AI.

+1 If you call the AI’s bluff when he demands tribute (and he doesn’t declare war of course).

-5 If you have a Right of Passage with the AI.

-10 If you have a Mutual Protection Pact with the AI. Just remember that a MPP is risky, because they can get you into a war you don’t want to be in.

-3 if at war with a common enemy.

-2 If you then sign an alliance.

So a -5 if you sign an alliance and go to war with that enemy.

-1 to -3 for each enemy unit (of common enemies) you destroy and tiles you pillage, -7 for razing an enemy city, but all of this is temporary - AFTER the war or the civ is destroyed, you will get the +1 penalty for each razed city added back on, plus the +1 penalty for declaring war (even if you had joined the alliance). Any damage you did prior to signing the alliance (but during that same war) gets immediately added on. The total effect seems to cap at -15 for doing damage and having an alliance, -13 if you do everything else, but don’t have the alliance in place. This decays at -1 each turn, unless you destroy a unit or pillage a tile each turn to keep it at the maximum. So when peace comes and the -15 ‘temporary’ points is automatically taken off, it may seem like you took an attitude hit by signing peace or destroying the civ, because the other AI have a worse attitude towards you.

+1 to +3 for using privateers (the victim adds on the penalty).

-5 If you trade or donate a resource. Trading multiple resources seems to have no effect.

+1 If they ask you to leave their territory, +4 if you are given the orders to leave or declare war. These are only temporary, and as long as you leave when forced to, you get the points back the next turn. You can continually send 1 troop in, spend 1 turn there and claim you will leave, leave when you are forced to, but go back into their territory the next turn, and the AI attitude will not drop in the long run, just keep cycling between +/- 5 pts.

Any recent wars can add a penalty, seemingly depending on the casualties the AI took. Most of this decays after being at peace for awhile (and the AI re-builds lost troops).

+4 for failing at an espionage mission (any mission or attempting to plant a spy). Other civs don’t care, just the civ you tried to plant the spy in, or perform a mission in. You can recover these points after 10-20 turns. Actually from what I'm figuring now +3 (which you can recover) is temporary, +1 is permanent.

Gifts
-1 for each 10 gold worth of techs/gold you donate, up to a maximum of -10 (100 gold). This bonus decays at about 10 gold/turn. The larger of a gift you give above 100 gold, then longer you will get to keep the -10 maximum pts. Example: Giving them 1,000 gold will keep them happy for 100 turns, 500 gold would be 50 turns. gpt donations are added on immediately, but the effect of it may disappear before the deal is done.

Permanent Attitude Changes

Note: Some of the attitude changes you do to a victim during war is hard to test, since it’s hard to find the difference between acts, because you can’t find the attitude level until the war is over with. And figuring the difference between what penalties are just from being at war, and what was caused by breaking treaties, razing cities, etc.

Most penalties are temporarily erased if the civ is at war with the civ who you broke a treaty with. Example: Say the Aztecs have added +10 points because of things I have done to the Iroquois. If the Aztecs go to war with the Iroquois, those 10 points are taken away, so the Aztecs will feel better towards me, but once they sign peace with the Iroquois the 10 point penalty is added back on. So penalties are only added for friendly civs, not enemies.

-2 If you have an embassy with the AI

+2 You demand tribute from the AI. Whether they actually pay the tribute or not. If they have a good attitude towards you, this will be +1, but once they are annoyed/furious it will be +2 each time you demand tribute. You can make 50 tributes in one turn and get a civ at +100 towards you (very, very furious).

+1 if you raze the city of another AI. +12 if you raze a city of that civ. Other civs don’t add any more penalties than the standard +1 if the city had contained any Great wonders. It doesn’t look like the victim adds more than the +12 permanent penalty either, but there may be a temporary penalty.

+4 if you’ve declared war on that civ before. If the AI had declared war on you, it is possible to get the attitude back to pre-war levels, providing you don’t raze any cities or other bad things.

+12 for breaking an alliance. +2 is what other civs will add.

No penalty for destroying the last city of an AI (unless you raze it, then just the +1 for a razed city). But the ‘temporary’ effects of doing damage to a common enemy, alliances, etc. will disappear since no one is at war with that civ anymore.

+1 You declare war on a friendly civ (all civs who are at peace with this civ will add on the point, others will add the point if they ever sign peace with this civ). The trick is to get others to declare war on you. Example: Aztecs were at -17 with me, I declare war on the Iroquois, so now I’m at -16 with the Aztecs. If I get the Aztecs into the war via an alliance I now am at -22 (-5 for the alliance, then recover the +1 point since I’m no longer at war with a civ that is friendly with the Aztecs). But after war, the +1 penalty is added back on.

+4 if you break a trade route (like pillaging your own road) that cancels a treaty. In addition to the -5 you lost since you are no longer trading resources, it will feel like +9. Other civs will add +1.

+1 If you sell them one of your workers (not sure why this is, maybe it’s confused and thinks you were at war at one point and thinks that is how it got your slave?). You restore the point if you buy the worker back.

+1 for each captured worker you disband (of their nationality). Think of it as disbanding = killing. Using the slaves, selling them, or joining them into cities, seems to have no effect.
Edit: If you starve citizens of their nationality (from joining slaves into cities, or starving a captured city), there is a penalty-don't know if this is permanent or not.

Breaking a ROP treaty:
+4 If you have no units in their territory when declaring war with a ROP treaty in place, other AI will add +1, but will still sign ROP with you. +6 If you have any units in their territory when you break the ROP treaty, and other civs won’t sign ROP with you anymore and will add +2.

+4 for breaking a peace treaty with that civ. +1 is what other civs will add on for breaking a peace treaty with another civ. These numbers are doubled if you figure in the fact that you are declaring war-(example: +4 for breaking the treaty +4 for declaring war).

Nukes: Victim of the nuke adds +32! Other civs will add on +16, regardless of whether they declared war on you or not. These penalties are permanent.

+1 for failing at an espionage mission (any mission or attempting to plant a spy). +3 is temporarily added, but the +1 is permanent from a limited test I did. Other civs don’t care, just the civ you tried to plant the spy in, or perform a mission in.

Other factors

+1 if you accept a city that wants to flip. -1 if you refuse to accept the city flip. These are cumulitive if there are multiple flips, but I'm not sure if these are permanent or temporary.

Having resources that the AI does not have doesn’t seem to affect things (although it would affect power rankings and might affect the possibility of war, but not attitude). Nor does being on the same landmass affect attitude. Making a ‘culture attack’ (building a city right on their border and rushing culture to try and flip their city) does not affect attitude.

Power lead: If you have a power lead, most of the good effects (negative numbers) are halved. ROP is one of them that still gives you the full points no matter who has the power lead. Example of what is affected: Maximum of -5 for donations instead of -10. So the Americans start off with the Aztecs at -6 (-5 for favorite government, -1 same government, -1 for same culture group, +1 for agression level) with them at 4000 B.C. on Chieftain, but this drops to -3 at 3950 B.C. on the lower levels, because already the human has a power lead. If the AI has a lead in power, you’ll see the full effects, or normal numbers (all numbers I‘ve listed in my study). If I give myself 5000 gold and donate everything I have that turn, the donation part of the formula will be at -5, but when I end my turn, the power rankings are calculated and the AI now has the power lead, so it will jump up to the full -10. If the civ is extremely furious, positive things seem to have less of an effect.

First post was too long, so here's the last part of it:

Summary : This could be used as a checklist for anyone concerned about AI attitude.

I'm not sure what the best you could get a civ at because there is no way to figure how many culture flips you have refused (-1 for each one). But with no culture flips involved, the best would be -58 by having the following:
AI has power lead.
You have a culture lead (-1).
AI Civ with aggression level of 1 on Chieftain-Monarch, or aggression level of 1-2 on Chieftain-Warlord: (-1)
Same culture group: (-1)
Traded maps/techs recently (-1)
Recently paid them tribute (-1)
Donated enough gifts (-10),
You and the AI are in the AI’s favorite government (-5).
Same government as the AI (-1)
You have an embassy with that civ (-2)
You have a ROP with that civ (-5)
You have a MPP with that civ (-10)
You have an alliance against a common enemy and have done enough damage to the enemy this turn (-15).
You are trading resources (-5).
You have never declared war on anyone, disbanded slaves, broken treaties, razed cities, demanded tribute, refused to pay tribute, sold any of your workers to them, used nukes, get caught doing espionage, used privateers recently, or accepted culture flips.
Theoretical maximum: -58.

The maximum you can get a civ mad at you is 100. There are countless ways to get it this high. Ways civs could be mad at you:
You have a power lead.
You haven’t been trading with the AI.
You haven’t given any gifts.
You don’t have any embassies, ROP, or MPP.
Selling your own workers.
AI has a culture lead.
Your not in the same culture group.
No alliances in place (or not doing damage to the enemy during the alliance) , or not at war with common enemies.
You are in the AI’s shunned government, and the AI isn’t in that government.
You are in a different government than the AI.
You've used nukes.
You have razed cities.
You use privateers.
You accept culture flips.
You disbanded slaves.
You starve off foreigners.
Not paying tribute.
You have trade embargos against them.
You’ve declared war (you’re a warmonger).
You’ve been at war with that civ before/recently.
You’ve broken treaties (ROP abuse, peace treaties, trades, etc).
You got caught using spies.
You demand tribute from the AI.
AI’s aggression level (it is higher on higher difficulty levels for attitude purposes, this does not mean it will affect sneak-attack possibilities and other things).
‘Border infractions’ (this is only temporarily applied for 1-2 turns).

If a civ is very furious with you (above +20 in most cases if you have the power lead, +40 if you don‘t have a power lead), you can see there just isn’t enough positive things you could do to realistically get them back to annoyed or better.

According to Sir Pleb's study, the AI must be at least polite or better to vote for you in the UN, otherwise, they will abstain or vote for the other guy.

Very nice piece of work Bamspeedy! :hammer:

In particular, it was interesting to see that...
- Occasional map trading helps relations but need not be every turn
- That selling them Fission for 1gp isn't a "gift", but giving them 100g is essentially a maximum gift
- Using foreign workers as slaves isn't bothersome to the AI, but setting them 'free' by disbanding is seen as killing
- Razing their largest city holds the same penalty as razing a size 1 hamlet

This raises several quesions...
- If they're silly enough to build no culture, does 'auto-raze' of size 1 count as you choosing to raze?
- Nice to see how RoP breaking affects attitude. Did you do any testing on what affect whether they will take your gpt credit for durable good? I've seen conflicting data on this, and it seems like if you break a deal with a civ that another is fighting at the time, they don't hold it against you much (probably temporary?)
- What effect does the AI attitude have in determining whether they will attack you? I've seen 'gracious' civs sneak attack me, but fail to have 'very furious' civs pick on me. Is there a "visible" attitude counter and an invisible one, or more likely is there some random component to the 'should I attack the player' decision?
- Any thoughts on the relationship between attidue and the diplo vote?

Thanks for your efforts here,
Charis

I'm sure (but not positive), that auto-razing would have the same effect as choosing the option to raze. Firaxis has stated that you get a rep-hit for the auto-razes, and this is probably why some people can't figure out why everyone is mad at them (because of all those auto-razes early in the game).

No, I did not study what the AI will give you in deals (gpt payments) based on attitude, nor did I study the likeliness of AI attacking you. Military size would also affect the possibility of AI sneak attacks. Military size does not affect attitude (unless that is the sole factor for power rankings).

From what I've seen, the AI does not hold things against you (like breaking treaties), if you are doing it to their enemies. However, once they make peace with that civ, then they will apply those penalties (even though you did those things while the civ had been their enemy).

I believe there are different 'attitude counters'. One is the standard attitude ranking that I studied here. Another is the 'all or nothing' reputation counter, which is where the AI will accept a ROP (or other deals) based on whether or not you've broken deals before and doesn't matter what their attitude rank towards you is. And finally, there is another sort of attitude ranking that affects possibilities of wars, which would include factors like military size, resources or techs you have that the AI doesn't (and wants), being on the same land mass, whether you are the #1 or #2 civ, etc. and Firaxis did state that there is a random factor sometimes that makes a civ declare war on someone (who that is, is partially random also).

Not sure how the attitude counter that I studied here affects diplo vote. In the deity GOTM, the first vote I held I had a civ gracious with me, but they didn't vote for me. They may have also been gracious with my opponent, I don't know (they did have a MPP with them). But I did have a terrible rep (broken treaties with Persia). It would be hard to study this, since you can't find out how the other AI feels towards each other.

I found out a bit with degub mode also, but in 1.14f:

Gracious started at -6 or -7, forious at 6 or 7.

After nuking the AI and burning cities and breaking peace treaties, I could not get worse then +30

When I would give them a gift, it might gice around -5 or so (a tech), but when I started giving more right afterwards, I'd get a +1 penalty. Any further gifts made no differance.

Great researching Bamspeedy!

That puts a little reason behind the irrational frowny faces.

Question:
Has anyone been able to undo a rep hit from breaking a tech for gpt treaty? In my current game, I got a tech from Babylon by trading them a luxury. The trade route was broken when THEY lost THEIR portus..er..harbor in a war. Now NO ONE will let me pay for tech over time. I just can't store enough cash to buy from them in a lump sum so I'm slowly researching on my own. A big bummer since I had caught up to them in tech right before this happened and now I'm back three or four techs. I didn't mean to break the treaty and I would love to do anything to beable to use gpt again.

Fantastic job Bamspeedy, quite awesome! Thanks!

Your writeup explains many things which have been puzzling me. And which I'd misinterpreted, my guesses at the underlying causes turn out to be quite off the mark :)

I see that it is possible to go all the way from "polite" to "furious" with as little as a +12 change, from -1 to +11. Ending a war could cause a change of +15 for common enemy, alliance, and recent military action. It could even be quite a bit higher than +15 when allowing for penalties which had been temporarily erased during the war. Wiping out a Civ of course ends any war with them so wiping out one Civ can easily cause another's attitude to change dramatically, e.g. from polite to furious. So that's what happened in my last HOF game when I wiped out Japan!

Your study has many implications for milked diplomatic wins of course. I.e. for warmongers who want to maintain good relations. A very important new thing I've learned from your study is the effect of razing cities: it affects all Civs (not just the extreme effect we've informally observed on the Civ whose city is being razed), and the effect is cumulative. So when going for a milked diplomatic win it is important to not do too much razing.

The timing of your article is great for me! I'm just milking my GOTM16 game and trying for a diplomatic win (and therefore a six way of course :) ) I've done a fair bit right (kept my word, didn't raze a huge number of cities) but not enough - while allied with England against Greece, the best I've had so far from England is "annoyed". With this study in hand I have a much better chance of improving that. And I can stop tediously gifting things every turn to England now that I know it isn't accumulating to make any difference!

Excellent research Bamspeedy! Thanks!:)

Now, I know why I haven't been able to achieve a diplomatic victory.:cry: Base on your information, I will try to improve their attitude in my next game.

Thanks Bamspeedy!:goodjob:

IMHO, the best new piece of information concerns the gifts. By giving a 100 gold gift to them as soon as possible would do much to improve relations between you and the AI. :egypt:

Control Freak- No, the AI won't 'forget' about broken treaties. However, you can still get around some of the limitations by other methods. The main thing is whether or not you are in control of the game. In the deity GOTM, even though I had a terrible rep and no one would sign a ROP with me through traditional methods, I could 'trick' them into a ROP agreement by offering a strategic resource into the deal or giving them a tech. I gained access to all 8 luxuries by offering techs. This is because if I break the treaty, the AI would get the tech basically for free (since I no longer get the luxury). I could get gpt from the AI, but not me paying gpt. So if you are dependant on paying out gpt, you're screwed. Although you might try offering a strategic resource and see if that works. Strategic resources sometimes seems to be under a different situation than luxuries. Maybe you can get techs for some strategics.

Hygro- I'll study more in 1.14, probably tomorrow or Friday.

If you give 50 gold, you would get -5. Or if you give the maximum gift, but you are the one with the power lead, it would be -5. Gifting techs would be valued by their worth to the AI (I believe how much it would cost them to research it, not how much it cost you). Depending on the level you play and if the AI had contact with anyone, some of the early techs might be valued at 50 gold. On the lower levels, even though it looks like the power lead is equal, you actually have the power lead at 3950 B.C., so I did all my tests at 4000 B.C., or I donated 5000 gold (and I had like less than 200 gold) to ensure the AI had the power lead. If you have the power lead, then the limits for when civs become gracious/furious may be different, since the other numbers are affected by who has the power lead. I have no idea where the +1 penalty came from unless it was the 'recent trade' bonus disapearing (which you would reclaim by doing another trade), or some other bonus/penalty that got added.

An easy way to study the maximum limit (for the AI being furious) is to demand a city or something (that they would never give you), and just keep doing it. It should add +1 or +2 every time you click on the demand. Nuking is one thing I did forget to study.

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
Control Freak- No, the AI won't 'forget' about broken treaties. However, you can still get around some of the limitations by other methods. The main thing is whether or not you are in control of the game. In the deity GOTM, even though I had a terrible rep and no one would sign a ROP with me through traditional methods, I could 'trick' them into a ROP agreement by offering a strategic resource into the deal or giving them a tech. I gained access to all 8 luxuries by offering techs. This is because if I break the treaty, the AI would get the tech basically for free (since I no longer get the luxury). I could get gpt from the AI, but not me paying gpt. So if you are dependant on paying out gpt, you're screwed. Although you might try offering a strategic resource and see if that works. Strategic resources sometimes seems to be under a different situation than luxuries. Maybe you can get techs for some strategics.


@Bamspeedy
Thanks for the advice...I'm screwed. I did offer strategics and they would never accept that either. But an odd thing happened yesterday. The Iroquois actually accepted 22gpt + wines + 300g for a tech. No one else would make that deal so I took it. After that, I couldn't get another trade like that from the Iroquois. I'll post again if things start changing for the better. They were one of the most powerful civs at the time. Maybe, if I get through these 20turns my credit will be a bit better?

Very good job Bamspeedy!

This is very helpful, although I almost knew what caused rep-hits etc, I never knew exactly how it worked.

Thanks! :)

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
Not sure how the attitude counter that I studied here affects diplo vote. In the deity GOTM, the first vote I held I had a civ gracious with me, but they didn't vote for me. They may have also been gracious with my opponent, I don't know (they did have a MPP with them). But I did have a terrible rep (broken treaties with Persia). It would be hard to study this, since you can't find out how the other AI feels towards each other. [/B]

Could it be that the Diplo vote just works on a direct comparison of Rep numbers? So of the leaders being voted for, the one with the lowest (or highest negative) number gets the vote, and if the numbers are even then this will trigger an abstention.

To check this (or any other) theory could you not just play a game to the turn before a vote without giving gifts, signing MPPs or RPPs ? Then you can adjust your rep by large amounts in any increment which would allow you to find how much rep swing is required to get from "vote against" to "vote for".

From this you could infer the maths. Unfortunately I don't have the competence to do the gameplay, but I can do the math. :o

BTW: Another great contribution Bamspeedy. :goodjob:

This explains why no one ever votes for me. Guess i'll have to continue with the conquests and space ships.

mad-bax, yes you could theoretically figure out exactly how many points you are at with a civ by using the data I provided here. RPP and MPP are only added while you have the treaties signed. In the debug mode, you could just give yourself every tech (IIRC, hold the shift key down and click on techs in the science screen), and even finish the UN at 4000 B.C. and hold the vote at 3950 B.C. (press 'b' key while in the city view screen to get the list of improvements/wonders you want to add to the city, or hit 's' to add 100 shields towards the project). That would be the best way to test it, because playing a full game there would be too many variables that would apply to one game, but not another- due to the fact we wouldn't know how many gifts Civ A has given to Civ B, broken treaties or other rep hits Civ A has done, etc.

If you do test this by having an election at 3950 BC, make sure to trade communications (a civ will abstain or automatically vote for only you if they don't know anyone else). There is a possibility the AI may trade (maps), or establish an embassy if they have the money during that 1 turn while you are waiting for the election to come up, so you'd have to figure in that possibility.

Terrific, the gift part of the puzzle was the piece I needed.

[Edit:] With gifts not being a perm effect, it's not near as useful.

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
If you give 50 gold, you would get -5.

Wow, as little as 50 gold would make a big different. Thanks again! I didn't know that.

I do have a question. What is the minium number of turn before I can give them another gift? For example, if I give them 50 gold this turn and get -5 in attitude adjustment, do I get another -5 if I give then another 50 gold on the next turn?

Yes, or even the same turn if you decide to give 2 separate donations of 50 gold each. *Editted out my max donation post, since it is not permanent like I thought*
But more than likely you would have a power lead (especially later in the game), so a 50 gold donation would be more like -2.5, with a maximum of -5 for donations of 100+ gold, since the value of donations are halved when you have the power lead.

On monarch and below it isn't too hard to have some extra techs early in the game (pottery, warrior code, etc.) that if you donated a couple of those early techs, they would probably value 100 gold, so that is another reason to donate techs to help speed up the tech pace, when they don't have any money (except maybe 10 gold) anyways.

Not sure if rounding up or down of gold counts (example: giving 63 gold, then 37 gold would equal the full 10 points, or 6 then 3=9 points). Edit: Yes it does count these (give them 3 gold, then 3 gold, then 4 gold, you will get -1. But since this bonus decays at -10 gold/turn, if you donate them 10 gold, it will be completely forgotten by the next turn.

Bamspeedy,

Thanks again! I will try out some of the things you said in my next game. I'm hoping to win my first diplomatic victory one of these day.

Beautiful work Bamspeedy.

But it takes some of the mystique out of the infamously grumpy Civ3 AI :)

That was an excellent research topic! That must have been some few weeks. Your work is much appreciated. :beer:

Now, on to master diplomacy...

Seems this made front pgae news! I'm just a littled bothered by the fact that it could be obsolete info with this latest patch.

This is just great! Thanks very much Bamspeedy :goodjob:
What also has been discussed a lot at CFC is the difference between attitude and reputation. A general oppinion is: your attitude can be great, but your reputation is ruined after breaking a ROP deal. With all the negative effects on trade. Did you also get clarification on this?

Thanks for the article, Bamspeedy. Very informative. Now I know how to get on their bad side. :)

Anybody want to get on my good side? Mail me 100 gold! :lol:

Truly impressive Bamspeedy!
So, using slaves is OK but selling your people hurts ... :rolleyes: I wonder if turning slave into airport, outpost, colony or tower counts as disbanding/killing? Didn't find that info in your report, Bamspeedy, maybe it wasn't tested?
I'm interested because creating radar towers and airports is main task I use captured workers for...

some powerful info here! thanks Bamspeedy!

in addition though, may you also please try to find out if these numbers also affect currently 'unknown' civs. e.g. if I raze 10 Aztecan cities, will I see a +10 penalty (+1 x 10 for razing alone) permanently etched on Joan's face when I finally meet the Frenchwoman?

a many thanks!

Aggie-I think I understand what you're saying. Like I stated before, I did not test how attitudes affect what civs would pay (or charge you) for things. I would have to test it, but I'm guessing that attitude may change the price (I'm thinking of lump sum payments here, not gpt payments), and that could be why some civs seem to charge higher prices for techs than other civs. It would be interesting to see if prices vary because of attitudes or reputation hits, or a combination of both.

Gen-yes, I did forget to test whether creating an outpost would be considered as disbanding of the worker. I didn't think about that.

MSGT John Drew- Joan would only give you the penalty if she meets the Aztecs, or meets someone who has met (or had known of the Aztecs). If you kill the Aztecs before he meets anyone else, you get no attitude or reputation hits. If another civ, let's say Germany has met the Aztecs before you destroy the Aztecs, then blabber-mouth Bismark would be more than happy to tell Joan about all the nasty deeds you did to the Aztecs.

I'm sure others have witnessed this, because other people have reported that selling contact caused a drop in attitude. This was because of one civ telling the other civ about your bad reputation.

Think of it this way: your own people, or your advisors-ambassadors would rather forget your dark past and would not tell the French, but other civs would love to dig up dirt about you, to get on better terms with the French.

Awesome article. Just what I needed for the 4-1 tournament game :)

So, using slaves is OK but selling your people hurts ...

Actually, now that I think about it, there may be a reason for this. Remember in PTW, workers cost about 5X as much as vanilla Civ3 (approx. 125 gold pieces). This penalty could be there so that you couldn't have worker factories in place for the sole purpose of building workers just to sell them off for techs, resources, lots of cash, etc. (ICS would be great for this). You still could do this, but you'd be eventually getting everyone annoyed/furious with you.

Yes, I understand logic behind this but don't you think this should work both ways? I can buy or capture workers and use them freely as long as I don't disband them, without any diplomatic penalties.
I was always a bit reluctant to buy workers (in vanilla Civ3 they were much cheaper indeed) because I feared bad repercussions. I'm not going to stop using slaves now, even when planning diplomatic win. I'm just surprised this is programmed that way.

Surprises me too, Gen. A slave is normally seen as "disposable" goods, so to speak. Once you get them, the country they came from wouldn't necessarily know about them or their conditions, much less care a great deal.

Do slaves ever lose their status and become regular workers? I've never seen anything that suggests that.

Originally posted by DJ54
Do slaves ever lose their status and become regular workers? I've never seen anything that suggests that.
No, they never change their status nor nationality and there is no way to "liberate" them other than selling or giving them to their native civ. However, after joining them into a city they eventually assimilate over time.

Ok, thanks, Gen.

Thanks, Bamspeedy! Another informative addition to our community from you! :)

-10 maximum for any gifts? That sucks!! And to think of all the times I've given away loads of techs, gold and resources to certain Civs again and again, all without them feeling hardly any of the gratitude I had assumed they would feel. I think that's a bit wrong.

My Altai civilization gave Korea about 15 techs, over 3000 gold and loads of important resources last night, in an attempt to help them defend against the Japanese... and now I know they would never have appreciated it even slightly as much as a human player in the same position would.

Please tell me if I've got it wrong, but if I haven't, I officially declare this issue as, at least partially, stupid. ;)

I will never have more than -11 ... this is bad

Great job, Bamspeedy! Thanks for doing the research and posting it. It was truly informative and helped me to understand the whole attitude thing, which, until now, has been a complete mystery to me.

Excellent work, Bamspeedy! This is certainly one of the best CFC articles ever. After reading your article, I was too lazy to read the entire thread, so sorry if these points/questions have already been brought up:

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
-10 maximum for any gifts. You can get -1 point for every 10 gold worth of techs/gold that you DONATE to them. Giving them a tech for 1 gold piece or map (even if the map is ’’worthless’’) does not count as a gift. You can’’t get more than -10 points from gifts. Giving gifts on the next turn, or next few turns, has no effect once you reach the -10 cap. It does not look like this decays over time, or that giving more gifts centuries later helps at all., if you‘‘ve exceeded the cap.That right there is VERY useful. Now I know that giving 1000 gold gifts is waste of 900 gold. :)Originally posted by Bamspeedy
-2 If you have an embassy with the AIYay, so I WAS right about my theory of embassies improving attitude. :)Originally posted by Bamspeedy
...If you have any units in their territory when you break the ROP treaty, and other civs won’’t sign ROP with you anymore and will add +2.So you're absolutely sure that this is permanent?

Excellent work! I do have one question: Are you sure that failing to plant a spy is a permanent attitude modifier? I've experienced the negative attitude many times from failing to plant a spy, waited ~10 turns and their attitude improves, repeat. Keep in mind i am speaking about civ3 vanilla 1.29, but i imagine much is the same.
Again, thanks for all this work!

Thanks Bamspeedy, very useful article indeed.

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
-1 to -3 for each enemy unit (of common enemies) you destroy and tiles you pillage, -7 for razing an enemy city, but all of this is temporary - AFTER the war or the civ is destroyed, you will get the +1 penalty for each razed city added back on, plus the +1 penalty for declaring war (even if you had joined the alliance). Any damage you did prior to signing the alliance (but during that same war) gets immediately added on. The total effect seems to cap at -15 for doing damage and having an alliance, -13 if you do everything else, but don’t have the alliance in place. This decays at -1 each turn, unless you destroy a unit or pillage a tile each turn to keep it at the maximum. So when peace comes and the -15 ‘temporary’ points is automatically taken off, it may seem like you took an attitude hit by signing peace or destroying the civ, because the other AI have a worse attitude towards you.
Am I the only one who feels that this is a serious flaw in Civ3? It doesn't make any sense to me that my allies get mad at me after we finished what we set out to do...

Buckets- You are correct. I just failed at an espionage mission and waited about 20 turns and was able to recover all the points.

I'll edit the original post.

Edit: +3 seems to be temporary, +1 is permanent. Here was my study:

As the Americans on Chieftain, I have the Aztecs normally at -6 (and I'm sure the Aztecs have the power lead, because they have 10,000 gold while I have 1,000.). After making a trade, I get them to -7. I plant a spy (successfully), then fail at 'expose enemy mole' (guaranteed to fail). This drops them to -3, and after waiting 20 turns it returned to -7 (after trading maps to recover the 'recent trade' point. However, I should have been at -8 since I now have the culture lead from having to build the Intelligence agency.

Originally posted by Hygro
I found out a bit with degub mode also, but in 1.14f:

Gracious started at -6 or -7, forious at 6 or 7.

After nuking the AI and burning cities and breaking peace treaties, I could not get worse then +30

When I would give them a gift, it might gice around -5 or so (a tech), but when I started giving more right afterwards, I'd get a +1 penalty. Any further gifts made no differance.

Well I tested in 1.14f and I still get civs gracious at -11, and furious at +11, regardless of who has the power lead. Could you give more specifics to what was happening in your game (difficulty level, map conditions, # of opponents, civs that were involved, any attitude changes that had happened, etc.) or send me a save to bamspeedy@msn.com or post the save here so I can take a closer look at it.

Nukes: Civs that were not the victim of the nuke will add +13 (if they don't also declare war on you). I haven't studied yet to see how much of this is temporary or permanent, and how much the victim adds on. I had the Celts go from -3 (polite) to +10 (annoyed) when I nuked the Aztecs.

Gifts are the same as I posted, with a cap at -10 if the AI has a power lead, and -5 if you have the power lead.

I can still get civs at +100 if I continually demand tribute from them. -1 if the amount is small (10 gold) and they are still polite with me, -2 if they are annoyed/furious, or if the demand is a very large amount (10,000 gold).
---
Another thing I noticed- For the 'who has the culture lead' point bonus/penalty, it doesn't seem to affect things until you have a few culture points lead (won't take into effect the same turn, or turn after you built your first temple, but will kick in by the time you get 10 culture points, for example).

Great article, but I have one question. If the AI asks me for one of those ridiculous trades, such as 1000 gold, Rocketry, and Fission, just for their world map, do I get a rep hit if I refuse the deal?

I'm guessing the penalty for disbanding slave workers is to discourage us from capturing AI workers and then disbanding them immediately if we know we can't get them safely to our own territory. "If I can't have them, neither can you" = slaughtering them.

If this is the case, then the penalty need only apply to slaves that are disbanded outside of your own borders.

Yeah well anyhow, all I can say is that I'll be seriously reconsidering some of my tactics when dealing with AI civs. I know *some* human players will actually feel long standing gratitude for the kind of gifts I've given AI players. Maybe I just need to play more multiplayer Civ3, where my more real-world diplomacy style of play is going to actually have some kind of tactical advantage.

*tries to remind self that even in a multiplayer game, a human controlled civ you've gifted too, who appreciated it, may still well betray you at the last minute -- it's just a game*

Wow, thanks Bam. Very insightful.

I'm not going to post a save, because in the map I was testing units. I did not document my findings, so I don't know how accurate I am.

However, I do remember one weird thing I thought you aught to test:

When I wouuld give gifts, I would get the big old jump of attitude. When I gave more, it would add the angry +1. More gifts after that made no differance. And yes, I had the power lead if that matters.

:goodjob: Excellent article!I was wondering about this kind of thing for a long time.:goodjob:

BTW, how eactly does nuking affect the AIs attitude towards you? Any test done about that?

Hygro- Were you giving just money, or were you also giving away some techs. If you gave away a government tech, the AI instantly goes into anarchy to switch to that new government, so then they would be in a different government than you, so you would see a +1 difference there.

Nukes: Victim of the nuke adds +32! Other civs will add on +16, regardless of whether they declared war on you or not. These penalties are permanent (for at least the 30-50+ turns that I pushed 'end turn'). I don't know why I had +13 before for the non-victim, I may have miscalculated or forgot some factor, or the 3rd civ I was using didn't have a power lead over me.

Interesting note: Civs who have not met the victim of the nuke or anyone else, or even explored or have the map of where the nuke hit already knows it was you that used a nuke and will add on the +16 penalty.

I was giving away things like pottery and masonry... I personally found it really weird. I'll have to try it again.

Hi Bamspeedy,

This is a great article. It helped me a lot to keep the AI polite with me at low costs!

Did you also find out how the AI decides to go to war with you? The last game I was playing (emperor level patch 1.29f), 4 times in the game, the AI decided to go to war with me when they were at polite (I was playing Iroquoise, first Japan declared war, then Rome, then Persia and finally Greece).

any ideas welcome

Ronald

Ronald, no I didn't study the likeliness of the AI declaring war. Attitude may play a part of it, but I'm sure it is a formula that takes several factors into account, so attitude will help or hurt a little, but certainly not be an absolute.

Like I explained before when Charis asked about this (because he would have gracious civs attack him, but not furious civs), from what I've seen the odds of a civ declaring war on you seem to be based on power lead, whether or not you are one of the top 2 civs, having resources, techs, and other stuff the AI doesn't have, military size/strength, attitude, reputation, not having a culture lead, being on the same land mass or being their neighbor, and Firaxis did say there is a random factor involved. The more of these that apply would probably increase the chance, but no matter what you do, there is probably still a chance they would declare war, because of the random factor- RNG (just like when tanks lose to spearman).

This is one of the greatest tips ever. I knew alot of it already, but to have numbers at the different things and solvens of some of my wonderings is great. Good job there :goodjob:

BTW just played a diplomatic game, used your numbers, and only once where declared war at me... That i rare :nuke:

Bamspeedy, good job! It's not that it's actually of any real use to me as a player, but this makes it a lot easier to explain how the AI 'reacts'. Most 'seasoned' players will know this from experience, but I love to see it quantified!

Thanks!

Sometimes, I wish the game itself would give you more information. Why isn't there a foreign advisor screen that shows this information? E.g., I should be able to see a summary list of every civs 'transgressions'. If Persia has ROP'ed 5 times, destroyed 4 cities, and broken 8 trade agreements, wouldn't my foreign advisor tell me this? Why not show every civ and the number of transgression from for foreign advisor summary screen? I'd like to see a list of my own transgressions too. Sometimes, I'm sure I have no idea that I've broken a trade agreement since that civ declared war on me.

A few nights ago, I had some time on my hand and decided to play out an old game just to nuc someone and see the results. I'd been at war with Germany for awhile and it was very slow going as they were heavily defended. I dropped a nuc on a heavy concentration of German forces and every other civ declared war on me. Since I was bored, I reloaded the game, and setup alliances against the Germans with some. When I dropped the nuc this time, none of those nations declared war on me. Since I was playing a mass regicide game, I decided to use my entire arsenal to take out the Germans. Even after the Germans were wipe out, those nations I had alliances with did not declare war on me. This seems to me that being in an alliance also affects the negative influence of using nucs. Just my 2 cents for a great cause.

Great work, Bamspeedy!

I only have Civ3, but I'll try some of the tips. No longer will I have to bankrupt myself by giving other civs 200 gold to win diplomatic votes; I can just do 50 and get the same effect.

First, would Civ3 1.29 be much different from PTW 1.01? If so this may not apply to me as well as it could be.

That's good: generous giving does not decay over time. I'll make a point of giving little to make a long way.

Ahh so this is why other civs would be so angry with me when nuking. I wouldn't care about nuking the victim because I intended to destroy them neverthelss (with heavy AI help) but didn't know that it could be so damaging in reputation to the other civs. But is this every nuke used or a one-time? Tactical nukes count too? My God...I used at least ten tacticals and an ICBM against the Babylons, and about four ICBMs against the Japanese in a single game...Egytians are absolutely furious at me.

I can't even concieve how - all I did against them was to break an alliance by destroying the Zulu - oh, about 150 years ago in my game. They have been breaking alliances - made peace with Babylon and again with the Japanese. At least that's how much I remember. With the breaking against Japan, they wouldn't go back in unless I gave them 16,000 gold. Nuking may have a factor, though, now that I have read about it.

By carefully reading and re-reading the article I really must have ticked off Egypt, because I have both an MPP/ROP with them. I broke that accidentally though; but they were furious even before that.

By the numbering on the aggression level of the AI, are you meaning the aggression levels that are placed in the scenario editor? With this, so that Egypt would fall in the six civs of level 3 so it would be neutral?

Breaking an alliance when a civ is destroyed still tacks on +2? Being a real diplomat is hard - ahh, but what the hell: in this current Egypt wrangle, the UN vote has long passed.

For the maximum a civ can get mad with you, would it be if the AI does not have a culture lead? Doesn't a culture lead more placate the civ, because they're all suprerior and they're not?

I've sold workers and tried to buy them back, but then I lose about ten gold during the exchange, which is a real turn-off for buying or even selling my workers in the first place!

With the destruction of the civ ensured when deciding to nuke, it matters not what the +32 penality does. Only the +16 penality matters - I don't like the other civs being so pissed at me.

Can you elaborate more on the 'culture groups'? :confused: Persia belongs to what culture block? Having looked over Kal-el's map and Marla Singer's, I can come up with this:

Iroquois, America, Aztecs
Zulu, Egypt
Rome, France, England, Germany, Greece
Russia, China, Japan, India
Babylon, Persia (?)

...Although this may be very wrong.

Let me add my humble voice to all those who congratulated you for your article, Bam. It is really illuminating! :worshp:

I think this is even more useful in "relative terms": I mean, those factors will also apply between each individual AI, so not only is it clear now what to do to improve the AI's attitute towards you, but also what to do to make them furious with one another.

That is, if I ever am a good diplomat, I will not be desperate if the other civs don't love me, I'll just make sure that the majority of them hates all the other AIs more than they hat me... :crazyeye:

Originally posted by hbdragon88
Can you elaborate more on the 'culture groups'? :confused: Persia belongs to what culture block?
These are the cultural groups:

Mediterranean
- Rome
- Egypt
- Greece
- Cartage

Mid East
- Babylon
- Persia
- Zululand
- Ottomans
- Arabia

European
- Germany
- Russia
- France
- England
- Spain
- Scandinavia
- Celts

Asian
- China
- Japan
- India
- Mongols
- Korea

American
- America
- Aztecs
- Iroquois

Hope this helps ;)

Really great work ... :goodjob:

But ..., how long does it take to get this whole stuff ..., nearly unbeliveabel! :)

:goodjob: :) :goodjob:

Illuminating. Fantastic work, Bamspeedy.

A lot of my assumptions about how this works were correct, but several were not:

I thought having slaves of another civ made them mad. Not so. Hmm... so when I sold that slave of mine to another AI, I wonder what that did (I was trying to get two AIs pissed at each other), if anything?

I had no idea that there were limitations on gifts (100 bucks that's it). Not that I'm in the habit of giving the AI gifts.

I didn't know about the hit for selling your workers. Makes sense to close a potential exploit, I guess.

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

The temporary boost from alliance/war vs. common enemy makes sense (the temporary nature of the bonus, I mean). What I'm not sure makes sense is the hit you take after the war for razing the common enemy's cities, etc.

Ah, whatever. The way I play, they're gonna hate me anyway.

-Arrian

Bamspeedy I’m rather late to see this article but it is fabulous. It’s so good that I think it’s exploitative to know so much. For example the 100g donations in 10 g increments is a little unfair to know.

I infer one very, very important thing from here and it fits into my experience so far.

The breaking of an agreement is ignored by the civs fighting with the civ that you have broke the trade with.

Your ROP betrayal is disregarded by any current enemies of the civ that you betrayed.

This would mean a lot e.g. to allow gpt trading with your stained rep.

Example (not tested): I ROP betray the Germans but not finish them instead contain them in a small tundra-ville surrounded by my troops. My rep is stained and I suffer the consequences. But I really need to get Sci Method to get ToE. Japan has it so I declare war to Germany, bring Japan in with a lump sum payment (should be small as Germany is very little and weak. Bingo! I can trade gpt with Japan who now is glad that I betrayed the hatred Germans. I make sure that no Japanese sets foot on the German soil so that I can do the thing again later.

Anyone care to test this (I don’t have time)?

Really nice work Bamspeedy! One question that I have is if the rep goes down even if the cities are auto-razed (they have the size of 1 and gets razed)? If that's the case you can't do a rush in the beginning without have a terrible rep., right?

Regards

@henrsve

You must have missed Bamspeedys previous post (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44999&perpage=1&display=&postid=786834) on page 1.

One more thing which certainly have negative impact upon AI attitude is piracy (using privateers). Does somebody know the exact numbers and if this is a permanent penalty?

henrsve-Yes, early war would be hard to do and keep your rep at it's peak. So you must choose your target cities carefully and go for capitals or any other cities that have over 10 culture in them. I would also say go for cities that are at population 2+, but the AI frequently whips these cities back down to size 1.

The penalty that other civs (the non-victims) add towards you for razing is only +1, so you could raze a few and still have an OK rep, just don't raze too many cities.

Gen- I did not study privateers, but they have 'hidden nationality', so the AI isn't supposed to know where the ships came from or belong to. It would be suprising if using privateers did cause the AI to become mad at you.

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
Gen- I did not study privateers, but they have 'hidden nationality', so the AI isn't supposed to know where the ships came from or belong to. It would be suprising if using privateers did cause the AI to become mad at you.

Yes, it is indeed surprising, but it's true. At least that was the case in version 1.21f of vanilla Civ3 and before. I've played slightly modded games, lowering AI-AI trade rate (which greatly lenghtened the age of sail) and extensively using privateers. In short time I pissed two civilizations: America went from polite to furious and the second civ (Zulus?) form gracious to annoyed IIRC. Attitude started to drop just after I started sinking enemy ships and remained respectively in state of furious/annoyed for the rest of the game. I'm fairly sure that was the only reason that could annoy them - I did not fight them, did not break any deals etc.
I did post my observations in a thread about privateers:

Privateers (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=29344)

Mad Bomber concluded that AI did actually know nationality of my privateers but couldn't oficcially prove it. Maybe that's an AI cheat just like knowing whole map and every unit position? Do they know nationality of all units too or was it a coincidence?

Hey Bamspeedy, does having an AI city flip to you affect attitude?

Ok Gen and billindenver, I'll study privateers and culture flips when I have the time. I first need to try to finish the GOTM, so you won't hear the answer from me until next week probably.

Sure Bamspeedy, no need to hurry :)

i would assume everytume you sink a ship with a privateer, you lose as much attitude bonus as killing a unit during wartime.

As I suspected, gifting is really an exploit now.

Many times early in the game the AI are strapped for cash and you have maps and techs to trade, now you can just gift them money, their attitude improves and then you sell them goods that they previously could not afford to recoup your gifts. Now you can jack every AI's attitude 10 points early in the game.

Another view point is about embassies, many times I used to make an embassy solely to improve the AI attitude for trade purposes cause I don't need ROP or an Alliance anyway, now it's cheaper to improve their attitude with gifts.

[Edit:] With gifts being of temp value, not exploit almost worthless.

Originally posted by Cartouche Bee
As I suspected, gifting is really an exploit now.

Many times early in the game the AI are strapped for cash and you have maps and techs to trade, now you can just gift them money, their attitude improves and then you sell them goods that they previously could not afford to recoup your gifts.

This makes me think that the limit of +10 for gifts is not an error but rather a intentional fix to exploiting this gift/tech sale for more gold loop. Otherwise, you could rinse and repeat this throughout the middle ages and always have AI be gracious.

In the latest GOTM game I decided to try for a diplimatic victory toward the end of the Industrial Age. I had finally caught up in techs and because of my wise plays, all of the other civs were involved in a World War on the other continent. Because of alliances that I made most of the other civs were polite to me. I figured this was going to be an easy diplomatic victory. As a result I decided not to invade the other continent.

Then your article on Attitude was published and I thought, hey, this will be even easier because all I have to do is give away lots of techs and luxuries, and pay 50 gold, and the other civs will love me. Well, it didn't turn out that easy.

As soon as the World War ended, the attitude of the other civs went right to furious and no matter how much I paid them off, they stuck at annoyed (the next level above furious). I kept paying and paying, giving and giving, but could never improve their attitude above annoyed. As a result, all of the elections were inconclusive and resulted in many abstentions.

At the time I was in Republic, ahead in techs, score and territory owned.

Here are some things I noticed:

1. I know you only tested in PTW because vanilla civ doesn't have a debug mode. I'm not sure all of the conclusions hold, but there appears to be no conclusive way to test this.

2. I paid lots of 50 gold bribes because I had lots of gold. I never noticed that any of them raised the attitude of the other civ.

3. Rights of Passage seemed to work just as you tested. They made a big difference. Usually the attitude went up one level with the agreement.

4. Alliances made the biggest difference. A civ that was annoyed with me before the alliance, became polite after it. I thought this was a little strange because your test showed a max benefit of -5. Donating a tech also gives a -5 benefit, but I didn't find it to be anywhere near the benefit of the alliance. I gave away lots of techs, 3 in one turn to the English, and never noticed an improvement in attitude.

5. It could be that I was so reviled that no matter how much I gave away it could never get me into the negative numbers. However, I don't think that is the case. Except for Ancient Times the only wars I fought were declared against me by the other civs. I did raze about 1/4 of the cities on my continent. I never broke an alliance or a ROP.

6. The max benefit from gifting is -10. Does that mean that after I give away ten gifts of 50 gold each to the same civ, I can never get a further benefit, even from giving techs, luxuries, etc.?

I don't want to sound as if I am criticizing your work. I am not. I just wonder whether I am interpreting some of your results correctly and whether there is a difference between PTW and vanilla civ. Any thoughts you have would be greatly appreciated.

By the way, I gave up on a diplomatic victory, invaded the other continent and achieved a space ship victory in 1758.

Bamspeedy, if you don't mind and know the answers, I have questions about one part of your article.

In the section titled "Permanent Attitude Changes" you note two factors caused by declaring war:
+4 "if you’ve declared war on that civ before"
+1 "You declare war on a friendly civ (all civs who are at peace with this civ will add on the point, others will add the point if they ever sign peace with this civ)"

Questions I have (if you know the answer, I wouldn't dream of asking you to go dig them out, you've already given us so much here! :) ):

1) Does the +4 for a second declaration of war apply to all Civs (who aren't at war with the target of course) or just to the target Civ?

2) If the +4 for second war only applies to the target Civ, then what about the +1 which applied to other Civs - is it applied to everyone again?
I.e. suppose Japan, China, and I are all at peace. And suppose I've declared war on Japan once in the past, and I now declare war on Japan again. As I understand it:
a) Japan will now have a permanent +5 added for the two wars I started with her. (+1 first time, +4 second time.)
b) China will have a permanent +1 added for the first time I declared war on Japan. Does China add another +4, or another +1, or nothing for this second time I'm hitting Japan?

3) Is the +4 cumulative if you repeatedly declare war? I.e. an additional +4 the third time you declare war?

zagnut, I've been playing with all this info from Bamspeedy and I think I can answer your questions:

Originally posted by zagnut
1. I know you only tested in PTW because vanilla civ doesn't have a debug mode. I'm not sure all of the conclusions hold, but there appears to be no conclusive way to test this.
I think it highly likely that most (maybe even all) of Bamspeedy's discoveries apply exactly the same way in 1.29. His discoveries perfectly explain some situations which have mystified me in the past. I've replayed from a few selected saves to test some of his discoveries and they've worked in 1.29.

2. I paid lots of 50 gold bribes because I had lots of gold. I never noticed that any of them raised the attitude of the other civ.
Could it be that before you started checking the results you had already gifted them something? After the first 100 gold value of gifts (i.e. gifts of tech, maps, or gold) you'll have the maximum -10 benefit. Further gifts won't make any difference. So if you give them one tech which they feel is worth 100 gold or more, that will get the maximum benefit already.

5. It could be that I was so reviled that no matter how much I gave away it could never get me into the negative numbers. However, I don't think that is the case. Except for Ancient Times the only wars I fought were declared against me by the other civs. I did raze about 1/4 of the cities on my continent. I never broke an alliance or a ROP.
Razing those cities was probably the problem. That's the most important thing I've learned from Bamspeedy's work. I don't know how big your continent was but suppose you razed 20 cities - that would be a permanent +20 applied by every other Civ! (Regardless of who each city belonged to.)

6. The max benefit from gifting is -10. Does that mean that after I give away ten gifts of 50 gold each to the same civ, I can never get a further benefit, even from giving techs, luxuries, etc.?
Yup, that's what it means. And the number is actually ten gifts of 10 gold each, or just two gifts of 50 gold each. Sure doesn't take much to reach the maximum!

Thanks for the answers SirPleb. I didn't realize razing gave you such a hit. The fact that it is permanent and applied by all other civs will certainly make me think twice about razing cities. Usually I keep cities in the later game because my culture has caught up. But in the early game I am usually behind on the higher levels and don't want the flip problem so I raze. Guess I'll have to re-think that strategy.

On the issue of not getting an effect from my gold gifts, the reason probably was that I had gifted a few techs previously. I would imagine that it doesn't take many tech gifts to equal 100 gold.

It certainly brings home the point that if you want a diplomatic victory, you better start planning it from the beginning.

Originally posted by SirPleb

1) Does the +4 for a second declaration of war apply to all Civs (who aren't at war with the target of course) or just to the target Civ?

2) If the +4 for second war only applies to the target Civ, then what about the +1 which applied to other Civs - is it applied to everyone again?
I.e. suppose Japan, China, and I are all at peace. And suppose I've declared war on Japan once in the past, and I now declare war on Japan again. As I understand it:
a) Japan will now have a permanent +5 added for the two wars I started with her. (+1 first time, +4 second time.)
b) China will have a permanent +1 added for the first time I declared war on Japan. Does China add another +4, or another +1, or nothing for this second time I'm hitting Japan?

3) Is the +4 cumulative if you repeatedly declare war? I.e. an additional +4 the third time you declare war?

I admit the way I wrote it, may have confused people and I should have worded it differently. Or else you misunderstood what I wrote. If you know how I should word it to avoid confusion, please let me know.

The +4 is what the target civ adds on the first time you declare war. So the first time you declared war on Japan, Japan would add on +4. The +1 is what the non-target civs will add on when you declared war on the civ you had been at peace with. So in your case, China will add on +1, the first time you declared war on Japan. I used the words in past tense, but the penalties apply even when you haven't been at war with them in a long time.

I did forget to study if this was cumulitive if you have multiple wars with the same civ. I know I was thinking about that, but for some odd reason I never did get around to studying it. I must have had a brain-fart.

So, if you declare war on Japan a second time, the penalties will either be: Japan is now at +4, or +8 and China would be at +1 or +2, depending on whether the effect is cumulitive or not.

I'm not 100% positive, but I seem to remember that that it is cumulitive if you declare war on multiple civs. Like if you declare war on 2 civs, then the 3rd civ that hasn't been your victim yet, will add on +2 (+1 for each one of the civs). This would make playing a 16+AI civ game harder, as after you kill 15 civs, the last civ would have at least +15 towards you just from you declaring war on the others. So you'd have to trick civs into declaring war on you, instead of you being the one to declare war.

4. Alliances made the biggest difference. A civ that was annoyed with me before the alliance, became polite after it. I thought this was a little strange because your test showed a max benefit of -5. Donating a tech also gives a -5 benefit, but I didn't find it to be anywhere near the benefit of the alliance. I gave away lots of techs, 3 in one turn to the English, and never noticed an improvement in attitude.

-5 just for the alliance, but up to -15 total if you are doing damage to that common enemy (killing units, capturing cities, pillaging, etc.). Also, they could be at +2 (annoyed) and then at -3 (polite), to a -5 could cause them to go from annoyed to polite (the -15 max could also cause a civ to go from furious to polite, like Sir Pleb pointed out several posts ago).

Because of the range values for when civs change attitude levels (annoyed, polite, etc.), this explains why there has been so much confusion in the past about what hurts your rep. Some would insist ROP improves attitude, while others say it doesn't help at all. The ones who didn't see an improvement may have been at +9 (annoyed), so they would need -9 to see any improvement (cautious at 0). Another person could be at +1, so any little thing they do to improve attitude would cause them to see an improvement.

6. The max benefit from gifting is -10. Does that mean that after I give away ten gifts of 50 gold each to the same civ, I can never get a further benefit, even from giving techs, luxuries, etc.?

Sir Pleb was right about what he said, but there's just one little thing to clarify here. If the AI is receiving luxuries, then you get the -5 for trading luxuries. So if you aren't already selling them luxuries, then donating it to them will help (only during the 20 turns that the deal is going on). Whether luxuries count towards the 'gifting' limit, I'm not sure, but I don't think it counts towards that limit, because it does apply to another category (trading luxuries).

For gifting I only tested lump sum payments and techs (these were the easiest for me to put a value on and now how much money it took to get an attitude change). I didn't test if resources would count towards that, or if gold/turn does (like 5 gpt for 20 turns=100 gold max needed).

Firaxis has been pretty good, not great, about how reputation and attitude are handled -- i.e., for the most part, effects on player attitudinal and reputational standing are largely within control of the player. And, based on that perception and my own game experience, I was skeptical about an "auto-raze" carrying the same hit as a deliberate razing. So I tested it myself -- one very brief test, so I can't call it conclusive.

Sure looks to me like auto-razing results in an attitude hit just as if you affirmatively decided to raze. :eek: I tested this by comparing enemy and neutral civ attitudes in three diffeent circumstances: (1) 5-turn war with an autoraze; (2) 5-turn war with a city capture (no raze); and (3) 5-turn war with a deliberate raze (not an auto-raze). The auto-raze and deliberate raze games resulted in more or less identical attitude adjustments. The capture game resulted in significantly less attitude deterioration in the enemy (and the slight [-1] improvement in neutral civ attitude). Absent compelling evidence that reputation is treated differently (i.e., difference in degree of rep hit if deliberate raze or auto-raze), I'd guess auto-razing is treated just like razing for purposes of reputation as well (assuming that there is actually a discrete reputation effect wrt razing).

As I said above, I think Firaxis has generally done a good job with implementations of attitude and reputation, but not in this case and that is [punch] :(. At least the attitude hit among all but the "razee" civs is very minor . . . still, the player really shouldn't be so disadvantaged by a "feature" that requires an auto-raze without player input. [punch]

Well, I did find out a very important fact that somehow was incorrect in my original study. This fact is about the gifts and explains what I was seeing when I played the GOTM. This new information was tested in PTW 1.14f. 8 AI civs.

The attitude adjustment for donations for the most part is temporary. How long the AI remembers your donation is dependant on the size of your donation. I gave 2 civs 500 gold each at 3950 B.C., and around turn 48, their attitude started to drop by 1 pt/turn, but even 20+ turns after having 9 points lost, they still had a -1. Then I tested with donating 1,000 gold at 3950 B.C. and it took until turn 94 before I started losing points again, but they still had -1 more than if I had never donated them anything (and they didn't change governments, build any culture, nor did I trade any techs/maps with them, or anything else that would influence attitude). Then I tried the standard 100 gold amount, and after about 5-10 turns (sometimes immediately), the attitude started droping, but still had the -1. Then I tried just a 10 gold and 30 gold donations. These started disappearing right away, including going back to the status before making the donation. At any point, I could make another 100 gold donation and restore the points back to the maximum. So just before a UN vote, you wouldn't need to donate all your money, just 100 gold to each civ.

So this leads me to believe:
-1 is permanent if you make a donation of 100 gold or higher. You will get a temporary bonus that is maxed out at -10 (-1 for each 10 gold you donate). The larger the donation is, the longer you will get to keep the temporary bonus, but you will not get more than -10 for donations at any given time-and you can not give 100 gold one turn and 100 gold the next turn and expect -20, it is maxed out at -10. The temporary bonus seems to decay at about 10 gold/turn. So if you made a 1000 gold donation, it would take 'approximately' 90 turns before you start losing points, and 100 turns before it's completely gone. A 10 gold donation would be completely forgotten by the next turn.

I am sorry if the previous information I posted caused anyone to lose any games. I think in my previous tests I had donated much larger amounts and that is why I didn't see the bonus dissappearing despite playing 30-40+ turns. I will try to edit the first post, but it will be hard, because that post is at the limit for number of words allowed.

Gold per turn payments as donations:
These are figured out as what the donation would be at the end of the deal and are added on immediately. For example 2 gold/turn for 20 turns = 40 gold, so -4 (which will dissappear before the 20 turn deal is even done). For some reason giving them 5 gold/turn only equals -9, so you have to give them another 10 gold to reach the -10 max. So giving them a lump sum of 100 gold is better than 5 gold/turn. Perhaps this is reputation figured in here? Maybe they aren't sure if you will keep the deal for the full 20 turns? Or else it is a programming error. Even then, the bonus will decay while the deal is in progress since the gpt deal was figured in at the very start.

Privateers: Yes, you do get the AI mad at you for using them. These are temporary penalties, though. It seems the same penalty as if you were doing damage to them during war. +1 when you attack their ship (but your privateer dies), and +3 if you do sink their ship. You recover these points by just not using your privateers for awhile.

Sir Pleb, I did some more tests on multiple declarations of war.

Target civ, +4 for the first war, then after declaring war the second time (after waiting 20 turns), I was at +8, so that was +4 for each war. For the 3rd war if I waited another 20 turns after the 2nd war, I was now at +12.

Nuetral civ: +1 for the first war, +2 for the second war, and the third war had no effect. However if I declared war on someone else, I would now be at +3, so it seems there is a cap of +2 that nuetral civs will add on for each civ you had declared war on two or more times.

But in one test I did, I waited ~40-50 turns in between the second and third wars, and it looked like I recovered a point from the nuetral civ and 4 points from the target civ. So it might possibly be that the 2nd war penalty could be forgotten if you stay at peace with everyone for 40-50 turns as some sort of 'peacenik' bonus.

Culture flips: +1 if you accept the city that wants to flip (it will take into effect one full turn after gaining control of the city).

-1 if you refuse the flip. This is cumulitive. I had a city that wanted to flip on two consecutive turns. Refused both times and got -2, then it wanted to flip about 10 turns later and I was now at -3.

I don't know if these bonuses/penalties are permanent or temporary.

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
Gold per turn payments as donations:
These are figured out as what the donation would be at the end of the deal and are added on immediately. For example 2 gold/turn for 20 turns = 40 gold, so -4 (which will dissappear before the 20 turn deal is even done). For some reason giving them 5 gold/turn only equals -9, so you have to give them another 10 gold to reach the -10 max. So giving them a lump sum of 100 gold is better than 5 gold/turn. Perhaps this is reputation figured in here? Maybe they aren't sure if you will keep the deal for the full 20 turns? Or else it is a programming error. Even then, the bonus will decay while the deal is in progress since the gpt deal was figured in at the very start.
This makes sense. I donated some gpt because thats what I had to give. The receipient went frowny face midway through my payoff without any other actions from me.

I think the issue with 5gpt <> 100g is the "Interest" that the AI charges on gpt. I've noticed that it always cost a bit more to pay with gpt than with lum sum. Similar to the rates they charge in loans which is your gpt for their lump sum.

New exploit: Culture bomb a town and then keep refusing it for an Attitude bonus. (Not quite as good as the culture bomb, take the free town with defender and then gifting it back to the civ it came from.)

Thanks for all the additions Bamspeedy! You've sure done wonderful research for us. It is good to know that the gift part decays, and good to know the effects of multiple declarations of war. I'm looking forward to the next game where a milked diplo win might be a fun goal :)

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
Target civ, +4 for the first war, then after declaring war the second time (after waiting 20 turns), I was at +8, so that was +4 for each war. For the 3rd war if I waited another 20 turns after the 2nd war, I was now at +12.

May be you already answer this question before and I missed it.

Is the increasement the same if I declare war to a "Gracious" civ verus an "Annoyed" civ? (Assuming that I never declare war to either one of them before)

Interesting to see that there is no Rep hit for taking out a civ completely. People at CFC have suggested this many times, but I was never convinced.

Thanks for an amazing article Bamspeedy. :)

Great article Bamspeedy! Maybe this will help me get along better with the AI....

Originally posted by Paradox
Great article, but I have one question. If the AI asks me for one of those ridiculous trades, such as 1000 gold, Rocketry, and Fission, just for their world map, do I get a rep hit if I refuse the deal?

No attitude adjustments for not accepting an offer they make (unless you accidently click on 'accept this deal or else..' ;) .

Somewhere (instruction manual, strategy guide, I can't remember) I read that supposedly the AI would get more mad at you if you refuse to talk to them. Like if they call you up wanting to try and make a deal and you ignore them by clicking on 'No, not right now', or you refuse to recognize their envoy when they want to sign peace. I tried this a few times, but did not see any decay in attitude. However, the 'recent trade' bonus would disappear if you haven't traded with a civ lately, so if they want to make an offer, you should talk to them, just to get updated on what they have, and do a small trade (like trading maps).

I've been working on a practice game toward a milked diplomatic win and it looks like there's still more in this area to be explored; my first attempt has resulted in a furious Civ where I thought they'd be polite, sigh.

I'm now experimenting a bit with the effects of war, using a PTW debug mode scenario - thanks for that tip as well as everything else Bamspeedy! I'm not done exploring yet but thought I'd post some initial observations. (I may be a late starter on GOTM18, I want the info from a bit more exploration before I start that :) )

Some early observations follow, I'll post more if I work out anything further:

1) Each enemy unit you destroy during a war seems to cost a few hit points in attitude. So far I've seen them cost from 3 to 5 points. I'm not sure what is making the difference. (Note: the way I'm checking this is to start a war, then wait in a strongly defended position until the enemy will negotiate for peace so that I can see their diplomatic status, then trying various things and seeing how the status changes.)

2) Enemy units destroyed because they attack me inter-turn result in an attitude hit apparently the same as if I'd attacked them.

3) The lost in attitude from warfare appears to decay over time. It isn't clear at all what the rate of decay is but it does appear to be non-linear.

4) There appears to be no attitude loss with other (un-involved) Civs due to destroying enemy units in a war.

5) The loss of attitude with third-party Civs due to razing or abandoning an enemy city does not appear to be recoverable, i.e. it does not seem to decay over time.

6) Abandoning a city whose population is 50% or more foreign nationals causes the same attitude hit as razing a city as far as un-involved Civs are concerned. I.e. it seems to cost 1 point with every Civ.

I've taken my war testing as far as I intend to for the moment. Have a few more observations to add to this thread:

To get someone's vote at the UN it is necessary to have them "polite". Barely polite (at -1) is sufficient. But if they're at zero (cautious) or worse they will abstain rather than vote for you. I'm not sure what the rule is if a Civ is polite to two or more candidates. I think it is a fairly safe bet that they vote for the one they have the best relations with.

The effects of acts of war are very difficult to analyze but I do now have some general results. These are effects on the target Civ, none of this affects relations with Civs not involved in the war.

Destroying enemy units results in a drop in attitude. The amount of the drop for each destroyed unit seems variable, I haven't worked out what the rule is. One thing which is clear - the more units destroyed, the less the visible change in attitude for each additional one destroyed. There seems to be a "capping" effect though I did not find an absolute limit.

Starving enemy citizens also results in a drop in attitude, +1 for each citizen starved. Note that this effect occurs whether at war or not.

The penalty for the above acts decays over time but does not decay linearly. You can recover relations entirely after making peace if you did just a bit of damage. If you do a lot of damage it does not seem possible to ever recover relations. Some examples to quantify this a bit:

1) I killed 16 enemy units, then made peace. The penalty to relations was +17. After 18 turns of peace the penalty had disappeared entirely, all was forgiven.

2) I killed 21 enemy units, captured two cities, starved 6 citizens, then made peace. The penalty to relations was +30. For about 30 turns of peace it stayed at +30. Then it went down by one every fifteen turns or so for a while, then dropped rapidly such that after 95 turns relations had fully recovered.

3) I killed many enemy units (40 at a guess), took six cities, starved about 10 citizens, then made peace. The penalty to relations was +45. After over 100 turns of peace relations had not recovered by even a single point.

My tentative conclusion from all this is that it is not practical to get a UN vote from a Civ you've essentially conquered. To get their vote it would be necessary to offset a very large attitude penalty (say from +40 to +50 depending on the size of the Civ when you take all their cities but one.) A penalty that large could only be offset by using every good thing available plus multiple alliances against other Civs. And that would mean leaving four, six, or more Civs to the end for the vote which would complicate things a lot - more than one Civ would have to be manipulated into being barely polite to still have a majority.

For a milked UN win (with a polite one town captive Civ at the end) it seems necessary to use other Civs during the game to wear down the intended "friend". It would be possible to take one or two cities from your "friend" to get them down to a last single city. But other Civs must be maneuvered into doing most of the work. So despite all our new knowledge of AI attitude, milked UN wins are going to remain challenging...

A few other minor points:

The "decay" rate of the attitude bonus for gifts appears to be +1 per turn.

There is another attitude factor which comes into play during war. There seems to be a very short term additional penalty for acts of war (killing enemy units) which adds as much as another +10 to the attitude. But this factor always decays very quickly and I haven't included it in the numbers above.

There is a +10 attitude penalty from the target Civ when you enter an alliance against it. (This is on top of all other war effects.) This +10 is temporary, disappearing entirely when your alliance ends.

The "decay" rate of the attitude bonus for gifts appears to be +1 per turn

Yes... Each 10 gold worth of gifts is worth 1 point, and the donation of gifts decays at 10 gold/turn, so that would be +1/turn (once your donations have dropped below 100 gold you'll see the loss, since it's capped at 100 gold). So if you donate 10 gold, it will be completely forgotten the next turn. If you donate 500 gold, then 40 turns later you'll start losing 1 point/turn. If you really want someone at their best for very long, donate 100 gold, then donate a 10 gold/turn deal and renew that every 20 turns. By the time the deal ends, the attitude would start dropping if you don't renew the deal.

I didn't think to check if starving citizens causes an attitude hit, that interesting to know, Sir Pleb!

On your point #3 (damage done during war), I wonder if it's just that it takes so much longer because of all the damage you did. Like in my tests, I donated very large sums, so I didn't see the drop in points. I mean if I donated 5000 gold, I wouldn't see the drop until 500 turns later! Perhaps the damage was so great that it takes longer than 100 turns, so it's technically not 'permanent', but you might as well call it permanent because of how long it takes to recover it. And to try for diplomatic, you would probably have to steer away from using starvation (I know that's alot harder because of culture flips on deity).

.............don't they have to program this stuff according to specs?

Just a passing thought! ;)

BTW, analysis work by Bamspeedy & SirPLeb deserves a :goodjob: :goodjob:

Does this mean that if you nuke someone, you not only get the +26 (was that the figure for the guy you nuked?) hit but also +1 for every citizen you kill and +? for every soldier?

How it is possible to get digit information about AI attitude?
My scrren advisor only says "Polite, gracious, Annoyed ets.) But exact number would be useful.

yeah get these numbers when playing in Debug mode, a cheat/debug mode for testing PtW scenarios.

Hey guys is there any cheat program to change AI attitude? If there is it would be nice. I want to make AI's fight each other and I supply them tech, gold etc.

Hey guys is there any cheat program to change AI attitude? If there is it would be nice. I want to make AI's fight each other and I supply them tech, gold etc.

Is there any effect on AI attitude toward you if you sink one of their privateers? I did that once to Japan (I knew it was their privateer because it stacked with Japanese naval units) and Tokugawa's attitude dropped from polite to annoyed.

@bootstoots

Read through the thread! Someone stated that the privateer attack was the same as killing a unit of a civ you're at war with. Not sure what their testing was.

Wow!!!

Good job.... Need to remember this.... I have huge problems with the AI's being mad at me.

Great cool job Bam, even if i don't read all 5 pages (only first [edit: 5th ^^] and last)

Perhaps this is writting somewhere between those two pages (scuse me if it is ;à) but i wanted to know if, when i get bad rep hit multiple time with one civ(greek), other AI civ that don't know the existence of the greek will be bad vs me?

I'm french so sorry for bad writing :rolleyes: :crazyeye:

Way to go, Bam. My style of play usually lends itself to a diplomatic win, and even before reading your comprehensive research it seemed to me that as long as you behave, you can allow yourself the breathing room of not racing towards the United Nations for fear of defeat- but rather looking forward to its building, because you know that if and when there is a vote, YOU will take it. </runon_sentence>

By the way.. doesn't it look like Temujin smells a really bad fart when he's upset?

The MOST USEFUL thread I have ever seen on Civ3. Thank you BamSpeedy!

The only bit I sussed for myself was that gifts of over 100 gold were a waste - all the rest was news to me.

I'm really impressed because this aspect of the game really intrigued me, and you've saved me weeks of fiddling about.

Well, gifts over 100 gold aren't really a waste. I at first thought they were, but found out differently. (The war acadamy doesn't get updated when I edit this article here-I just edited a few things I saw that I hadn't changed, and things I learned from Sir Pleb's studies).

A 100 gold donation gets them to the max of -10, but then this decreases at -1/turn (or 10 gold/turn). Gifts over 100 gold will keep them at the -10 for longer before that max. bonus starts decreasing. If you donate 200 gold, then they will stay at -10 for ten turns, then it will drop to -9, -8, -7, etc., until the 200 gold has been 'used up'. So the game does remember your gifts of over 100 gold, it just doesn't award you all those 'hidden' points.

But, yes, donating over 100 gold the turn before the UN vote would be a waste.

Oh right. Should have read it properly first time around. It's still the best thread on Civ I've seen.

Just one question; does the gift of cities alter the AI attitude as other gifts, or does it change with the number of improvements and citizens?

Does pop-rushing/drafting forgin nationals affect it?

Great article, Bamspeedy.

But I still have some minor questions.
1) Does building workers and settlers out of foreign population hurt your reputation (like starving the foreign population does).
2) I've already read in this thread that if you raze or autoraze a city, then it hurts your reputation. Also if you disband a city with more than or equal number of foreign population, then it hurts your reputation. Does it hurt your reputation if you disband a largely foreign city by building a settler out of the last (or last 2) citizens (i.e. you build a settler in a city with at most 2 population that doesn't grow).

Well, I went and bought workers from the Aztecs, joining these into my capital. I could draft, but only my own citizens. If my capital was 100% Aztec citizens, I could not possibly draft, even when waiting several turns, and over size 7, and not starving.
PTW 1.21

Building workers/settlers* does not hurt attitude.
BUT if you build a worker or settler in order to disband a city that has 50%+ foreigners in it, it is the same as if you razed it.
I joined aztec workers into Washington, and then rushed settlers out of it, and then eventually using the last settler to abandon it (pop 2). Aztecs went from annoyed (1), to furious (17).

*-see next post

This is weird.....

After using a foreign settler to build a city, THEN I get the attitude hit! It must view it as when I found the city as a population loss of it's people (maybe from the 1 population loss from settler-->city?).

--

Donations of cities are treated as a gift. At least the temporary maximum of 10 points, or 100 gold. Haven't tested to see how long that lasts, to put a more accurate value on it.

So the fastest way to get rid of a foreign city without getting a reputation hit is money-rushing settlers out of it untill it reaches fase 1 (while NOT starving it). Then add these (foreign) settlers to other cities. Then add 2 workers or 1 settler of your own people to the fase 1 city and disband.
Am I correct?

Hmm, I think I will take the reputation hit instead. As long as the AI civs still make gpt-deals with me, it doesn't bother me if they hate me.

Thanks for the research Bamspeedy.

Sorry if this has been talked about before (I didn't read much of this thread besides the first post), so here goes:

Is it known exactly how much attitude matters? Obviously it matters with the UN, and I'm sure an annoyed civ won't make as good of a deal in a trade as a gracious civ will, but how much of a difference? If you're not worried about a diplomatic victory, is attitude worth worrying a whole lot about? Is an annoyed civ more likely to declare war on you than a polite civ? I'm sure the power comparison matters more, right? What about the AI accepting/declining culture flips of your cities (I know that they sometimes actually decline)? Does attitude matter with that? And are there any other things that are affected by attitude?

Bamspeedy: Are you sure a size 1 city with 1-9 culture will be autorazed? I seem to remember the opposite, but unfortunately don't have any saves to prove it.

Originally posted by The Last Conformist
Bamspeedy: Are you sure a size 1 city with 1-9 culture will be autorazed? I seem to remember the opposite, but unfortunately don't have any saves to prove it. From what I recall there was a brief time-period -- I think in an early PTW patch -- where such a city would not auto-raze. However, they auto-razed in vanilla civ3 and in PTW 1.21f those cities auto-raze once again.

PTW 1.14, perhaps?

mumble-mumble-european patches-mumble

New quirk I found. Thanks to Puzzlinon for alerting me to this, though it disagrees slightly with his findings.

If you make a trade with another civ, and the trade route is broken, there is different consequences depending on what was traded and how the deal was set up.

I tested this with pillaging a road in nuetral territory.

If you are giving a resource (or gpt), and the AI also gives you a resource (or gpt) in that deal, then it is +1, and you can still make trades later on. Even if a lump sum payment is being given by the AI as part of the deal, you get this smaller penalty if the AI is giving you a resource or gpt payment as part of the deal.

If you paid with a lump sum for a resource from the AI, then you get the same +1 penalty, even though you were the one screwed in the deal.

If you are giving a resource, and receive just techs, a map, or lump sum payments, it is +4, and you get the 'rep hit' by not being able to sell any resources for lump sum (or maps), or to pay with gpt payments. However, you can still trade resources, as long as the AI isn't giving up any lump sum payment, or maps in the deal.

So, in other words, get the AI to give you gpt payments or resources in any deals where you are giving a resource!!

Question for Bamspeedy's last post:
what if the road was razed by another AI, would that ruin your rep too? Or if the reason your route was cut off was because you are at war with a nation that is directly in between you and the trading country.

It doesn't matter who's fault it is. The game doesn't look to see who's fault it is, only the fact that the deal was broken (unless someone deliberately breaks the deal by declaring war). All that matters is who is supplying the resource. If BOTH parties are supplying resources, or making gpt payments, your rep isn't ruined, but you do get a small attitude hit.

So to prevent a ruined rep, never accept a lump sum, tech, or map when you sell resources.

Good discovery. I had avoid selling resources/luxuries for eons becuase of the possible rep hit problem.

Originally posted by DaveMcW
So to prevent a ruined rep, never accept a lump sum, tech, or map when you sell resources.

Just to make sure people understand this correctly:

You can accept lump sum, techs, or maps IF they are also paying you gpt (or giving you a resource) in that deal.

Example:
Instead of selling horses for 500 gold and their world map, sell it for world map, 480 gold, and 1 gold/turn. That 1 gold/turn ensures that they are also taking responsibility of making sure the deal is held for the full 20 turns.

How are military alliances, MPP's and ROPs effected?

In a recent game I was warring with Carthage and brought the Arabs into the war with them giving a luxury in the deal, recieving nothing except the alliance in return.

It was a race to capture the last Carthage city and I defeated the last NuMerc captured the city. This ended the alliance 5 turns early and the attitude with the Arabs went from cautious to annoyed IIRC. I don't recall if I was shut out from gpt deals later because they were the next target :hammer:. Just wondering for future games.

Hotrod

One more thing: In GOTM21 I had a lux for tech deal go south. I traded incense for Lit to a civ connected only by a harbor. 3 turns into the deal I noticed an extra incence I didn't have and turns out the road from the harbor town to the capital was pillaged. I was giving the 20 turn lux for hard goods and was branded for the rest of the game. I was unable to get techs on credit and greatly effected my tech pace. NOW having read this if I had accepted 1gpt, and Lit for my lux I would've not had the black mark for the entire game?

How are military alliances, MPP's and ROPs effected?

I haven't studied these yet. My tests only had 1AI.

It was a race to capture the last Carthage city and I defeated the last NuMerc captured the city. This ended the alliance 5 turns early and the attitude with the Arabs went from cautious to annoyed IIRC. I don't recall if I was shut out from gpt deals later because they were the next target

If you did get the lesser of the attitude hits (+1), they would still go from cautious (0) to annoyed (+1). The bigger attitude hit, would be annoyed (+4), so you can't really tell just by looking at the attitude rank, unless a civ went from the low end of the polite range (-3, -2 or -1) to annoyed (+1, +2, +3). If you finished the game and still have some saves around, could you try loading some old saves and test if you can still make deals or not? I'd be curious to get verification on what happens. Do you remember what was included in the alliance deal?

I was giving the 20 turn lux for hard goods and was branded for the rest of the game. I was unable to get techs on credit and greatly effected my tech pace. NOW having read this if I had accepted 1gpt, and Lit for my lux I would've not had the black mark for the entire game?

That is what my initial tests are showing. If anyone can find examples of where this doesn't work, please let me know.

can anyone explain me why:

i start with opponents annoyed (on deity, logical)
- i give them a tech for free, they are polity
- i do nothing except for more trades, no war, nothing military, new governements arent even invented yet by anyone (its 3000BC)
-the get back to anoyed again.

seems there are either more negative things, or the gifts are temporary instead of permanent like stated.

Is this all changed in some patch or anything?

Because I felt like this was a legitimate question on page 6 (posted in July), I thought I would repost it:

Originally posted by WillJ:

Is it known exactly how much attitude matters? Obviously it matters with the UN, and I'm sure an annoyed civ won't make as good of a deal in a trade as a gracious civ will, but how much of a difference? If you're not worried about a diplomatic victory, is attitude worth worrying a whole lot about? Is an annoyed civ more likely to declare war on you than a polite civ? I'm sure the power comparison matters more, right? What about the AI accepting/declining culture flips of your cities (I know that they sometimes actually decline)? Does attitude matter with that?

How much DOES rep matter? Are trades with a gracious civ any more to the human's benefit than trades with annoyed civs?

Great work here! :goodjob:

-- From The Cellar :smoke:

Originally posted by CellarDweller22
Because I felt like this was a legitimate question on page 6 (posted in July), I thought I would repost it:

<SNIP>

How much DOES rep matter? Are trades with a gracious civ any more to the human's benefit than trades with annoyed civs?

Great work here! :goodjob:
-- From The Cellar :smoke:

For attitude (not rep!) dependent trade revenues/investments, take a look at Zwingli's study. (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?postid=1113349#post1113349)

Great thread! Thanks, Grille! :cooool:

So..... in all your spare time, do you guys actually get to PLAY the game?? ;)

-- From The Cellar :smoke:

Originally posted by WackenOpenAir
can anyone explain me why:

i start with opponents annoyed (on deity, logical)
- i give them a tech for free, they are polity
- i do nothing except for more trades, no war, nothing military, new governements arent even invented yet by anyone (its 3000BC)
-the get back to anoyed again.

seems there are either more negative things, or the gifts are temporary instead of permanent like stated.

Is this all changed in some patch or anything?

Yes, gifts are temporary. I had changed this in my first post, but I think the War Academy might still say this is permanent (I can't edit the War Academy, only Thunderfall can). Gifts de-value at the rate of 10 gold/turn. So if you give them 1000 gold, they will stay at the maximum happiness (-10) for 90 turns, then lose 1 point each turn for 10 more turns so that after 100 turns the 1000 gold is completely forgotten.

The starting techs aren't worth much (100 gold or so), so that usually won't keep them polite for very long.

Very good thread!:goodjob:

Bamspeedy I have 2 questions for you (or anybody) :

1. I don't like using ICBMs, but if they use them first to attack my cities, I usually just launch my ICBMs to theirs:rolleyes:. Is that effecting my rep ?

2.I am as Roman Demo. and have culture leads, and the most powerful civ, and owner of the second large continent. Before the war, every civs were polite (I trades luxs, and uranium to them), and having ROP with every civs (GR, UK, US, Aztec, and Iraq).
I need uranium which I trade with US for 190 gpt.
Then I signed MPP with GR (the most powerful civ on the main island), followed by UK. GR and UK become cratious. GR had MPP with US (the 3rd strongest). Then everything screwed up, UK attacked US. The status was :
I was at war with Iraq, Aztec and US.
GR was at war with Iraq, Aztec, and UK.
Iraq and Aztec was at war with every civs.
What I saw on the Foreign Screen, Iraq, Aztec and US were cautious. GR and UK were still cratious.
The first turn after the war, Iraq and Aztec landed some units to my mainland, and destroyed my rails. So I killed them.
The foreign Screen showed Iraq and Aztec were furious.
In couple turned I landed in the main continents around 60 MA/MI and 4 Armies supported by carriers and bombers, destroyed Aztec, but didn't razed any city (I always took the city when the city size was at most 6, bombard them, so no much resistants). But still could not find uranium.
I don't want to make war with GR, at least not in short turns (He has more ICBMs than me, and I couldn't make it anymore, SDI still couple turns to go).
Already arround 8 turns, and I noted:
GR never attacks UK (which force me to declare war on GR).
US never attacks me (which force GR to declare war on US),
and I didn't want to attack US either (but UK doesn't seem to bother, he keeps attacking GR, but luckily not in GR areas). I need US's uranium, is there anything I could do to trade uranium with US without my rep hit (until now, US still cautious to me)?
3. Just for my preparations, I place bunch of MA/MIs next to GR cities which has ICBM. If either one (GR or Me) declared war each other, do I get rep lost because of putting my units in GR territory?

3. Just for my preparations, I place bunch of MA/MIs next to GR cities which has ICBM. If either one (GR or Me) declared war each other, do I get rep lost because of putting my units in GR territory?

If YOU declare war (or you are forced to declare war because of a MPP), then you get the rep hit for having units in their territory.

If they declare war (or they are forced to declare war on you because of a MPP), then there is no rep hit for you.

MPPs are tricky, because someone else could screw up your rep for you by triggering a MPP while you happen to have 1 unit in somebody's territory.

I have always been angry at this rep system...

No wonder they all hate me... I always used privateers & nukes... ha ha...

Do you know the effects of giving them a city?

If you look a ways up earlier in the discussion, it's just like any other gift. Precise value unknown, IIRC, but easily enough to get you the maximum bonus.

would giving an AI 100gp/turn count as a one time gift or would it's effects last the 20 turns? :confused:

BTW this is one of the best articles I've read on Civ3 - really learned a lot. Thanks!

What an insanely detailed article! ;-)

+1 to +3 for using privateers (the victim adds on the penalty).

Does the penalty come from just building them, or do I have to actively attack the AI to get an attitude hit?

What if the AI attacks the Privateer? Does that make a difference?

Is it plausibe that an enemy civ (in a declared war) could vote in your favor to become Secretary General?


To get someone's vote at the UN it is necessary to have them "polite". Barely polite (at -1) is sufficient. But if they're at zero (cautious) or worse they will abstain rather than vote for you. I'm not sure what the rule is if a Civ is polite to two or more candidates. I think it is a fairly safe bet that they vote for the one they have the best relations with.

Assuming war is not an instant disqualifier, can you improve an enemy civ's attitude to polite?

Nope. AFAIK the best you can get at war is annoyed, which you can often get after a very long "cold" war (no shots fired).

I've had cautious multiple times, and the screenshots to prove it (I think). I've heard of polite.

OK, plowed thru this again. Questions: what about nukes? It seems that the previous notes on this thread say
1. nukes add +30 to attitude
2. attitude is permanent
3. nuke penalty is added regardless of whether first strike or retalation.

So..
1. Are nuke penalties commulative? +30 for each nuke?
2. Do nukes also count the number of kills, both military and citizens?

I think the answer to #1 is no and number 2 is yes, but wanting confirmation.

thanks

PF

These are the cultural groups:

Mediterranean
- Rome
- Egypt
- Greece
- Cartage

Mid East
- Babylon
- Persia
- Zululand
- Ottomans
- Arabia

European
- Germany
- Russia
- France
- England
- Spain
- Scandinavia
- Celts

Asian
- China
- Japan
- India
- Mongols
- Korea

American
- America
- Aztecs
- Iroquois

Hope this helps ;)
Hello Grey Fox!
I'd like to tell you about one of my observations. I'm sure there must be different atitude positions between the civs cultural groups.
For Example, I play at the Emperor level with Rome. Every time I played I saw a very agressive atitude toward me from Persia, Babylon and Arabia. Persia has an excellent rate of developement, is almost always the richest country and the best trading partner but also is always seeking to declare war to Rome or to join every existent alliance against Rome, during or immediately after the 20 turns end of a trading session. They declare easily war even if they are at the opposite site of the map!

Sorry to resurrect an old thread (perhaps "classic" is more appropriate). Three questions for the forum:

1. If a nuke were given hidden nationality, would the relations hit be the same as normal? It appears it would, since attacks with Privateers give the standard relations hit.

2. If a treaty is nullified by the elimination of a player, does it give a rep/relations hit? Example: I have a military alliance against Netherlands with Rome, America, England, and Spain. [I did this because Netherlands has no cities and 1 Settler left, and I can't find it, so I'm enlisting help from the AI, who can "see" all units on the map, to track it down.] When someone kills that last Settler, it will break off these treaties. Will I have a negative repercussion from the broken treaties?

3. Has anyone asked Thunderfall to edit the War Academy article?

3. Has anyone asked Thunderfall to edit the War Academy article?

I asked him twice to update my "10 General Rules of Modern Warfare" article, but he never responded nor updated it...I'm not sure about the others.

(...)
2. If a treaty is nullified by the elimination of a player, does it give a rep/relations hit? Example: I have a military alliance against Netherlands with Rome, America, England, and Spain. [I did this because Netherlands has no cities and 1 Settler left, and I can't find it, so I'm enlisting help from the AI, who can "see" all units on the map, to track it down.] When someone kills that last Settler, it will break off these treaties. Will I have a negative repercussion from the broken treaties?
(...)


You will only suffer the consequences if you kill their last unit.

I'm surprised this lengthy doc doesn't include the effects of hurrying production by killing off civilians or starving your people. How do you go into debug mode to test these things out, anyway?

=$= Big J Money =$=

You will only suffer the consequences if you kill their last unit.

If you finish off an AI and thus end MA, your reputation is intact, but your alliances' attitude will be worse. That is ok, you can still trade with them and get attitude back. Note this doesn't include the case where your MA is signed with a peace treaty together! In that case, AI thinks you break a peace treaty, and your rep is ruined.

How does sacrifice affect attitude? Anyone know?

I always boob by declaring on a civ id forgotten im trading luxuries or gpt with.

Is there a quick way to check existing deals and when they run out?. I can never find it.

Click "active trades" (or something similar) on the F4 screen or in communication with the other civ.

thanks great info.

I realize this post has been up since way before I ever knew C3C existed, but I recently encountered a game situation that I cannot explain based on the contents of this thread. I feel like something potentially significant has been left out. Figured I'd post it to see if anyone can figure out what's going on.

I'm playing C3C 1.22, Chieftain, World Map is Small, I'm Hittites in Republic. I'm at war with Zululand (also in Republic), and no other civilization (Korea, Egypt, and Carthage, all Republics as well) has been involved in our war whatsoever. Zulu has only one city left, size 2, which has only been Zulu's capital for 1 turn. Its culture should only be at 1 (due to the moved Palace from the last Zulu capital I captured). It is undefended with a galley fortified inside the town. I have an embassy and a Right of Passage agreement with both Egypt and Korea. I have no embassy with Carthage or with Zululand. None of the civs have a Right of Passage agreement or trades with Zululand.

Situation 1: I move my knight into Zulu’s undefended city. I raze it. Korea, Egypt, and Carthage all remain polite towards me (just as they have been virtually the entire game).

Situation 2: I move my knight into Zulu’s undefended city. I capture it. Then, immediately after doing so, I abandon it. Korea goes from polite to annoyed with me. Carthage and Egypt remain polite.

Situation 3: I do NOT move my knight to capture the Zulu's last city. Instead, I abandon all the towns I recently captured from the Zulu that still contain 50% or more foreign (Zulu) citizenry. After 6 city abandonments Korea and Egypt still remain polite towards me. Carthage changes from polite to cautious after the 6th abandonment.

Situation 4: I move my knight into Zulu’s undefended city. I capture it. Then, immediately after doing so, I abandon it. Korea goes from polite to annoyed with me. Carthage and Egypt remain polite. Then, I additionally abandon the exact same 6 cities as I did in Situation 3. No attitude change from any of the other civs.

Situation 5: I abandon the exact same 6 cities as I did in Situation 3. Carthage changes from polite to cautious again, and Korea and Egypt both remain polite. Then, I move my knight into Zulu’s undefended city, capture it and then immediately I abandon it. Egypt remains polite. Carthage remains cautious. Korea changes from polite to furious. (Huh!?)

Situation 6: I abandon the exact same 6 cities as I did in Situation 3, plus I abandon 1 extra city that also contains 50% or more foreign (Zulu) citizenry. Carthage again changes from polite to cautious, and Korea and Egypt both remain polite. Then, I again move my knight into Zulu’s undefended city, capture it and immediately abandon it. Egypt goes from polite to cautious. Carthage goes from cautious to annoyed. Korea goes from polite to furious.

Situation 7: I abandon the exact same 6 cities as I did in Situation 3, and I again abandon the 1 extra city that also contains 50% or more foreign (Zulu) citizenry. Carthage again changes from polite to cautious, and Korea and Egypt both remain polite. Then, I move my knight into Zulu’s undefended city, and raze it. Carthage remains cautious, and Korea and Egypt both remain polite.

Now, I have followed this thread religiously to ensure that no other civilization has ANY reason to have a grudge against me (other than inevitable issues like changing governments or becoming the most powerful civ). The only other possible strike against me is that I auto-razed one of Zulu’s cities during the last war.

There have only been 3 wars the entire game: 1 was me (Hittites) versus India where I destroyed them early in the game before India met anyone else, and 2 were me (Hittites) versus Zulu. All 3 wars entailed absolutely no involvement from anyone else.

Any thoughts?

(NOTE: I have the save in case anyone wants to see/test it. For some reason the forum isn't letting me post it here but if you're interested just ask me for it here and provide your email, or ask me by email at jfranks1019@hotmail.com)

EDIT: .sav file attached!

There looks to be a penalty for starving cities - it may be that abandoning them counts, too.

Not sure why korea has such a large penalty, though....

I've observed an inexplicable attitude hit once before, I assume it's a bug.

I made thread (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=184044&highlight=attitude) about it, but the mystery was not really solved.

huh - well, that certainly seems to be the same thing - abandoning cities with all foreign population.