I mean, come on, Japan isn't angry at us for bombing them back in '45 anymore. France and Germany got over their past hatreds and even the US and Russia have had significant improvements in relations. Seriously, I think it's ridiculous that after you go to war or have a treaty violation it's almost impossible to restore your rep.

i agree with this maybe have it between 10 and 20 turns, 10 turns to restore your rep after breaking Trade embargoes and Military Alliances then 20 turns for ROP, MPP, Peace treaty but i think use of nukes should still have high rep damage and only reapairable in certian circumstances

as realistic as this may (or may not be) i think this is a real hazaard to gameplay.

attack somebody
make peace
wait 20 turns
finish em off

just bad for the game all around

Doesn't have to be like that. I don't recall how it worked in Civ2, but your reputation was restored over time.

Penalties come to mind. Say, the first 30 or 40 turns after you've betrayed someone, in order to sign GPT deals you have to agree to a non-aggressiveness pact, plus x times the normal GPT for it. You blow that, and your rep takes a severe hit. YOu keep it, and your rep goes up. After a time, it slowly restores itself.

Not a bad idea....would love to see it in C4.

Edit: wouldn't mind seeing Civ-specific reps, too. Say you're america, and you break a deal with babylon. Well, Persia doesn't like Babylon much this game, so they're willing to overlook your deal breaking with them. It would be much more complicated, but it could help your rep over time, i.e. credit-type references.

I was also thinking that a civilization shouldn't be hypocritical. For example, in Civ3, say a certain civilization is constantly breaking deals. When you break the same deal, they still get after you. This should rarely happen in Civ4.

To reduce the AI's willingness to break deals, why not program the game to automatically take out a percentage of your treasury or your income for breaking a treaty? Say, for example, you're playing as France, with 10,000 gold and 600 gpt. You abuse a ROP to invade Germany before the treaty expires, and this causes you to lose a percentage (let's say 5-10%) of your income due to trade with the victim being cut off or a drop in the stock market.

Another idea is to automatically cut off all current deals with other civs if you break a treaty. If France was trading luxuries with Spain and attacked Germany through a ROP, Spain would remove its traders from the country for protection. These would force the AI to more heavily weigh the consequences of breaking a deal.

Finally, about restoring rep: It should be much easier to repair relations with another nation, especially if they had been long-time trading partners before the war. Let's say you had the option of paying damages along with the peace treaty, and that would restore the AI's stance from furious to annoyed-polite after 20 turns. The more you pay, the higher the chance the other civ will forgive you.

And no upper limit to the amount of gifts you can give. ;)

Right. Gifts should go a ways to restoring your rep.

As for your idea, bg132, I really think rep should go have the same mechanics (sorta) as attitude does in Civ3. You have a rep value, and depending on your actions you get points added or taken away. So if you have a long time trading partner, you get rep points for every period of the deal (since trades currently work for 20 turns, I'm assuming that it's not going to change. Would like to see variable deals, tho. But that's another topic) and if you break it, you take a big hit on it. But it's recoverable over time, or if your rep is good with the country, it doesn't take away your GPT deal potential. You just might have to pay more for it.

I also have a huge problem with reputation in of itself. The AI will go to war with you because of your rep. Whereas in a multiplayer game, it's more likely you'll go after a player with a GOOD rep (since the players with bad reps are more dangerous, and the goodie goodies are often in a position of weakness).

There needs to be an equalizer to bring the AI strategy in sync with the player strategy.

I was also thinking that a civilization shouldn't be hypocritical. For example, in Civ3, say a certain civilization is constantly breaking deals. When you break the same deal, they still get after you. This should rarely happen in Civ4.

A liar can recognize a liar, you know. If I were the most evil, treacherous person on earth, why would I have any reason to trust anyone? If someone is willing to go to war with your enemy for money, what's to stop them from doing the same to you?

Okay, how about a more complicated system for it then? Like, for example, they get a rep hit if they're hypocritical in that sense.

I definitely think that the reputation system needs to be far more 'complex', and should factor in your culture versus the other civ (so a civ with low culture might be more prepared to overlook the treaty violations of their cultural superiors ;)), cultural relationships (so two nations from the same culture group may well be more forgiving of each other, than nations from two very different cultures), shared government types (two democracies might more quickly forgive past violations than a communist/democracy!), Current Era, preferred/shunned government type, and comparative atrocity levels! All of these factors would have a role in reducing/increasing the base time for reputation repair!! In addition, like in civ2, there should be improvements and wonders which can artificially boost your reputation (anyone remember the Eiffel Tower? ;))!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

I don't think it is unrealistic for civs to bear grudges over very long periods. Look at England and France, China and the Mongols. Nemeses make it more fun (most folks don't have more than one, which is why it looks weird in the plural).