"we're sorry this had caused a divide between us" & "get over it"

[monkeymcbain]

I see these two options all the time in diplomatic discussions. It never seems to make a difference which one i pick. Does one have a higher penalty than the other?
It doesnt seem to actually effect the AIs status with me now matter what tone i speak to them in

[notadummy]

no, it really doesn't make a difference of which one you choose to say

[KokeenoPokameso]

I don't think so. It's probably just flavor text for role playing.

I hope I'm wrong I would like it to work where if you take the "we're sorry..." opption would give you a smaller hit but if you continue to offend them in this way you will start taking a bigger hit than if you had just said "get over it"

[PhilBowles]

Originally Posted by KokeenoPokameso

I don't think so. It's probably just flavor text for role playing.

I hope I'm wrong I would like it to work where if you take the "we're sorry..." opption would give you a smaller hit but if you continue to offend them in this way you will start taking a bigger hit than if you had just said "get over it"

It used to make a difference in Civs 1-3, I think also to some extent in Civ 4 - I think it's been retained because it's expected. But I agree, it's disappointing that it doesn't seem to make any difference.

[skyclad]

I always go for the honest option, and I hope the gamemakers made the choice matter at least a little. The other civs already hate me for being a warmongerer so I dont want to be a liar too.

[smallfish]

There seriously needs more options (and accompanying modifiers) to the dialogue options with AI.

Like when you mass troops at your hotly-contested border because its the sovereign thing to do and the AI goes paranoid "R U INVADE R US", I want to have more options than just saying "haha suck this Barbarossa" or "no no we just like sneaky".

Given that apparently embassies will be included in G&K, I certainly hope this will get a change or five.

[Lone Wolf]

It used to make a difference in Civs 1-3, I think also to some extent in Civ 4

There had been no "honest vs straightforward" dichotomy in Civ1-4. Yeah, you could refuse an AI's demand or accept it, but that's another category entirely.

[PhilBowles]

Originally Posted by Lone Wolf

There had been no "honest vs straightforward" dichotomy in Civ1-4. Yeah, you could refuse an AI's demand or accept it, but that's another category entirely.

Civ 4 had its joke options - you could give a straight response, or a humorous one. Pretty sure the earlier installments all had a two-answer system, even if it wasn't the same 'honest/straightforward' dichotomy.

I miss having a humour option. Though I find the AI leaders themselves have more flavourful lines of their own.

[Lone Wolf]

Civ 4 had its joke options - you could give a straight response, or a humorous one.

Don't remember any joke options there. It has the usual two-answer system of agreement and disagreement. All answers had different obvious effects.

[PhilBowles]

Originally Posted by Lone Wolf

Don't remember any joke options there. It has the usual two-answer system of agreement and disagreement. All answers had different obvious effects.

well, not jokes, but humorously-phrased responses.

[Zaimejs]

I get angry when Washington says, "Yeah, that's right!" or whatever he says. It made me start a war with him last night. Smart A$$

[Aristos]

maybe I am imagining things, but I am under the impression that there is an effect for each response. The gentle one, "I'm sorry...", seems to work as the answer to a last warning. For example, I bribe some CS close to another civ, the leader of that civ comes up complaining about it, I choose "I'm sorry...", and everything stays apparently the same. Yet if I go and do it again (bribe another CS inside his sphere of influence), then he gets mad at me for the fact AND for not sticking to my word. The other option, in the same scenario, would mean telling such leader "I will do what I want", meaning he will get immediately mad at you for the fact, but no negative impact for breach of word becasue there was none.

That is how I feel it works (based on the effects I have seen in my interaction with the other leaders), but I have no "xml-based" proof... perhaps somebody dug into the files to confirm/deny this?

[KokeenoPokameso]

In CiV G&K they have increased unit hp from 10 to 100 in order to fine tune how combat plays out.

would something similar work with diplomacy? Instead of a an action giving you a +1 or -1 to diplomacy you could be getting or taking +10 or -10. This way the "we are sorry..." option could give you a -8 and if you say "get over it!..." you would get a-10 to diplomacy.

Another advantage would be that negative or positive modifiers can fade slowly over time. So you promise not to settle near them and every two to five turns you don't settle near them you lose -1 modifier of the original -10. This way you don't have civs sway between FRIENDLY and HOSTILE and back again in two to three turns.

[headcase]

Originally Posted by PhilBowles

well, not jokes, but humorously-phrased responses.

The only one I remember is "your head would look good on a pole (WAR)" which had an obvious effect.