A simple guide on how to make AIs love you.

[PhilBowles]

I don't know wich game you are playing but it certainly not civ 5.

These are changes I'm suggesting should be made, not ones already in-game.

SUre you will piss some people off and you have to choose wich one.

Exactly. The problem comes in when you can't make that choice. You don't know who's going for the Great Library when, so how do you know who you're annoying? You can to some extent choose neighbours by expanding preferentially in one direction or another, but often not at the start of the game. At the moment the only guide I have in my decision-making is the personality of the Civ in question - given the choice I'll settle closer to Gandhi than to Oda. I'm fairly sure that if I make the right overtures I can placate Harald or Hiwatha even if we're neighbours; I can't be so sure about Alexander.

You get negatif modifier because the AI settles near you and they thinx you settle near them. Or you are a warmonger because you took 1 citie in a defencive war.

All those things are to sensetive

That's exactly what I mean when I mention that symmetrical modifiers need to be removed.

No the point of the game is TO HAVE FUN
So you like to play a game with a lots of penalties? I don't I want to play a game thats fun and doesn't punish me from thinxing out of the box and trying new strategies.
A lot of these diplomatic options aren't fun at all at higher difficulties you have to do everything exactly the same don't expand fast don't built wonders exploit the AI his gold and then take over the world.

Most essentially single-player games have optimal strategies, particularly computer games where the AI is necessarily constrained to act in an ultimately predictable way. Civ 4 was infamous for the exploitability of its diplomatic AI. It was always going to be the case with Civ V as well.

This is why I preferentially play on Emperor. I consider myself a competitive player, in that I enjoy competing and winning on my terms, and seeing my strategy come to fruition. And yes I have fun seeing how far that approach takes me on Immortal. But I deliberately steer clear of the 'how to win the game' shopping lists available, or of playing the game only the way it's designed to be won on Deity, because that's not my strategy, it's someone else's. Emperor's the level with the best balance for me - I can reliably survive a game, and while usually without a high score relative to the AI, I'm mostly able to do so with a good shot of winning whatever victory condition I set myself. On the other hand, sometimes the AI will go one better, and while I can generally match any civ one-to-one in war, it's set at just the right difficulty that if I'm at war with more than one major or semi-major power, I will need to call in allies to survive. So I can't afford to ignore diplomacy, while having enough flexibility to be able to pick and choose my enemies and allies rather than being forced to live in fear of everyone (which leads to no DoFs, no denunciations, and generally no diplomacy beyond WAR!).

 

[DevilHell]

I hope they fix diplomacy system in G&K because one thing is to give the AI Gold production happiness boosts and 2 workers one scout and 2 warrios with 2 settlers, but another is to have all the AIs against ONE player, with no form to avoid it.
Nice post

 

[Dogmouth]

The catch-22s you've identified are particularly annoying.

AI: I demand a valuable resource! Player: No (-15), Yes (-30).

AI: Please declare war on XYZ! Player: No (-15), Yes (-40 or -100).

 

[Saxony]

I hope they fix diplomacy system in G&K

They have promised.

 

[Fluffball]

On the subject of the modifier for trading, i have only seen it appear a few times and that has exclusively been after i have been at war with a civ and they have surrendered.i.e. offered me everything they have apart from their capital and i have taken it.

I have never seen it in 'normal' terms, no matter how much i trade with another civ.

 

[PhilBowles]

On the subject of the modifier for trading, i have only seen it appear a few times and that has exclusively been after i have been at war with a civ and they have surrendered.i.e. offered me everything they have apart from their capital and i have taken it.

I have never seen it in 'normal' terms, no matter how much i trade with another civ.

It only comes up if you trade in their favour (presumably in the above case the civ considers being allowed to survive as a trade in their favour). If you give them a free luxury you'll get the modifier, or even a small amount of free gold. Also if they set a high price and you accept (e.g. you ask them what they'll accept for a luxury they won't part with on a 1-to-1 basis, and you pay it).

So you can trade indefinitely with mutual open borders, no-strings-attached research agreements or gold-for-spices, and you'll never get the modifier because none of those are seen as favouring your trading partner by the AI.

 

[snarzberry]

Couple of things. I see no mention of competing for the favour of the same city-states, which is a negative modifier. Also, these numbers are only part of the equation. Every civ has flavour towards all of these diplo categories which are subject to a dice roll at the start of the game adjusting that value to a max of 2 up or down. That flavour value then affects how much they are angered by these player actions.

As per this thread, some of the info is outdated, like PoS etc, but you get the idea...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=401897

You can see by these values how powerful friendship triangles are where you all denounce and/or are at war with the same leaders. That's reinforcing positive modifiers well over 100 and is your ticket to long term friendly relations.

 

[tetley]

Couple of things. I see no mention of competing for the favour of the same city-states, which is a negative modifier

Hee hee I was competing for the favor of a CS with Egypt the other day (Egypt maxed out patronage) when we kept swapping who was allies over and over to the point that I had over 400 influence with them. I got sick of it and I just DOW'ed him. He didn't compete for the CS' favor anymore.

 

[Kaosprophet]

In principle, it forces player choice - you're going to annoy someone whatever you do, so it's a good idea to pay attention to who you're annoying and make your decisions accordingly. In essence it's the reason people liked the religion mechanic in Civ IV, although the influence of choice of religion/civics on diplomacy was moderate save with a few heavily religion-focused civs.

Heh, not in my experience. Even with the moderates, religion was one of the more dominating factors - at least, if you're hoping to get anyone past neutral standing.

Re trade, I've got the impression that it doesn't make a difference how much you trade, and that there's little point trading if you already have a trade positive - is this not correct? And does gifting a city/unit count as trade in this context?

If you care about the relationships, you'll want to avoid letting that one decay. And I *think* there's weighting for how favorable the trade is towards them - a (legitimately) fair deal carries very little if any weight, slightly generous ones a little more and so on. So if you're offering borderline deals, you'll likely need to offer more of them to keep this bonus up. But that's based off qualitative impressions, not code-diving.

In my current game I'm about to take Berlin in a war I accepted at Siam's suggestion - the system is definitely broken in that regard if Siam is then going to give me a hit for capturing a capital.

Depends on perspective. From a simulationist-viewpoint, it's absolutely broken. From a machiavellian gamist perspective, though: taking that capital grows your power, and that's not good for Siam's chances. Time to start distancing themselves from you, and perhaps plotting on ways to knock you back down a notch or two once Germany is done with. From that perspective, it's more or less working as intended (albeit often through more circuitous routes...)

Much of the problem with Civ5 diplomacy, IMO, is that it's trying to fit both the simulationist and gamist mindsets and chokes horribly where the two conflict. One of the things I liked about Permanent Alliances in Civ4 was that it provided an out to that issue. (Too bad it was also horribly exploitable.)

Is there no penalty for having units near another civ's territory? I blame that on a war dec I had in one recent game (with an AI who had previously coveted my territory, but was only showing the strong positive 'common foe' modifier). In the Wonders of the Ancient World scenario (which may of course play by different rules), Alexander contacted me to express concern about the units massing on his border - I don't know if it caused a diplo penalty because I declared war on him at that point.

He's complained at me about similar in the vanilla version as well. Though at that point, it's hard to say if my troops were creating a diplo penalty, or if his moaning was just a contextual expression of pre-existing diplomatic issues (he'd already declared on me twice, coveted my lands, and was upset that I'd taken Thebes and wiped out the Egyptians - despite the fact that he was the one who took everything but Thebes from them.)

+ Liberating a capital (major with civ that is liberated, moderate with other civs. More positive with Civs that have Freedom policy branch, less positive with those that have Autocracy).

Should be negative with anyone who didn't like the civ your liberating Or, gamist-wise, with anyone who thinks they're going for a domination VC. ("Stop making more work for me, you ****ard.")

And seriously, while keeping the giant territorial claim max penalty is okay in terms of your relations with certain civs (I'm looking at you, Oda), make it much harder to get that big a hit generally. This is something you have little control over (and even less while it has the bizarrely symmetrical effect it has now), and it can lead to war far too early, often before you've had a chance to earn the cash or develop the spare resources you need to get even a basic positive.

"Working as intended." From the Machiavellian perspective, that is

Reduce likely negative outcomes generally for 'We're after the same Wonder', since there's no way of controlling for that.

Again, I think that's an attempt to 'humanize' the AI in a competitive fashion. When someone builds a wonder you wanted, most people start thinking "okay, how do I take that for myself?" When someone makes a habit of beating you to the wonders you're trying for, most people start thinking "y'know, maybe if I mess him up a little I can start beating him to these instead... and take the ones I missed for myself."

No the point of the game is TO HAVE FUN
So you like to play a game with a lots of penalties?

Actually, to some extent: yes. One of the biggest issues I had with Civ4 was that my simulationist-tendencies wouldn't let me go all warmonger on people who liked me. Backstabbing everyone just wasn't fun for me. Diplomacy degradation in Civ5 mitigates that, because most of the AI's just stop liking me over time. In a sense, I've taken the perspective that these aren't actually penalties, they're just events that create a game-flow.

I also like that it creates more early-game conflict. You get to see more combat at miltech-parity, instead of being able to consistently rely on

I don't I want to play a game thats fun and doesn't punish me from thinxing out of the box and trying new strategies. A lot of these diplomatic options aren't fun at all at higher difficulties you have to do everything exactly the same don't expand fast don't built wonders exploit the AI his gold and then take over the world. .

I don't see how your AI rivals refusing to just smile and boost you along while you exploit the hell out of them till you can formally stab them in the back (and they never see it coming) is an actual punishment.

The AI bloody well *should* get annoyed at you when you hog the good wonders, or expand right in his face to block off huge swaths of land and cripple his own expansion. Likewise, when you've started on a rampage of wiping out everyone on your land-mass, even your friends should start to get a bit nervous when you start running out of other targets your army keeps growing...

 

[gladoscc]

If you have troops near them, it increases their "your threat to us" level and that's fcatored in for wars.

 

[shihuacao]

Just switch to a lower difficulty if you feel AIs are too hostile.

Seriously, AIs above Kings are supposed to be your obstacle for winning (AKA your enemy).

 

[gladoscc]

Another problem with the AI is that, the majority of "declare war or not" is based on your military strength, your threat to them, your proximity, your economic strength, are they prepared for war.. Your altitude still makes a difference, but it's significantly less compared to Civ 3 and Civ 4

 

[PhilBowles]

Hee hee I was competing for the favor of a CS with Egypt the other day (Egypt maxed out patronage) when we kept swapping who was allies over and over to the point that I had over 400 influence with them. I got sick of it and I just DOW'ed him. He didn't compete for the CS' favor anymore.

I've never had anyone declare war with me over a CS unless they had other major negatives.

Heh, not in my experience. Even with the moderates, religion was one of the more dominating factors - at least, if you're hoping to get anyone past neutral standing.

I'm referring mainly to my recent Civ IV experiences (mostly I don't remember the older ones in detail), in which I tend not to go for early religion. So by the time a religion does spread to my territory I'm already friendly with the civs I know due to the passive trade/border bonuses. In my last game as Khmer (which never completed since it was MP with two of us and a bunch of AIs, and my friend hasn't got back to it yet) I am, I think, Buddhist, and I have two or three neighbours (I think including the Arabs) with negative modifiers for heathen religion. All my relations are still friendly, because this is a -3 or -4 penalty and I've accumulated more than that in the passive positives.

Depends on perspective. From a simulationist-viewpoint, it's absolutely broken. From a machiavellian gamist perspective, though: taking that capital grows your power, and that's not good for Siam's chances. Time to start distancing themselves from you, and perhaps plotting on ways to knock you back down a notch or two once Germany is done with. From that perspective, it's more or less working as intended (albeit often through more circuitous routes...)

Wow, taking Berlin was a hassle, and one of my most frustrating Civ V experiences - at one point I ran out of melee units and had to retreat until reinforcements arrived, and then even with a couple of catapults and an archer, all with promotions against cities, it still took forever. When Germany wasn't spamming Landsknechts to defend the capital it seemed to have an inexhaustible supply of archers.

That's what I get for telling the troops they'd be in Berlin by Christmas...

He's complained at me about similar in the vanilla version as well. Though at that point, it's hard to say if my troops were creating a diplo penalty, or if his moaning was just a contextual expression of pre-existing diplomatic issues (he'd already declared on me twice, coveted my lands, and was upset that I'd taken Thebes and wiped out the Egyptians - despite the fact that he was the one who took everything but Thebes from them.)

Maybe only Alex does that... I didn't get a complaint in that game, just a war.

Again, I think that's an attempt to 'humanize' the AI in a competitive fashion. When someone builds a wonder you wanted, most people start thinking "okay, how do I take that for myself?" When someone makes a habit of beating you to the wonders you're trying for, most people start thinking "y'know, maybe if I mess him up a little I can start beating him to these instead... and take the ones I missed for myself."

There needs to be a balance that recognises that's a good way to design an AI, but at the same time that recognises that it IS an AI in a game that's played by the humans. The key thing is control - diplomacy is only fun and workable if you can actually steer the outcomes in directions you want. Fine if it takes work to do so (such as bearing in mind which civs have expressed interest in which city-states, or what victory condition they appear to be after), but something completely outside your control is another matter. If espionage restores the ability to identify which civs are producing what, then yes the wonder penalty makes sense, because you get to make the call as to whether you accept the diplo hit from rushing it yourself or not.

 

[apocalypse105]

Couple of things. I see no mention of competing for the favour of the same city-states, which is a negative modifier. Also, these numbers are only part of the equation. Every civ has flavour towards all of these diplo categories which are subject to a dice roll at the start of the game adjusting that value to a max of 2 up or down. That flavour value then affects how much they are angered by these player actions.

As per this thread, some of the info is outdated, like PoS etc, but you get the idea...

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=401897

You can see by these values how powerful friendship triangles are where you all denounce and/or are at war with the same leaders. That's reinforcing positive modifiers well over 100 and is your ticket to long term friendly relations.

Yeah only prolbem with that is that all thse flavors are to high every AI hates wonder building ,warmonger's, city state compettivness

there are only a few AI's who doesn't hate one of these things instead of there are only a few leaders who hate you for doing a certain thing .

Another problem with the AI is that, the majority of "declare war or not" is based on your military strength, your threat to them, your proximity, your economic strength, are they prepared for war.. Your altitude still makes a difference, but it's significantly less compared to Civ 3 and Civ 4

yeah thats why you see so many stupid wars from the AI against eachother and denounciations

 

[Kaosprophet]

Just switch to a lower difficulty if you feel AIs are too hostile.

Seriously, AIs above Kings are supposed to be your obstacle for winning (AKA your enemy).

Odd, I find the AI is actually easier to get along with at Emperor than it was at Prince or King.

Another problem with the AI is that, the majority of "declare war or not" is based on your military strength, your threat to them, your proximity, your economic strength, are they prepared for war.. Your altitude still makes a difference, but it's significantly less compared to Civ 3 and Civ 4

I think that was actually the intention.

 

[chazzycat]

Here's an actual simple guide:

1) don't try to befriend everyone, pick a couple friends that make sense based on geopoliticical situation
2) for those friends you actually care about, don't do obvious stuff that will piss them off. Expand towards a different AI. Don't steal their CS. etc. Even give them stuff when they ask for it.
3) always denounce your opponent before DOWing, denouncing parties are a great way to consolidate your allies
4) be proactive, don't let diplomacy just sort itself out. if you do you get dogpiled.
5) be careful with DOF. Sometimes they are not needed at all, sometimes they come in handy. you REALLY don't want to DOF someone you will have to go to war with later.
6) never sign DOF with crazy AI like Alex or Monty or count on them for anything.

 

[PhilBowles]

Odd, I find the AI is actually easier to get along with at Emperor than it was at Prince or King.

These aren't mutually exclusive, I don't think. A good player isn't one who declares war left right and centre, after all. I lost my last Emperor game to a Russian science victory just before I could complete my Utopia Project (well, okay, 20 turns before). Neither of the two civs which had tied me up in war appeared to have any victory condition or any prospect of meeting their goals. The Russians weren't pacifist (when I called on their military aid, they promptly nuked half of Babylon), but they knew to limit their wars. While the AI that declared most wars - Harald Bluetooth (I was about the only one on the continent he didn't go to war with due to our DoF and various other bonuses) - was down to one city for much of the game, and that only survived because I was between him and Rome.

Here's an actual simple guide:

1) don't try to befriend everyone, pick a couple friends that make sense based on geopoliticical situation
2) for those friends you actually care about, don't do obvious stuff that will piss them off. Expand towards a different AI. Don't steal their CS. etc. Even give them stuff when they ask for it.
3) always denounce your opponent before DOWing, denouncing parties are a great way to consolidate your allies
4) be proactive, don't let diplomacy just sort itself out. if you do you get dogpiled.
5) be careful with DOF. Sometimes they are not needed at all, sometimes they come in handy. you REALLY don't want to DOF someone you will have to go to war with later.
6) never sign DOF with crazy AI like Alex or Monty or count on them for anything.

All good advice. I'd also add a point about another neglected feature of diplomacy - the defensive pact. These can come in handy if you have a well-situated, militarily capable ally, and preferably one not prone to being picked on by civs you don't want to fight (otherwise you'll either be pulled into the war or suffer a diplomatic hit). Even if you don't need their help in the war itself, it can consolidate a friendship if you're attacked as you'll get the 'We fought against a common foe' bonus, and most friendly civs will accept a defensive pact while they'll demand an arm and a leg if you want them to declare war on someone for you.

EDIT: A helpful guide to forming friendships (feel free to add):

Make friends with Hiwatha ... if you'd like to stop him wandering round your territory and measuring it for carpets, please.
Make friends with Gandhi ... if you don't want to find yourself denounced by him and all his friends, usually most of the universe.
Make friends with Harun al-Rashid ... as long as you never, ever show any interest in city-states he wants (i.e. all of them)
Make friends with Isabella ... if you want to be with the popular kid. She always seems friendly with everyone...

Make friends with Genghis Khan ... if you need an ally with a powerful army. Don't need an ally with a powerful army? If you're friends with Genghis you will. I hear he's waiting for the Huns so that he won't come first in 'Most Unpopular Leader' contests. At least not every time.

Make friends with Alexander ... if you are prepared to declare war on his enemies.
Make friends with Oda ... if you are prepared to declare war on his enemies soon.
Make friends with Montezuma ... if you are prepared to declare war on his enemies next turn.

Make friends with Bismarck ... if you can spell his name. Lots of people here talk about 'Bismark', and he goes to war with most of them. Coincidence? I think not!

Make friends with Ramkhanhaeng ... if you can pronounce his name. Ramkhanhaeng doesn't have many friends.
Make friends with Harald Bluetooth ... because he doesn't have many and it's easy to feel sorry for him.

 

[Kaosprophet]

These aren't mutually exclusive, I don't think. A good player isn't one who declares war left right and centre, after all.

The thing is, the AI doesn't actually get any smarter between levels - it just gets more bonuses. The reason it's behaving more cooperatively, I think, is because I'm running at closer to parity with it. Not pulling so far ahead that the code prompts it to jump into desperation haymakers nor falling so far behind that the code evaluates me as easy-pickings.

Also, though war is the most obvious result of bad relations, there's plenty of space existing between war and friendship. In my first game Japan never declared on me despite flipping from obsequiously friendly to blatantly hostile the second he wiped out America. (I wound up declaring on him, as he put the map into a state where I could just snipe a domination victory - his capital was coastal on a continents map, and we were the only two who hadn't lost our capitals. Didn't even need to slog through his army.)
As an aside: he came close to victory in that game by 'declaring war left right and center.' Given his position - and choice of VC - it was the right move in that game. He just failed to build a navy, and left himself wide open to getting sniped.

By contrast, my latest Emperor game, his slide from friend to enemy is much more paced out, and is more clearly related to my making friends with guys he considers "targets." There's more room to maneuver, and it seems much better odds that I could stay friendly with him until it's just him and me left if I wanted to.
(Not sure if I want to do that or not... if I did, it would be to set up another snipe. Otherwise, it's better to turn on him and preserve my trading partners.)

Make friends with Genghis Khan ... if you need an ally with a powerful army. Don't need an ally with a powerful army? If you're friends with Genghis you will. I hear he's waiting for the Huns so that he won't come first in 'Most Unpopular Leader' contests. At least not every time.

Caveat: must be willing to not be friends with anyone else.

 

[PhilBowles]

The thing is, the AI doesn't actually get any smarter between levels - it just gets more bonuses.

That's always been my understanding, and it's the way all previous Civ AIs were programmed, but I feel like I do see better behaviour from the AI in various aspects of play at higher levels - they pay more attention to city-states (but maybe because they have more gold?), CSes themselves are more active beyond their borders, there is some improvement in the way they play combat (I'm not seeing the much-derided "lead with ranged" much these days).

EDIT: I'm now fairly certain the AI is programmed to make combat easier at lower levels. Played partway through a Warlord game in MP today (as I and my regular Civ partner were teaming up with one of his friends, who only just got Civ V). Attacking Darius (one of three AI players at the start of the game), he had an archer garrisoned in his city, but while he'd bombard my units with the city and had line of sight to them with the archer, he never used it to fire, while on Emperor the AI defender will always fire with his garrison, as a human would (and Bismarck did so annoyingly effectively too). Attacking Bucharest later in the same game, the same thing.

The AI on Emperor will fortify, reinforce, or back off from a melee that will certainly cost it a unit with no gain. Darius had no compunctions about running a slightly wounded Immortal into my full health Swordsmen (who were standing on a hill), in a combat he can't have calculated he'd have won. On Emperor I'm used to the AI being wary of attacking with equal-tech units if it's been damaged, sometimes even if it seems likely they'd win the fight, never mind more primitive ones.

Also, Darius tried to move out with settlers several times, and in no case were these ever protected. I always see settlers being herded by Warriors on Emperor - yes, well into the medieval era and later, but at least it's programmed with a basic instinct for preserving non-combat units.

The reason it's behaving more cooperatively, I think, is because I'm running at closer to parity with it. Not pulling so far ahead that the code prompts it to jump into desperation haymakers nor falling so far behind that the code evaluates me as easy-pickings.

Yes, I suspect this is likely to be the case. Certainly I got through the lower levels by having a big enough military to prevent early aggression - but at the same time I'm never close to the top in pointy sticks rankings even on those levels since I don't often play highly aggressive games.

EDIT: Again this Warlord experience. I tried to sign an RA on meeting Wu Zetian (the only surviving AI player - I didn't want an RA with the humans partly because they'd just made one and may not have had the funds, but mainly because I was trying to preserve my tech advantage over them, particularly my nearest rival who had the Porcelain Tower) and she wasn't having any of it; she wouldn't even accept a basic open borders deal. I did get it by trading her horses I didn't need, a token amount of cash, and one-way open borders which she'd get no use from being on another island. In this game I'd been aggressively expansionist, taking Persepolis before 1 AD and grabbing its ally Bucharest to gain points with Singapore soon afterwards. I had a large army with, at that time, three cavalry, a couple of Mandelaku, and assorted cannon, musketeers, crossbowmen, pikemen and longswords, as well as a couple of frigates, and could sustain much more since my strategy for this game had been, pure and simple, to maximise my gold income. I was the highest-scoring player, and ranked 500 points higher than poor Wu. I don't usually play that aggressively or with that large an army, and I don't normally encounter that intransigence over mutually beneficial deals, so there definitely seems to be something in your notion that a civ won't deal with you if it's too scared of you (in MP you don't get to see relationship modifiers with the AIs).

As an aside: he came close to victory in that game by 'declaring war left right and center.' Given his position - and choice of VC - it was the right move in that game. He just failed to build a navy, and left himself wide open to getting sniped.

I think Japan has to be an exception to that rule - after all, the Civ pretty much has to go for domination, and while I've seen leaders from Gandhi to Genghis go for non-domination victories, and indeed change strategies during a game, I'm not sure I ever have seen that with Oda (but then, Oda usually forces me or another player to reduce him to insignificance early on; I'm not sure I've seen him get close to victory). Japan is also the only domination-themed civ the AI can use moderately effectively, because of the bushido ability.

By contrast, my latest Emperor game, his slide from friend to enemy is much more paced out, and is more clearly related to my making friends with guys he considers "targets." There's more room to maneuver, and it seems much better odds that I could stay friendly with him until it's just him and me left if I wanted to.
(Not sure if I want to do that or not... if I did, it would be to set up another snipe. Otherwise, it's better to turn on him and preserve my trading partners.)

In my games with him, one or other of us hasn't lasted long enough to test his commitment to long-term friendship. Usually when I find him he's my neighbour (this is what's known as Sod's law, I think), and his desire for my territory tends to trump his other concerns even during friendly periods. Last time he showed up in one of my games, I declared war on him preemptively (trying unsuccessfully to recapture Delhi from him - not my own city, but I thought the Indians might be grateful), wiped out his army, and he was friendly from then on - but that game didn't go the distance either (can't recall why).

 

[black213]

16. Do NOT get denounced by anyone. 20 modifier each.

Oh, so that's why I always get chain-denounced. Pretty dumb game design in my opinion.