AI attitude

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?
 
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?
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

R
How to teach AI to not make bad peace offers to some distant Team members?
Replies
6
Views
401
Recursive
Recursive
Slyceth
  • Locked
(7-VT) Pledging fealty to an AI player to cure constant frustratingly petty war declarations.
Replies
5
Views
311
axatin
A
J
Disable FOW for all AI-players
Replies
0
Views
147
japanesesamurai
J
L
Any Mods for Diplomacy AI?
Replies
2
Views
202
leighhobson81
L
Ozymandias
Manipulating AI Unit Builds
Replies
18
Views
1K
Civinator
Civinator
Top Bottom