Leif Roar: The Civs in Civ also generally tell you how it is between you. The initial animation and commentary as you open up the diplomacy screen always tell you this. When they're friendly, they even call you "My friend." I have very rarely been under attack from former friends without the relationship souring first, and that has been the case in history as well. bruntfca: Just because you disagree doesn't mean that you have to be unpleasant, and I clearly earmarked where I said that my preference for opaque diplomacy was a preference. Being unhappy doesn't hit your combat rating. Being very unhappy (at -10 happiness or less) gives you a -33% penalty, among other maluses. Unhappy and Very Unhappy are different states, and the game goes out of its way to smack you in the face with the exact differences. This is different from how it was done before, so yes, going unhappy large only stops your upward growth, as I said. You can check out the files in your own game for confirmation, if you wish. Doctor Phibes: If it's anything to do by, I find the AI extremely reluctant to do war with me when we're trading three or more resources with each other. I can understand how Pearl Harbor was viewed as inevitable, and when the Japanese fleet went "missing," American generals should have deduced where it was headed. That said, as I mentioned before, most of the AIs have decided likes and dislikes, and they are more likely to respect or not respect you depending. I've noticed that Gandhi really doesn't like it when you go around warring with people. Alexander doesn't mind much, but he's more likely to attack you when he's got nothing better to do - like expand or attack someone else. The diplomacy in the game is opaque, but it is hardly unreadable.