AI attitude

[pilferman]

That was an excellent research topic! That must have been some few weeks. Your work is much appreciated.

Now, on to master diplomacy...

 

[Hygro]

Seems this made front pgae news! I'm just a littled bothered by the fact that it could be obsolete info with this latest patch.

 

[Aggie]

This is just great! Thanks very much Bamspeedy
What also has been discussed a lot at CFC is the difference between attitude and reputation. A general oppinion is: your attitude can be great, but your reputation is ruined after breaking a ROP deal. With all the negative effects on trade. Did you also get clarification on this?

 

[CivAgamemnon]

Thanks for the article, Bamspeedy. Very informative. Now I know how to get on their bad side.

Anybody want to get on my good side? Mail me 100 gold!

 

[Gen]

Truly impressive Bamspeedy!
So, using slaves is OK but selling your people hurts ... I wonder if turning slave into airport, outpost, colony or tower counts as disbanding/killing? Didn't find that info in your report, Bamspeedy, maybe it wasn't tested?
I'm interested because creating radar towers and airports is main task I use captured workers for...

 

[MSGT John Drew]

some powerful info here! thanks Bamspeedy!

in addition though, may you also please try to find out if these numbers also affect currently 'unknown' civs. e.g. if I raze 10 Aztecan cities, will I see a +10 penalty (+1 x 10 for razing alone) permanently etched on Joan's face when I finally meet the Frenchwoman?

a many thanks!

 

[Bamspeedy]

Aggie-I think I understand what you're saying. Like I stated before, I did not test how attitudes affect what civs would pay (or charge you) for things. I would have to test it, but I'm guessing that attitude may change the price (I'm thinking of lump sum payments here, not gpt payments), and that could be why some civs seem to charge higher prices for techs than other civs. It would be interesting to see if prices vary because of attitudes or reputation hits, or a combination of both.

Gen-yes, I did forget to test whether creating an outpost would be considered as disbanding of the worker. I didn't think about that.

MSGT John Drew- Joan would only give you the penalty if she meets the Aztecs, or meets someone who has met (or had known of the Aztecs). If you kill the Aztecs before he meets anyone else, you get no attitude or reputation hits. If another civ, let's say Germany has met the Aztecs before you destroy the Aztecs, then blabber-mouth Bismark would be more than happy to tell Joan about all the nasty deeds you did to the Aztecs.

I'm sure others have witnessed this, because other people have reported that selling contact caused a drop in attitude. This was because of one civ telling the other civ about your bad reputation.

Think of it this way: your own people, or your advisors-ambassadors would rather forget your dark past and would not tell the French, but other civs would love to dig up dirt about you, to get on better terms with the French.

 

[ProPain]

Awesome article. Just what I needed for the 4-1 tournament game

 

[Bamspeedy]

So, using slaves is OK but selling your people hurts ...

Actually, now that I think about it, there may be a reason for this. Remember in PTW, workers cost about 5X as much as vanilla Civ3 (approx. 125 gold pieces). This penalty could be there so that you couldn't have worker factories in place for the sole purpose of building workers just to sell them off for techs, resources, lots of cash, etc. (ICS would be great for this). You still could do this, but you'd be eventually getting everyone annoyed/furious with you.

 

[Gen]

Yes, I understand logic behind this but don't you think this should work both ways? I can buy or capture workers and use them freely as long as I don't disband them, without any diplomatic penalties.
I was always a bit reluctant to buy workers (in vanilla Civ3 they were much cheaper indeed) because I feared bad repercussions. I'm not going to stop using slaves now, even when planning diplomatic win. I'm just surprised this is programmed that way.

 

[CivAgamemnon]

Surprises me too, Gen. A slave is normally seen as "disposable" goods, so to speak. Once you get them, the country they came from wouldn't necessarily know about them or their conditions, much less care a great deal.

Do slaves ever lose their status and become regular workers? I've never seen anything that suggests that.

 

[Gen]

Originally posted by DJ54
Do slaves ever lose their status and become regular workers? I've never seen anything that suggests that.

No, they never change their status nor nationality and there is no way to "liberate" them other than selling or giving them to their native civ. However, after joining them into a city they eventually assimilate over time.

 

[CivAgamemnon]

Ok, thanks, Gen.

 

[Frimlin]

Thanks, Bamspeedy! Another informative addition to our community from you!

-10 maximum for any gifts? That sucks!! And to think of all the times I've given away loads of techs, gold and resources to certain Civs again and again, all without them feeling hardly any of the gratitude I had assumed they would feel. I think that's a bit wrong.

My Altai civilization gave Korea about 15 techs, over 3000 gold and loads of important resources last night, in an attempt to help them defend against the Japanese... and now I know they would never have appreciated it even slightly as much as a human player in the same position would.

Please tell me if I've got it wrong, but if I haven't, I officially declare this issue as, at least partially, stupid.

 

[Godinex]

I will never have more than -11 ... this is bad

 

[Anastazi]

Great job, Bamspeedy! Thanks for doing the research and posting it. It was truly informative and helped me to understand the whole attitude thing, which, until now, has been a complete mystery to me.

 

[WillJ]

Excellent work, Bamspeedy! This is certainly one of the best CFC articles ever. After reading your article, I was too lazy to read the entire thread, so sorry if these points/questions have already been brought up:

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
-10 maximum for any gifts. You can get -1 point for every 10 gold worth of techs/gold that you DONATE to them. Giving them a tech for 1 gold piece or map (even if the map is ’’worthless’’) does not count as a gift. You can’’t get more than -10 points from gifts. Giving gifts on the next turn, or next few turns, has no effect once you reach the -10 cap. It does not look like this decays over time, or that giving more gifts centuries later helps at all., if you‘‘ve exceeded the cap.

That right there is VERY useful. Now I know that giving 1000 gold gifts is waste of 900 gold.

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
-2 If you have an embassy with the AI

Yay, so I WAS right about my theory of embassies improving attitude.

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
...If you have any units in their territory when you break the ROP treaty, and other civs won’’t sign ROP with you anymore and will add +2.

So you're absolutely sure that this is permanent?

 

[Buckets]

Excellent work! I do have one question: Are you sure that failing to plant a spy is a permanent attitude modifier? I've experienced the negative attitude many times from failing to plant a spy, waited ~10 turns and their attitude improves, repeat. Keep in mind i am speaking about civ3 vanilla 1.29, but i imagine much is the same.
Again, thanks for all this work!

 

[delmar]

Thanks Bamspeedy, very useful article indeed.

Originally posted by Bamspeedy
-1 to -3 for each enemy unit (of common enemies) you destroy and tiles you pillage, -7 for razing an enemy city, but all of this is temporary - AFTER the war or the civ is destroyed, you will get the +1 penalty for each razed city added back on, plus the +1 penalty for declaring war (even if you had joined the alliance). Any damage you did prior to signing the alliance (but during that same war) gets immediately added on. The total effect seems to cap at -15 for doing damage and having an alliance, -13 if you do everything else, but don’t have the alliance in place. This decays at -1 each turn, unless you destroy a unit or pillage a tile each turn to keep it at the maximum. So when peace comes and the -15 ‘temporary’ points is automatically taken off, it may seem like you took an attitude hit by signing peace or destroying the civ, because the other AI have a worse attitude towards you.

Am I the only one who feels that this is a serious flaw in Civ3? It doesn't make any sense to me that my allies get mad at me after we finished what we set out to do...

 

[Bamspeedy]

Buckets- You are correct. I just failed at an espionage mission and waited about 20 turns and was able to recover all the points.

I'll edit the original post.

Edit: +3 seems to be temporary, +1 is permanent. Here was my study:

As the Americans on Chieftain, I have the Aztecs normally at -6 (and I'm sure the Aztecs have the power lead, because they have 10,000 gold while I have 1,000.). After making a trade, I get them to -7. I plant a spy (successfully), then fail at 'expose enemy mole' (guaranteed to fail). This drops them to -3, and after waiting 20 turns it returned to -7 (after trading maps to recover the 'recent trade' point. However, I should have been at -8 since I now have the culture lead from having to build the Intelligence agency.