In many a Civ 3 game I was put into situations in where my reputations with A.Is were ruined and I could do nothing about it. For example, an enemy captures a city with a luxury that I was trading to another AI, it would seem like I cancelled the deal before acceptable. The result was, I could never trade with ANY AI ever again. Not to mention stuff like having peace treaties forced upon you when you're in a military alliance. I realize the player needs to be penalized, otherwise he would just abuse the whole system and always win. But this is ridiculous, make one simple mistake and you are screwed for the whole game. (Sometimes you don't find out after some turns later, and there's no auto save that far.) There's got to be some system of earning back your reputation. For example, the AIs charge ridiculous prices after breaking a deal, but with every successful deal your reputation goes up, so the next time the deal will be cheaper, etc. Right now the system is bogus and essentially FORCES you to restart if you want to continue to play the game.
Allow you to fix your reputation.
- Thread starter garric
- Start date
warpstorm
Yumbo? Yumbo!
garric said:
I've never once restarted due to this. Be a man and deal with it.
If in real life I had a contract to supply you with goods and something outside of my control prevented me from fulfilling the contract, your lawyers would have a suit on me in a heartbeat.
Reputations should be allowed to heal, but it should be very hard and take a long time.
RCL
Chieftain
I would like bad reputation result in increased price only. After all, there's no such thing as "I will never accept the deal" in real life, it's all about offering large enough money 
Phyr_Negator
Anti-tolerast
RCL, would jews sell Jerusalem to Palestinians? Would some country bertray it's best ally, who protect them from enemy, for money? The point is that should be separated - in Civ3 CPU would not ever sell you even smallest city. There should be things you can do and can't. Simply define them.
RCL
Chieftain
Phyr_Negator said:
Those actions are unlikely because they contradict the vital interests of aforementioned nations. However, they are unlikely, not impossible. "Friends cannot be bought, but they can be sold"
What would you call 1938 Munich agreement as not "selling" the Czechoslovakia to Hitler? Czechoslovak government agreed to cede large territory to Germany - basically sold the independence of their own country, not for money, but for peace (also an option on "Diplomacy" table in Civ
)There are also numerous examples of nations (or rather governments) selling their independence for some benefit (just look up colonization history).
Whether the deal is likely or not - is a separate question, but everything should have its price. Why not buy the entire civilization for 1,000,000 gold ?
With such a wealth, you should look pretty attractive for them to join :>
Phyr_Negator
Anti-tolerast
That related to some bad AI behavior when even with devastated army and totally overwhelmed he can say something like: "Surrender now or my Mighty army will wipe you out of planet!". SMAC AI behavior will fit well - surrender but not annihilated, just like protectorate.
Japanrocks12
tired of being a man
Civilization III was a dynamic game in terms of the AI. Some showed humility in your presence, while others were very condescending to you. This does not give you the right to screw any deal up against an AI personality you despise.
searcheagle
Emperor
Should you be allowed to fix your reputation-sure.
Should it be done with a related factor? Yes. Therefore, if you dont provide the goods you said you would repay them or provide them with gifts. However, it would not be done through building wonders and CI. Those do not provide appropriate balance.
Also, even after your rep repairs, you will always have the record remain. A public record should remain of all negative reps and positive reps remain once an embassy is formed.
Should it be done with a related factor? Yes. Therefore, if you dont provide the goods you said you would repay them or provide them with gifts. However, it would not be done through building wonders and CI. Those do not provide appropriate balance.
Also, even after your rep repairs, you will always have the record remain. A public record should remain of all negative reps and positive reps remain once an embassy is formed.
Israelite9191
You should be reading
I think you should be able to fix your reputation by building certasin wonders, like you could with the Eifel Tower in Civ2. Just add a few more, one or two per age, and there you go.
Israelite9191 said:
Negative, Ghostrider. Such a Wonder would have no purpose in a multi-player game. Reputation-enhancing Wonders are a hack to address AI faults. The solution is to fix the AI, not to damage the game by introducing silly Wonders.
Roland Johansen
Deity
In civ 3 some small events could ruin your reputation for the game:
-You sign a treaty with the Romans to supply them with a luxury good for 20 turns in return for 150 gold. However after 3 turns a barbarian ship moves on the only coastal route that transported the luxury good and the trade route and the treaty is broken. Now your reputation is ruined for the game.
You should of course have known that it was a risky trade route, so you are partly responsible for the broken treaty. But still the penalty is a bit large. For the game, it can be too difficult to see that you weren't entirely responsible, so I suggest the possibility of repairments being paid to the AI.
So, at the moment the trade route is broken, an angry Ceasar appears and tells you that you are a liar and that he will tell the world that you shouldn't be trusted.
You can respond with
A: Maybe, we can discuss this matter and settle it for a reasonable price.
B: Romans are cheaters themselves and should be treated as such.
B would lead to a ruined reputation with every civilization that the Romans know. A would lead to some negotiations. Depending on how long the treaty would still have lasted and the money involved in the treaty, a repairment cost can be calculated by the game. In this case, a reasonble price would for instance be that you paid back the 150 gold (essentially, you supplied the luxury good for free for 3 turns, you lose 3/20 = 15% of the value of the trade). In this case, your reputation would be fine.
-You sign a treaty with the Romans to supply them with a luxury good for 20 turns in return for 150 gold. However after 3 turns a barbarian ship moves on the only coastal route that transported the luxury good and the trade route and the treaty is broken. Now your reputation is ruined for the game.
You should of course have known that it was a risky trade route, so you are partly responsible for the broken treaty. But still the penalty is a bit large. For the game, it can be too difficult to see that you weren't entirely responsible, so I suggest the possibility of repairments being paid to the AI.
So, at the moment the trade route is broken, an angry Ceasar appears and tells you that you are a liar and that he will tell the world that you shouldn't be trusted.
You can respond with
A: Maybe, we can discuss this matter and settle it for a reasonable price.
B: Romans are cheaters themselves and should be treated as such.
B would lead to a ruined reputation with every civilization that the Romans know. A would lead to some negotiations. Depending on how long the treaty would still have lasted and the money involved in the treaty, a repairment cost can be calculated by the game. In this case, a reasonble price would for instance be that you paid back the 150 gold (essentially, you supplied the luxury good for free for 3 turns, you lose 3/20 = 15% of the value of the trade). In this case, your reputation would be fine.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
I definitely feel that there should be a range of reputation-effecting events.
So, for instance, accidentally breaking a trade deal or treaty might lead to a small, short term loss of reputation (you simply aren't considered 'reliable').
A deliberate breaking of a trade deal or treaty should lead to a longer term loss of reputation OR a larger-but still short term-loss of reputation.
Outright backstabbing behaviour (like going to war with a partner in an MPP or just generally launching suprise attacks) should lead to a larger reputation loss. Then you would have Atrocities , the worst types of crimes a player can commit, and the type which cause both a large and sustained loss of reputation.
Of course, how much you actually lose-and for how long-should ultimately depend on how much you have in common with the civ in question-be it in terms of culture group, religion or civics choices. Also, by the same token, there should be deeds you can perform which actually increase your reputation, as a useful means of removing smaller stains from your long-term ledger!
Anyway, just a thought.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
So, for instance, accidentally breaking a trade deal or treaty might lead to a small, short term loss of reputation (you simply aren't considered 'reliable').
A deliberate breaking of a trade deal or treaty should lead to a longer term loss of reputation OR a larger-but still short term-loss of reputation.
Outright backstabbing behaviour (like going to war with a partner in an MPP or just generally launching suprise attacks) should lead to a larger reputation loss. Then you would have Atrocities , the worst types of crimes a player can commit, and the type which cause both a large and sustained loss of reputation.
Of course, how much you actually lose-and for how long-should ultimately depend on how much you have in common with the civ in question-be it in terms of culture group, religion or civics choices. Also, by the same token, there should be deeds you can perform which actually increase your reputation, as a useful means of removing smaller stains from your long-term ledger!
Anyway, just a thought.
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
I don't play games to piss me off. If I'm playing a game and no AI will be friendly with me or trade me anything, well, unless I have a huge lead and a huge army to conquer the whole world, the game becomes a pain in the ass and boring to me. Maybe you like to play like that, but I'm sure 90% of the people don't.warpstorm said:
Roland Johansen
Deity
Aussie_Lurker said:
While I do think it is fun to define a range of reputation-effecting events (not all reputation damage in Civ3 is equal), I do think this is (in general) too difficult for any AI.
Consider the following ways for an exploitive player to 'accidentally' break a trade route. In all cases the treaty is such that the player pays something per turn while the AI pays a lump sum or a technology. So a premature ending of the treaty would be beneficial for the human player.
-After signing the trade agreement, you pillage the roads and destroy the harbors that are needed for the trade route. This might be detectable for a well programmed AI as something that is not accidental, but consider the following.
-You are planning to go to war with Rome. The only road connecting you and Greece is close to Rome. You sign a treaty with Greece and let Rome pillage the road in the upcoming war.
-You've seen a barbarian ship moving along the only possible trade route connecting you and an AI player. At the moment that the ship is not blocking the trade route for a moment, you sign the trade agreement.
-The only possible trade route between you and Greece goes through Roman territory. After signing a trade agreement with Greece, you let the Romans declare war on you (irritate them through numerous demands and then demand that their ship that is moving through your territorial waters leaves your territory. A sure way to get an AI to declare war in Civ3 (and also exploitive because you get War Happiness.)
I'm sure that a few of the more accomplished players can think of some more ways to 'accidentally' break a trade treaty, that won't be detectable for an AI.
I think that a system where you can pay repairments to avoid reputation loss (see previous post) is a better idea. Although I agree that a system to repair your reputation slowly by keeping a number of treaties is a good idea. Although exploitive players will use this by signing phony treaties (20 gold for 1 gold per turn). Again difficult to avoid exploits here. Maybe look at the value of the treaties.
Almost any diplomatic system can be easily exploited by creative human players. That is what makes it so difficult to make a good diplomatic system. You can easily add numerous features, but writing an AI that can handle it is extremely difficult.
Aussie_Lurker
Deity
I think though, Roland, that you simply cannot seperate changes to diplomacy from changes to trade. If trade was made to be more valuable (in both monetary and research terms) then even the most creative players will seek to try and maintain their trade routes for as long as humanly possible-and only deliberately break one if there were very clear short/long term benefits to doing so. For those who genuinely lose a trade route by accident (and, as I predict, with an improved trade system this would be in 99% of cases) an overly punative loss of reputation-in terms of standing or duration-is ultimately unfair.
Of course, a player who consistently seeks to 'accidently' break trade treaties would find him/herself quickly becoming unable to sign trade deals except under the most extreme circumstances (for instance, where said civ has a monopoly on a certain resource which one or more other civs desperately needs).
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
Of course, a player who consistently seeks to 'accidently' break trade treaties would find him/herself quickly becoming unable to sign trade deals except under the most extreme circumstances (for instance, where said civ has a monopoly on a certain resource which one or more other civs desperately needs).
Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
I think the way reputation spreads should be looked at as well. Think of "the boy who cried wolf" story. Anyone familiar with it should know the moral of that story, which is that a persistant liar will not be believed. Civ-reputation should be the same way.
For example ...
I'm playing as Romans and I have contact with the Egyptians and English. We all have contact with each other and start out with peace treaties.
Egyptians declare war on the English (the Egyptians take a rep hit)
Egyptians and English make peace again with Egypt being forced to supply a luxury resource (for 20-turns) in return for a peace treaty.
Then later (but before the luxury trade expires), the Egyptians declare war on the English again (Egyptians get a rep hit again from declaring war and breaking the trade agreement)
I, as the Romans, decide to deal with the Egyptians and give them a luxury resource in return for a lump sum of gold (for 20-turn deal)
I decide to break the deal with the Egyptians. Since the Egyptians have such a bad reputation against the English, the English would never believe anything they say so I should ONLY get a bad reputation against the Egyptians but NOT against the English.
So, to the English, the Egyptians are liars and are not to be believed so my bad reputation with the Egyptians is not reflected on the English
Of course, those in good terms with the Egyptians would still stain my reputation so, lets say the Egyptians contacted the French, then the English came in contact with the French. My bad reputation would then be known to all and all my wheeling and dealing would have been all for nought
-Pacifist-
"A good reputation is more valuable than money" -?
For example ...
I'm playing as Romans and I have contact with the Egyptians and English. We all have contact with each other and start out with peace treaties.
Egyptians declare war on the English (the Egyptians take a rep hit)
Egyptians and English make peace again with Egypt being forced to supply a luxury resource (for 20-turns) in return for a peace treaty.
Then later (but before the luxury trade expires), the Egyptians declare war on the English again (Egyptians get a rep hit again from declaring war and breaking the trade agreement)
I, as the Romans, decide to deal with the Egyptians and give them a luxury resource in return for a lump sum of gold (for 20-turn deal)
I decide to break the deal with the Egyptians. Since the Egyptians have such a bad reputation against the English, the English would never believe anything they say so I should ONLY get a bad reputation against the Egyptians but NOT against the English.
So, to the English, the Egyptians are liars and are not to be believed so my bad reputation with the Egyptians is not reflected on the English
Of course, those in good terms with the Egyptians would still stain my reputation so, lets say the Egyptians contacted the French, then the English came in contact with the French. My bad reputation would then be known to all and all my wheeling and dealing would have been all for nought
-Pacifist-
"A good reputation is more valuable than money" -?
Roland Johansen
Deity
Aussie_Lurker said:
At the higher difficulty levels, trading technologies is one of the most important aspects of the game. If you don't do this, it will be very difficult to keep up with the AI in the technology race. If your reputation is ruined early in the game, it will make the game a lot more difficult, as you can't trade technologies for gold per turn anymore. I'm wondering how you want to make trading more important. But however you do it, there will always be moments that it is beneficial to break the treaty.
Aussie_Lurker said:
My post was about the inability of the AI to recognize if you deliberately or accidentaly broke a treaty. Considering this, I think it would be nice if you're able to pay repairments to evade the reputation loss. Players would do this if the treaty was broken accidentally and wouldn't do it if it was deliberate. So people who break treaties deliberately will gain a one time boon while the others will be able to save their reputatin. What's wrong with such an option? It's realistic too: in real life if a civilization would make a mistake towards a powerfull neighbour, it would like to be able to repair his mistake. Paying some money or something else to make the other civilization forget the mistake. The repairments should be relative to the losses for the player that is disadvantaged by the broken treaty. The AI should also have the option to pay repairments to you, to avoid its own reputation loss.
Consider the following: you're playing a competetive multiplayer game and some players are trading with one another and others are fighting a war. Suddenly one of your trade treaties is accidentely broken. The human player with whome you were trading pays you a visit and angrily demands that you give him something to compensate for his losses or else he won't trade with you anymore and tell the other human players that you can't be trusted.
Of course lots of threats can be made in a multiplayer game, but in this case the other disadvantaged player has a right to be angry and if you don't pay any repairments, other players might not trust you anymore and that would probably lead to you losing the game.
If this kind of behaviour is logical in a multiplayer game, then why not add it to human-AI diplomacy?
Corvex
Emperor of Canada
I think that when you break a deal, your reputation should suffer, but if you have a revolution, it should be restored to default (to reflect the fact that a different government is in place now)
Similar threads
