Diplo: Elizabeth tells me my economy is in a pretty sad shape. And then?

[Mercade]

Lord Elizabeth of England just showed up on my doorstep and said:

Travellers have told us that your empire's economy is in a pretty sad shape. If you beg a little I might give you a hand. Okay, actually I won't.

The response choices are:
1) You'll pay for this in time.
2) Very well.

So, apart from the obvious taunt, what is the concrete message and action? Is she offering me a loan? Offering to give me money? Offering nothing?
And whare do the actions entail? I assume that "very well" is just something like ignore-and-go-on, but will "You'll pay for this in time" actually accomplish something? Or is it just an exchange of diplomatic unpleasanteries that cause a -1 to our relations?

 

[bhavv]

Why do the female leaders have to be called lords? How did they miss that during testing?

 

[Alsark]

It's pretty much just them taunting you. If diplomatic modifiers exist in the game, we can assume that, "You will pay for this in time," would create a larger relationship penalty than "Very well," (albeit if that's the case, why not always pick "Very well"?). I'm thinking it doesn't matter what you pick, really.

 

[Swedish Berserk]

Same thing for me. I declared war on Singapore and took their city. The turn after that Ghandi gave me the same choices as you got... And he was saying something like this: Nice of you to pick on the weak. Something like that!

 

[Megajames75]

I think it's a game mechanic to warn you of your weaknesses

 

[Tomice]

Maybe the game wants to tell us about relations? The "your economy is weak" taunt could give us a hint that they are likely to attack us. Gandhi might have been pissed, and his words were there to inform us?

 

[GeoModder]

I guess irony is not for everyone to understand.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

The OP does have a point though-although I don't want a return of visible bonuses/penalties, I do think its a bit too difficult to tell what other nations actually think of you!

Aussie.

 

[Mercade]

The OP does have a point though-although I don't want a return of visible bonuses/penalties, I do think its a bit too difficult to tell what other nations actually think of you!

Aussie.

While I agree that it's not easy to see what other nations think of you, my point was more specifically around the fact that it was not clear whether it was (a) just a taunt indicating Liz doesn't like me, (b) a nice way of the system to say my economy isn't too great or (c) whether it was actually an unarticulated offer of something tangible.

 

[ButSam]

I doubt it is (c). It is most likely (b) AND (a). You can provoke aggression (which may be handy sometimes...perhaps you want war with Liz but you don't want to be the one to make the declaration b/c you don't want to bring in Defensive Pact partners she has, and/or you want to bring in Defensive Pact partners you have.) In general, though, you probably don't want to provoke.

That said, I did notice that some of the seemingly meaningless choices actually do have significant meaning. I gathered units around Babylon outside his borders, and the AI noticed and asked me wuzzup. I responded they were just passing through instead of the truthful build-up toward war response. When I finally did declare war, Babylon said they would ensure the world knew of my betrayal. Now that I have discovered other civs, it does seem they are more sour with me in general, so I think I did lose trust by not being truthful in that response.

I don't see how the economy message you got could be construed in that way, but just be forewarned that sometimes those choices where you think you can get by with pacifying the AI may come back to haunt you down the road if the AI can catch you in a lie.

 

[ButSam]

The OP does have a point though-although I don't want a return of visible bonuses/penalties, I do think its a bit too difficult to tell what other nations actually think of you!

Aussie.

You can get some idea based on their opening statement when you choose to talk to them. Usually it's neutral...but sometimes it's generous or hostile. I've also seen "Afraid" messages on the Diplomacy screen when they fear you are going to take them over, and they occasionally pop up saying how much awesomer you are and pleading for their existence.

I do wish we had a 5-tier Hostile-to-Friendly ranking from our advisor at least based on what our advisor thought was our current status...like in Civ 2-4...but minus all the specific modifiers in Civ 4.

 

[Vimp]

One could suppose that the developers went to the extent of making the choices have different outcomes based on the circumstances involved. As an example, it might be that choosing the option "You'll pay for this in time" may have the effect of causing that leader to become intimidated by you depending on the personality of that civ and/or the power difference between your nations. Or that, based on those same variables, they will become more inclined to fight you or at the very least, dislike you more. The two reactions might be determined by how easily that leader has been programmed to be intimidated by others.

On the other hand the other response, "Very well", may have two different outcomes as well. Again, depending on the variables involved one effect might be that nothing changes. While another possible effect might be that they will view you as a pushover and therefore easy to conquer or intimidate.

 

[CrimsonEdge]

Am I the only one that finds it rather easy to see how a nation views you?

Go and greet them. If they say something negative, chances are they view you poorly. If they say something positive (keywords like: friend, ally), chances are they view you positively.

Go trade with Catherine for a while and then go demand things from Bismarck and gauge their reactions.

As for the two choices, the civs seem to 'talk' with the other civs that the two of you know. For example, if you place a lot of troops along the border of somebody you don't have open borders with, they will pop a message up that asks you of your intentions. You have two options:

1. Just passing through, don't worry about it.
2. Die!

If you choose the second option, war is declared and all is well. If you choose the first option they'll say alright. If you then declare war on them they tend to say "Others will hear of your treachery."

I did this in my last game. Before I did this Rome was friendly and open for trading. After I did this, Rome was friendly but not open for trading. Ever.

Not even accepting of peace after I took all but his last city.

 

[Celevin]

What I don't like is in pure strategy terms without roleplaying, 95% of the time it seems better to take the friendly response. Why would I want the equivalent of negative modifiers, with anybody? Is there some sort of system where AIs look badly upon you as a whole if you declare war on someone you're in good relations with?

 

[Feyd Rautha]

Am I the only one that finds it rather easy to see how a nation views you?

Go and greet them. If they say something negative, chances are they view you poorly. If they say something positive (keywords like: friend, ally), chances are they view you positively.

Go trade with Catherine for a while and then go demand things from Bismarck and gauge their reactions.

As for the two choices, the civs seem to 'talk' with the other civs that the two of you know. For example, if you place a lot of troops along the border of somebody you don't have open borders with, they will pop a message up that asks you of your intentions. You have two options:

1. Just passing through, don't worry about it.
2. Die!

If you choose the second option, war is declared and all is well. If you choose the first option they'll say alright. If you then declare war on them they tend to say "Others will hear of your treachery."

I did this in my last game. Before I did this Rome was friendly and open for trading. After I did this, Rome was friendly but not open for trading. Ever.

Not even accepting of peace after I took all but his last city.

I concur. I think this system of diplomacy is much clearer than people think. The AI avatars smile at you (or some like Asika attempt to smile) and they compliment you on various things when you go to see them. You can also pick up titles, however. Treacherous, brute, weak, etc. if you commit certain actions.

For example, in my recent game, I had the Egyptians sitting on some fat wonders and blocking my western advancement. Sorry Ramses... time for you to die. I crushed them and when I went to some civs that were neutral to me (perhaps they feared the same) they addressed me as if I was a bully (can't remember the exact phrasing). Others with whom I had good relations still complimented my economy or my military, but ones with whom I had neutral or poor relations were not happy.

Then there was the settlement period where I got too close to Alexander. I told him I wasn't going to do it again, but I settled a little further away. Apparently it was not enough and he called me all kind of bad names. He was next to last in score though so whoop-de-doo. He's not done much other than scowl at me and I think he had a pact of secrecy with Nobunga because for a trading period, Japan was rather hard to deal with (they had all the gold mines and were asking for three luxuries in exchange for one gold), but two turns after I tried for a last time, Nobunga contacted me and was pleased to do a 1:1 gold for gems trade.

Anyway, long story short, by contacting the civs regularly I knew who I needed to watch and who I didn't.

Finally, to address the OP. The "very well" comment could have penalties with some other leaders. Perhaps this is why Nobunga had trouble with me because he saw me as weak not standing up for myself, but Catherine had no problem because she's cold like a Russian winter and even though she may say "very well" she really means "you'll get yours soon enough".

 

[CrimsonEdge]

What I don't like is in pure strategy terms without roleplaying, 95% of the time it seems better to take the friendly response. Why would I want the equivalent of negative modifiers, with anybody? Is there some sort of system where AIs look badly upon you as a whole if you declare war on someone you're in good relations with?

It seems to depend on the personality of the civ. What may be seen as the 'good' response may actually be the bad one.

Maybe there is no good response in those situations. Maybe when Obunaga says that you have a crappy army, there is no 'right' thing to say, no positive modifier.

 

[Shillen]

You'll notice after she said that to you if you go to the diplomacy screen it says "HOSTILE" next to her name. So while the dialogue itself may not be clear it's pretty clear what it meant. It means she's thinking about killing you but isn't ready to declare yet.

 

[Mercade]

I do wish we had a 5-tier Hostile-to-Friendly ranking from our advisor at least based on what our advisor thought was our current status...like in Civ 2-4...but minus all the specific modifiers in Civ 4.

Agreed. It would be very helpful to at least have that distinction, even if only presented as the advisor's interpretation.

 

[dannythefool]

The game warns you about your weak spots, disguised as taunts from other civs (who don't have to be hostile or anything to taunt you like that, btw.)

 

[cairnsy44]

I got the "Bully" quote from Montezuma twice. One of them may have been warranted, as I took Kuala Lumpur, but the 2nd one came out of nowhere. The first time, I replied with "Very well." The other option and my second response was, "You'll pay for this." A little later I declared war and took half his cities. He is currently "Hostile" with me.