Least Trustworthy Civ

[Sullla]

Most aggressive would definitely be the Germans - I have a great story to tell about that. I was playing a game on regent where I had started in a great position and essentially just run away with the game in every category. The Germans and Egyptians were stuck on a small island while I controlled 2/3 of the largest continent in the game. Towards the end of the game I notice that the Germans have landed a regular warrior (yeah, in 1700AD!) off a ship into the area of my oldest cities. "He's not thinking of attacking with that warrior, right?" Experimentation time: I sign ROP and a MPP with all other civs in the game. Now Bismarck would be insane to attack, right? Did I mention I was giving him free gems to better relations?

Next turn: "We have lost our supply of spices! The Germans have declared war on us!" Well that warrior didn't do so well against my veteran INFANTRY in my city

On a side note though, I would have to say that the craziest civ, though not necessarily the most aggressive, is the Russians. Almost every SG in that forum has a story of something idiotic "Crazy Catherine" has done, like attacking in suicidal circumstances and making impossible demands.

 

[Zouave]

In Civ III no one is trustworthy.

For many centuries the French were Polite and we had many deals. Then, whammo! The declare war on me. After a brief time they request a peace treay, and then become allies against the English.

This occurs for no discernible reason, and it is typical.

The human element in Diplomacy does not exist.

 

[LordAzreal]

Originally posted by Zouave
In Civ III no one is trustworthy.

For many centuries the French were Polite and we had many deals. Then, whammo! The declare war on me

Wow. The exact same thing happened to me (I mean, the French declaring an unprovoked war on me). They weren't even on the same continent. Their attack was a mute point as they had only sent swordsmen, longbows and frigates, even though I had riflemen, and they probably did as well (back on THEIR continent). The only thing that made their attack devastating was that it allowed them to cut off my only supply of coal. And so until I could root out the last of them, I had to buy coal from the Greeks. Of course, I built up a huge fleet of battleships and about eight transports with tanks, infantry and artillery. I began bombarding the crap out of their coastal installations and took control of one of their ports. In building an airport, a steady supply line was ensured. I then rebased all of my bombers to this port and so Operation Frogstomp began.

Anyway, aggression level really doesn't affect how likely it is that they'll sneak attack you. I think that aggression level only seems to increase the chance that they'll demand tribute. India and France seem more likely to sneak attack than Germany or Zululand. Its just that the Germans and Zulu are more likely to demand tribute before declaring war.

 

[escl]

In my opinion the most aggresive civs r the most trustworty.
I play diety 16-civ tiny pangea map. It's true the aggresive and militaristic civs demand tribute more often but pay that and you're fine for a while. The "passive" civs however r not so direct. They like to suddenly declear war, use their 2000 gold treasury at 0 AD to get 14 allies and smash you to bits. The babs and the persians always do this. Its nice when they offer you 40 gold per turn to join a war when you have 30 gold in your treasury and 2 gold per turn income . They use this strategy on the biggest and most powerful civ on the planet and steal some leftovers.

Most of the civs r always annoyed with you but for some reason they're polite. You never know if u will be one of the allies or the civ who gets smashed. Its a tough choice between Persia and Babalon but i'll pick the babs this time