List of events which causes bad rep. ?

[DukEngnr]

Hey,

Has anyone complied a list of general events that can cause a black-eye on your rep. with the other civs? In games where I'm shooting for a diplomatic victory, sometimes I'll be totally surprised when the advisor/foreign leaders busts out with a "we know how you treated the...." and I'm sitting there clueless.

Thanks.

 

[HellboundHeathcliff]

just a few here:

if you have a trade with a small civ that is at war, and the enemy pillages the last road to the capital, you get blamed for breaking the deal.

breaking any per turn deal under any circumstances even via MPP invocation.

One note: if the other trade partner disbands a harbor, thus breaking a trade deal, they get the blame for it. I was sure i would get blamed, but didn't.

You can do anything you want to a civ that has no contact with other civs. Just make sure you destroy them completely before contact is made.

 

[Grey Fox]

- Razing cities
- Having captured workers (minimal I guess).
- Breaking Treaties like the 20 Turn 'Formal' Peace treaty that you have after war (when peace is declared).
- Breaking an RoP hurts it a lot.
- Moving units into enemies territory.
- Not Trading, if you don't trade the reputation constantly drops, because of bad relations.

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by Grey Fox
- Razing cities

How about abandoning cities? It doesn't seem to hurt my rep but I'm not sure...

 

[Grey Fox]

Originally posted by sumthinelse


How about abandoning cities? It doesn't seem to hurt my rep but I'm not sure...

The unhappiness in that city spreads to the closest city, so both methods damage you in some way. The question is which you prefer at the moment. At times I don't care about my rep, but I need to raze. So I do it. I usually don't want unhappiness so I never take and abandon though...

 

[sumthinelse]

Originally posted by Grey Fox
The unhappiness in that city spreads to the closest city, so both methods damage you in some way

Are you saying that abadoning a city causes unhappiness, or that if it was unhappy the unhappiness spreads? I have abandoned 2 cities near one of mine but I don't notice any effect yet.

 

[HellboundHeathcliff]

Anytime i have abondoned a city, the other civs became either cautious or annoyed with me. I suspect it is viewed as razing your own city. But this does not lead to the "we know how you treated the...." diplomatic hit. That is strickly from breaking treaties and trade deals.

The unhappiness thing is if you disband a city that is suffering from drafting or pop rushing unhappiness. It will jump to a nearby city instead of disappearing.

 

[Zouave]

I was once ATTACKED for no discernible reason by the Romans who eventually asked for peace.

Two thousand years later everyone still hated me.

 

[Blitzer]

if you destroy an imporvement in nobody's culture, will the one who made the improvement get mad?

 

[SirJava]

someone posted something about workers adding to diplomatic contempt from other civs. Is that true because I have a"concentration camp" with about 50 workers captured from razed cities. Will this cause other civs to look on me badly??

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by SirJava
someone posted something about workers adding to diplomatic contempt from other civs. Is that true because I have a"concentration camp" with about 50 workers captured from razed cities. Will this cause other civs to look on me badly??

I doubt it. and if it is it is very small. I haven't had problems from it.

Also, how about if you make an alliance with someone including luxuries as incentive, but in the process of making that alliance, they eliminate their only trade route??

also SirJava: go crows!!

 

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by SirJava
someone posted something about workers adding to diplomatic contempt from other civs. Is that true because I have a"concentration camp" with about 50 workers captured from razed cities. Will this cause other civs to look on me badly??

Yes. Not all civs, but the ones whose workers you have. i.e. if you have German workers, the Germans won't like it until you put them in a city or trade/give them back.

 

[Smoking mirror]

If you are asked to leave someone elses territory and you say yes, you are then part of a minor ROP agreement, so if you change your mind and decide to attack you will get a bad rep.

Talking of bad reputations, "You've gotta bad reputation, du du dun du da, thats the word out on the town! You've gotta bad reputation and it can only bring you down!"

(Its Phill Lynott from Thin lizzy by the way; you may better remember their hit "The boys are back in town.")
You can learn more about thin lizzy Here (I may do a Phill Lynot City advisor If I get enough requests )

 

[HellboundHeathcliff]

Originally posted by bobgote

Also, how about if you make an alliance with someone including luxuries as incentive, but in the process of making that alliance, they eliminate their only trade route??

The alliance would be ended and if they did it themselves, they take the hit. If the mutual enemy did it, you take the hit because it wasn't thier doing.

 

[chiefpaco]

Originally posted by Smoking mirror
If you are asked to leave someone elses territory and you say yes, you are then part of a minor ROP agreement, so if you change your mind and decide to attack you will get a bad rep.

Yes. With or without a ROP, declaring war with units in enemy territory will damage your rep. Wisely on the AI's part, they will not sign a fair ROP with you again.

 

[Zachriel]

I think that many instances of bad reputation come from conflicting commitments. In this situation, Russia and India allied against Japan. As soon as Japan counterattacks against either one of them, Germany will be drawn into the war too. This situation was engineered by Bismark.

If however, Russia were to attack India, then Germany would have to break one of the mutual-protection-pacts damaging its reputation. This was judged very unlikely in this instance as long as the Russo-Indian alliance against Japan lasted. Germany cancelled the mutual-protection-pacts at the first opportunity -- once drawn into the War on Japan.

 

[Zouave]

Just thought of another good one.

I had fought a war to gain an iron resource. I had a town two tiles away, and I had a road, mine, and garrisoned fortress right on that vital tile. That as I endeavored to rush some culture stuff in that town while keeping HORDES of troops in it to try to stop that Culture Flipping bullbleep.

So. . . about 15 turns after the war, the BORDER flips over that tile, the one with the resource, improvements, fortress, and garrison. I am then insulted by the AI, called a warmongering fool, and ordered to leave my own tile because of the braindead culture border flip.

Of course I refuse, and the equally braindead civ that insulted me, being much weaker than I am, having forced me into a war I didn't want, was eventually destroyed. Over a thousand years later civs I just met on other continent still hate me over all this.


It is absolute nonsense.

 

[bobgote]

Originally posted by watorrey


The alliance would be ended and if they did it themselves, they take the hit. If the mutual enemy did it, you take the hit because it wasn't thier doing.

Our only trade route that we had went through the aztec's territory, and in signing the agreement, he cancelled that trade route.

 

[Lt. 'Killer' M.]

There's one BIG BIG BIG reason why the AI hates you missing in this thread:

Being human!

Have you ever noticed the AIs break treaties but still trade with each other 1:1? Why not with me? Because:

I'm human!

 

[Evincar]

Events that cause bad reputation???

1) Getting a military advantage, since they can not longer bully you
2) Getting a tech lead, because I won't sell Democracy for 150 gold
3)Not accepting their "I want 3lux+rubber+500gold+this tech+your elder son+your shirt for Ivory" treaties
4) Deffend yourself againts a sneaky attack (hey, you shouldn't be prepared!!)
5)All in all, not accepting getting f***** by the AI