Nice Answer/ "You 'll pay for this" - whats the point?

[Bob_]

I have asked myself since release what is the difference between choosing the nice answer or the "you will pay"-answer. I mean, I have really tried to experiment with this as I have played games with nice answer only, games with angry answers only and just doing it at random but I cannot find a difference.

If Nappy shows up and is telling me that he recently attacked a city-state-ally of mine I can answer whatever I want and its making no (obvious) difference. Same is true if they just tell me how pitiful I am .

I know that there are exceptions, for example if they want me not to settle near them again, but I am talking of those situations in which I do not give any promise.

Perhaps someone can tell me - or even better: is there something in the xml's about it??

 

[Brichals]

I also wonder about that. This aspect of diplomacy can be improved upon.

 

[Bob_]

It would give me a much better feeling if I could answer: "You are always at least twice as pitiful as I!!!!!!"
Which would lead to a negative diplo modifier

 

[FaceUnderMask]

Haven't noticed difference.

In my speculation, one is a 'meek' answer and other is a 'threat'.
The second one is supposed to provoke AI to consider DoW you.

 

[civnoob13]

I also haven't noticed any difference.

 

[turtlefang]

You get a slightly higher hostility rating with the more aggressive answer. If you sitting right on the fence - or near it - with the other Civ, it can push the over the brink to for them to declare war.

The rating something along the lines of 1 or 2 pts or so. And it goes away fairly quickly.

 

[Bob_]

Ok, whats the source of your answer?

Also, how much is 1 or 2 pts? I mean I need to compare this to other things in order to understand it.

 

[Falk]

But then what's the benefit of chosing the hostile answer? Why would I ever do that?

Ok, when I want to provoke a war without DoWing myself. That happens like once - in 10 games.

 

[Brichals]

But then what's the benefit of chosing the hostile answer? Why would I ever do that?

Ok, when I want to provoke a war without DoWing myself. That happens like once - in 10 games.

It's probably considered a minor backstab if you politely say you won't settle near them and you do, or if you say you don't mind them attacking your city state but then you gift them troops for example. But I have ever felt anything tangible in game.

 

[Sonereal]

It's probably considered a minor backstab if you politely say you won't settle near them and you do, or if you say you don't mind them attacking your city state but then you gift them troops for example. But I have ever felt anything tangible in game.

There is. The Ottomans once told me that the troops on the border were bothering them or something and I said, "I'm not planning for war." After a while, I got slapped with a negative modifier because I didn't move my troops off the border.

 

[General Tso]

What's needed is for the game to display the actual result of the choice in parenthesis after each choice in the list. That way the player can make an intelligent decision rather than guessing.

 

[Falk]

It's probably considered a minor backstab if you politely say you won't settle near them and you do, or if you say you don't mind them attacking your city state but then you gift them troops for example. But I have ever felt anything tangible in game.

But then how's that different from chosing the hostile answer right away? Even bigger malus?

What's needed is for the game to display the actual result of the choice in parenthesis after each choice in the list. That way the player can make an intelligent decision rather than guessing.

While I agree, you shouldn't say this out loud. There are many people who will get mad at it and claim that not displaying information makes the game more strategic/diplomatic/deep/better/beautiful/whatever.

 

[Drawmeus]

But then how's that different from chosing the hostile answer right away? Even bigger malus?

Yes. When they ask you to move your troops or declare war, the diplo hit for declaring war is smaller than the diplo hit for saying you will move your troops and then declaring war. Breaking your promises also gives a diplo hit with all of the AIs, not just the specific one in question - basically, you're proving yourself untrustworthy.

While I agree, you shouldn't say this out loud. There are many people who will get mad at it and claim that not displaying information makes the game more strategic/diplomatic/deep/better/beautiful/whatever.

Those people are silly. Until AI is implemented as something other than a game system to be interacted with (---that will never, ever happen, by the way), you need enough interaction to make good decisions.

 

[KaiserKevin]

If a CS changes and becomes my ally, during a war and another Civ gives me the 'i've attacked one of your allies,' I find they make peace faster if 1) I'm stronger than them 2) I threaten

Of course they usually declare peace 3-4 turns regardless, unless they attacked the CS unprovoked.

 

[Bob_]

It's probably considered a minor backstab if you say you don't mind them attacking your city state but then you gift them troops for example. But I have ever felt anything tangible in game.

I cannot believe the AI is that clever... Do you only think it is this way or do you have any evidence??

Also what kind of backstab should it be when someone is calling me a barbarian and I say: "Ah, ok" (dont know the original text)

 

[Brichals]

I cannot believe the AI is that clever... Do you only think it is this way or do you have any evidence??

Also what kind of backstab should it be when someone is calling me a barbarian and I say: "Ah, ok" (dont know the original text)

Like I said I don't have any hard evidence but I think you might get a global hit if you go back on promises, at least with civs allied to the guy you are dissing (lol cba to think of another word). I think i might have seen red modifiers like 'you went back on your word' or something, I don't pay that much attention but normally go by how good trade offers I can get to work out my standings with another civ.

I wouldn't say the Ai is clever but there are likely many subtle modifiers which possibly don't gel together well and are hard to comprehend without any tooltips saying what teh results of your diplomatic actions are.

 

[forty2j]

Ok, whats the source of your answer?

Also, how much is 1 or 2 pts? I mean I need to compare this to other things in order to understand it.

There's another thread somewhere that has the actual diplomacy modifier values. I recall something like returning a captured worker to be +30, and wiping out a civ to be -60, or so.

 

[Misterboy]

So we're sure that there is, in fact, a minor difference between the polite and rude answers?

Turtlefang, can you support your supposition?

 

[wobuffet]

I've started telling people, "Very well" in real life. It's earned me some funny looks.

 

[wcbarney]

If a CS changes and becomes my ally, during a war and another Civ gives me the 'i've attacked one of your allies,' I find they make peace faster if 1) I'm stronger than them 2) I threaten

Of course they usually declare peace 3-4 turns regardless, unless they attacked the CS unprovoked.

I have found that, pretty consistently, if I go to the "Trade Screen" for the civ who is attacking one of my CS allies, and ask them to make peace with that CS, they will. The only times that they won't make peace with my CS ally is when that CS has declared perma-war against that particular civ.