• Civilization 7 has been announced. For more info please check the forum here .

Quick Answers / 'Newbie' Questions

@Sakharov Razing foreign towns (or abandoning them within 20 turns of capturing them) permanently worsens the AI's Attitude towards the player. I believe every declaration of war also worsens Attitude. So a player who's decided to go on a killing spree will be regarded as more dangerous than one who was 'only' defending themself, even if the final outcome is the same. Being relatively more powerful than another AI (as would be the case if the player has just doubled the size of their empire at someone else's expense) also seems to make the remaining AIs more resentful.

@Samson the price of an Embassy seems to increase with both the distance between Capitals, and the size of the other empire, but I don't know the exact formula.
 
Does my reputation get affected when I destroy a civ?

So usually there is no permanent change in reputation or AI Attitude. But temporary effects in your favour may very well expire as the war expires. Nothing unites as well as a common foe.
My question: What determines the price of an embassy?
 

So usually there is no permanent change in reputation or AI Attitude. But temporary effects in your favour may very well expire as the war expires. Nothing unites as well as a common foe.


If I negotiate a MA with civ A against civ B, and then destroy last city of civ B, is MA considered violated?
 
Not in terms of AI-Attitude, but depending on the terms of the MA, and especially if you also got a 1-time payment (lump-sum gold, or a tech) in return for signing it, your trade-reputation (which is separate from Attitude) may get broken.
 
And also maybe a stupid question. Recently I seen a post on this forum, where author that he seen some documentary about some WW2 soldiers who stayed in jungle for a week (it was discussion about jungles). Maybe you'll seen that post. What documentary he was talking about?

Attitude isn't the only thing that affects what the AIs will give you deals, unless the game gets set to minimal aggression (maybe also less aggressive, I'm not sure).

If I negotiate a MA with civ A against civ B, and then destroy last city of civ B, is MA considered violated?
Likely not. If you pay gold per turn or technology or a lump sum of gold or maps for the military alliance, you should be alright. If you export luxuries or resources in that deal though, you might not be.

The death of an AI by itself does not change AI's trading reputation as I think justanick's link suggests.

However, any AI you have a military alliance with gets an attitude boost, and from what I recall always end up polite. However, with the death of an AI such an alliance expires, and that can make them less happy, which could make things more expensive. It won't, however, make any trading deals more expensive usually on least aggresive, since AI attitude doesn't affect how much they want for things on that level. But, they will end up less happy likely once that alliance expires.

Also, razing of cities and also abandoning cities with foreign nationals will make other AIs less happy attitude wise.
 
Last edited:
especially if you also got a 1-time payment (lump-sum gold, or a tech) in return for signing it, your trade-reputation (which is separate from Attitude) may get broken.

No, getting such things in a deal with a military alliance won't cause a reputation hit... at least not if using gpt only. I recently did such in a demigod game with no reputation hit.

In fact, I highly recommend it. If you know your war with say Persia won't last 20 turns, and you find say The Ottomans with a bunch of gold available, then

1. Loan out gold for all of the Ottomans gpt that you can get.

2. Pay gpt for all that gold from the Ottomans + a military alliance against Persia.

You will basically break even on that deal during the war, other than paying some gpt for the military alliance. Then once the war ends, your gpt deal expires. But, The Ottomans will stay intact, and this way you end up with more gold.

Then the question more becomes how much gold do you keep for doing deals like that, and how much of it do you spend on troops and improvements or steals or technologies.

And to review, it works most powerfully on least aggressive, since the AIs give you the best deals on that level (including worker cost).
 
If I negotiate a MA with civ A against civ B, and then destroy last city of civ B, is MA considered violated?
No. "Cases that do not trash your rep" explicitly lists that case.

 
Can I clarify a couple of the points there:

2. The deal involves an MA and the target AI is destroyed

If you have a gpt deal with A in which you have MA against B. If B is destroyed before the 20-turn period expires, the deal ends immediately but your rep isn't affected. It's often (ab)used by players to sign an MA when the target AI is about to die, and get money back as soon as the AI is destroyed.
So if I have my troops outside an AIs last city, I can sign and MA with another civ, where they give a tech and I give GPT, I kill the city and I get the tech, pay nothing and do not lose my rep?

There is also ROP rep isn't there, and that is separate? Does that work the same?
3. The AI you are paying gpt is destroyed

It doesn't include the case if you are paying resources.
So if an AI has their troops outside another AIs last city, I can sign a deal with the diyng civ where they give a tech and I give GPT, when the AI kills the city and I get the tech and do not lose my rep? But had I added a strategic resource or lux to the deal along with the GTP I would have lost my rep?
 
So if I have my troops outside an AIs last city, I can sign and MA with another civ, where they give a tech and I give GPT, I kill the city and I get the tech, pay nothing and do not lose my rep?
Yes. You have fullfilled the threaty. Destroying the enemy was the goal after all.
So if an AI has their troops outside another AIs last city, I can sign a deal with the dying civ where they give a tech and I give GPT, when the AI kills the city and I get the tech and do not lose my rep? But had I added a strategic resource or lux to the deal along with the GTP I would have lost my rep?
Apparently so.
There is also ROP rep isn't there, and that is separate? Does that work the same?
It is a bit different as it is independent from treaties:
RoP reputation

RoP reputation is a related topic but quite independent of trading reputation. It decides if AI is willing to sign RoP with you. Your RoP rep is trashed if you declare war on the AI while you have any units with attack/defense value (including boats) inside AI territory, regardless of whether you actually have RoP deal with the AI. Trading and RoP reputation is maintained separately and does not affect each other.
 
What is going on with an industrial civs slave workers when you get Rep. Parts? I THINK slave workers increase by three times, while all other workers increase by a factor of two (ind. civ native workers and all non-ind civs workers). Something similar goes on with Romes slaves workers when they get Imperialism in the Rise of Rome scenario, but I have never figured it out properly.
 
What is going on with an industrial civs slave workers when you get Rep. Parts? I THINK slave workers increase by three times, while all other workers increase by a factor of two (ind. civ native workers and all non-ind civs workers). Something similar goes on with Romes slaves workers when they get Imperialism in the Rise of Rome scenario, but I have never figured it out properly.

Here it is figured out, but in german. It simply is a matter of rounding. Governments determine the base rate. That is 2 workers points for most governments, but only 1 for anarchy and 3 for democracy and 4 for fascism. Slave workers are only halve as efficient. Worker output of industrials civs get multiplied by factor 1.5. Replaceable Parts multiplies by 2. In the end it is rounded down to integer, but no less than 1. Roads on plains cost 6 workers points.
 
Hello everyone,

I'm playing a Sid game (my 2nd) and was having great fun and in a very good position to win.

Suddenly, my trade reputation is ruined without me having done anything. One civ declared war on me and there was a flurry of AI vs AI declarations. Maybe something happened there with the lux trades through no fault of my own.

Anyway, without trading the game becomes unplayable. Is there something I can do to fix the trade reputation (a save game editor?) or should I just abandon the game?

Thanks. What a stupid game mechanic :)
 
Hello everyone,

I'm playing a Sid game (my 2nd) and was having great fun and in a very good position to win.

Suddenly, my trade reputation is ruined without me having done anything. One civ declared war on me and there was a flurry of AI vs AI declarations. Maybe something happened there with the lux trades through no fault of my own.

Anyway, without trading the game becomes unplayable. Is there something I can do to fix the trade reputation (a save game editor?) or should I just abandon the game?

Thanks. What a stupid game mechanic :)
Welcome to CFC [party]:band:[party]

Playing on Sid before your first post is impressive. I am afraid I cannot help you with your question, except you could try reloading and trying to figure out what happened. If you can work out the deal you must not break then perhaps you can start the right wars to avoid that particular one.
 
Hi,

Thanks for the compliment. I've been playing here and there for years, just never joined the forum.

Alas, I can't do anything with the save games since I did not notice my trade rep was ruined so no auto-save and no personal saves.

The only option I have (without a save game editor) is to go back to a save maybe 30 turns before which would include playing out a whole successful war again :(

Did I already say I was pissed off by this stupid mechanic? :D
 
Suddenly, my trade reputation is ruined without me having done anything. One civ declared war on me and there was a flurry of AI vs AI declarations. Maybe something happened there with the lux trades through no fault of my own.

You might have been supplying a luxury or resource to some AI. But, because of the consequences of the war declaration you could no longer supply it to them. This can easily happen before Navigation (or if you have no harbors, I suppose). Suppose China lies between you and the Zulu. Now, you can trade luxuries or resources with the Zulu, because of roads in China's territory. But, if you end up at war with China, then the supply router between you and any trade route through roads to the Zulu no longer works. Their cultural borders will also block potential trade routes along the coast. So, one of you has failed to fulfill the responsibility of supplying the luxury or resource, because of the war between you and China (or because of the war between China and the Zulu).

Once Navigation rolls around that sort of scenario becomes much less likely, if not impossible, to happen, because of harbors. We could think of merchants traveling on boats over the ocean (even on a pangea map) instead of over roads on land or moving along a coast. Magnetism would have the same effect, if it ever appeared sooner than Navigation.

You don't like what happened to you. But, the mechanic can get leveraged to work the other way around (and some of us have done this before... a good number of the games in the Hall of Fame on Sid level do). Basically, if an AI supplies you with a resource or luxury only, but they can't supply it for some reason to your empire, then you don't take a reputation hit. Because, as the supplier, the AI had the responsibility to fulfill the trade route. It turns out that if an AI can't supply a luxury or resource to your empire's capital, that automatically cancels any deal, and if you aren't supplying them with a resource or luxury also, you won't take a reputation hit. But, your empire gets to keep any hard goods like gold, technology, or maps that got included in the deal.

I kind of have the other view of that mechanic. It has a sort of brilliance, because it enables one to get everything that the AI has over enough time, even if one's empire hardly has anything of it's own to supply. The bigger downside that I see comes as that it makes the espionage system of trying to steal technologies useless in comparison. Though, if one doesn't want to pillage roads, that espionage system could still have it's uses.
 
Top Bottom