Reputation concerns...

[K-Man]

Up until now, I have been keeping quiet over the whole issue of reputation. I actually like the idea of being held accountable for past actions when trading in the future. I didn't like the fact that civs hold grudges for 4000 years, or that some civs know all about your dealings with civs you have eliminated before even making contact with them, but in the long run of the game, it hasn't made too much of a difference for me.

My current game has introduced me to a new problem I have never experienced before, or at least was not aware existed. In my Regent game, I started on the middle of a continent that streches from the top to the bottom of the map. I have the French below me, and the Zulus and Japanese above me. The area occupied by the Zulu and Japanese is much further away than the French. Also, there is a wide expanse of Jungle and Mountains between us, while the French occupied area is full of grasslands, plains, and forests. So I immediately make plans for expansion southward into French territory to claim the whole south half of the continent for myself. When I have the French down to one city, the Indians land a boat and settler on the very south edge, and of course plop a city right where I was going to build a city (my settler was only 3 turns from reaching the exact same location, right by 4 furs!!!). I had an immortal fortified in the place where I was going to build the city, so the Indians build their city one square over. Of course now they demand that I move my troops, even though they were the ones that erected the city beside my troops. That wasn't what bothered me though, it was this. Not wanting to move my unit, I clicked the option that says "Why don't we agree to a Right of Passage agreement? This was the reply: "You sneak-attacked France while under the protection of this treaty, Xerxes. I can't possibly trust you."

I was never involved in a treaty of any kind with France, so I never sneak-attacked them. Does this mean that my reputation is already scarred for the rest of the game? Not only do civs hold grudges for thousands of years over something little that happened in the beginning of the game, but now they are making up reasons to be aggressive towards me. That hardly seems fair.

 

[Yzman]

Did you declare war on France while in their territory or did you sneak attack them? Both of these count as breaking a RoP agreement. Becuase of that they will probably never sign one with you. The lesson is always declare war out of enemy territory.

 

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Yzman
Did you declare war on France while in their territory or did you sneak attack them? Both of these count as breaking a RoP agreement. Becuase of that they will probably never sign one with you. The lesson is always declare war out of enemy territory.

I have heard of this before, but never experienced it. I think you are right. K-Man was asked to leave, probably agreed to, then he attacked. That would be considered a sneak.

 

[poprawkz]

k-man I have experiences the exact same problem and just posted about it in two seperate threads. The problem is that the AI plops down a city and if you are already in their borders they consider it a hostile action on YOUR part. Which is BS because they of course were the agressors in this case, but since the AI only gives you the options to 'move' or 'declare war' you are screwed in your decisions. In my case I didnt have the option of ROP because literature was as of yet undiscovered.

The only way to declare war without hurting your reputation is with all of your troops outside of enemy culture boundaries then entering the diplomacy screen and declaring war on them, THEN, and only then, advancing your troops (barring that you have no current peace treaties / agreements with them when you do this).

Another problem associated with this is that there is the possibility that the indians had never even come in contact with france...so how does the AI even know you betrayed them to begin with? Through homing pigeons? This may not be your case... however it is another problem with the fact that the AI feels no fog of war... its unfair they knew of the open land left through destruction of the French. IMO the AI should only be allowed to operate under their field of vision and should be programmed to 'explore' -- but that would take too many clock cycles apparently

 

[Pillager]

Another problem associated with this is that there is the possibility that the indians had never even come in contact with france...so how does the AI even know you betrayed them to begin with? Through homing pigeons? This may not be your case... however it is another problem with the fact that the AI feels no fog of war... its unfair they knew of the open land left through destruction of the French. IMO the AI should only be allowed to operate under their field of vision and should be programmed to 'explore' -- but that would take too many clock cycles apparently

My experience differs. In my last game, I broke a treaty with the Persians, and obviously they were unhappy. Because they were very small they weren't in contact with the other AI civs. Later on, though, when I had forgotten about having broken the treaty, I traded contact with the Persians for a tech. with the Germans, who then traded that contact with the other AI's. My relationship immediately plummeted with the whole world. For example, the English changed from gracious to cautious. So, obviously, the AIs had 'learnt' about my previous duplicitous behaviour towards Xerxes.