Trade Rep Clarification

[Jivilov]

Here's an item from microbe's trade rep article that I found confusing:

"Cases that do not trash your rep

There are certain cases that a prematurely terminated gpt deal does not affect your rep.

3. The AI you are paying gpt is destroyed

It doesn't include the case if you are paying resources."

So if you're paying gpt and the other civ is destroyed, it doesn't trash your rep, but if you're paying/trading resources it DOES trash your rep? Seems kind of inconsistent. Or is it?

 

[MarkK]

These articles were written by guys just like you, with maybe a little more experience at the game, and probably a lot more numerical research. They're not "Bibles", however; Sid Meier had/has a clever way of never letting that happen. Thus this whole website.

Based on all my previous games, when another civilization is totally eliminated, most records are too. Now if you R.O.P. raped them or entered into peace with them while still having a Mil Alliance with others, then yes, that will spill over, for many turns.

Don't over-interpret the articles here, but they are loaded with wisdom.

How do they apply to the game you're in right now?

 

[Jivilov]

These articles were written by guys just like you, with maybe a little more experience at the game, and probably a lot more numerical research. They're not "Bibles", however; Sid Meier had/has a clever way of never letting that happen. Thus this whole website.

Based on all my previous games, when another civilization is totally eliminated, most records are too. Now if you R.O.P. raped them or entered into peace with them while still having a Mil Alliance with others, then yes, that will spill over, for many turns.

Don't over-interpret the articles here, but they are loaded with wisdom.

How do they apply to the game you're in right now?

Thanks Markk. Haven't had any problems with gpt trades in my latest game (a laughable attempt at Demigod, without iron or coal), but surely it'll come up sometime.

It was all new to me--this trade rep stuff, along with AI attitudes--even though I've been playing off and on since 2001. Previously it was a mystery why my adviser would say, "They would never accept such a deal" when I tried to do gpt deals after rashly going to war without checking the "Active" tab in the Diplomacy screen. Some people are slow learners, or willfully dumb .

It's definitely worth it to search the forums (fora?). Never mind if you get a bum steer now and then. As you say, they're "loaded with wisdom." Cheers and happy gaming.

 

[CommandoBob]

Also consider which version of Civ III that article applied to: vanilla, Play the World or Conquests.

Having said that, thess things will break your trade reputation in C3C:

First, you must have a multi-turn agreement with an AI where you are sending them gold per turn, luxuries per turn, strategic resources per turn or peace per turn (if you had been at war with them). If your deal with them was a tech swap or you paid them a lump sum for a tech that deal is a one time event. It cannot break your trade reputation.

But, if you do have a multi-turn deal in place and

• you declare war on them, even if triggered by a Mutual Protection Pact or
• an enemy of yours or theirs ends their turn with units on the road/roads that connect your capitals together or
• an enemy of yours or theirs ends their turn with naval units that block your harbors/capitals from connecting with each other

Then you trading reputation takes a hit.

Note that if the land routes are blocked but the sea routes are not, you still have a trade deal. And vice-versa. Multiple AIs can be involved, too.

Barbarians can break your trade routes.

Also, if you declare war on an AI and you have units inside their cultural borders, even naval units, you trading reputation takes a hit. I think this would also apply to workers but I am not certain of that.

I'm not sure what happens if your trading partner's is at war, you have a good trade route to their capital and their capital is captured by their enemy and the new capital is not connected to your capital. I've not seen (well, I don't remember) any analysis of that scenario.

 

[CKS]

So if you're paying gpt and the other civ is destroyed, it doesn't trash your rep, but if you're paying/trading resources it DOES trash your rep? Seems kind of inconsistent. Or is it?

I think this is really how it works. A lot of the resource trading rules don't make sense, but for sure resource trading and gpt trading are treated differently.

I'm not sure what happens if your trading partner's is at war, you have a good trade route to their capital and their capital is captured by their enemy and the new capital is not connected to your capital. I've not seen (well, I don't remember) any analysis of that scenario.

This has happened to me. I do believe it trashed my reputation.

 

[Jivilov]

@ CKS: Seems pretty odd, but thanks to your clarification I'll be on the qui vive before I trade resources with a civ in extremis.

But, if you do have a multi-turn deal in place and

[*] you declare war on them, even if triggered by a Mutual Protection Pact

Then you trading reputation takes a hit.

Thanks CommandoBob. At the risk of belaboring this arcane subject, let me give you an example from my last game (PTW as Romans on Emperor):

The Zulus and Monty had an MPP. I had a multiturn trade deal with Monty, while at the same time I wanted to attack Shaka. But first I allowed the trade deal with the Aztecs to expire 'cuz I feared a rep hit from Monty's automatic declaration of war due to their MPP.

Was this necessary, or could I have gone after Shaka immediately, knowing full well Monty would cancel the deal and attack me? In this case I wouldn't be declaring war directly, Monty would. Would that have made any difference, or would it have been treated the same AS IF I'd declared directly on Monty by attacking his MPP partner? Thanks.

 

[Everkane]

@ CKS: Seems pretty odd, but thanks to your clarification I'll be on the qui vive before I trade resources with a civ in extremis.



Thanks CommandoBob. At the risk of belaboring this arcane subject, let me give you an example from my last game (PTW as Romans on Emperor):

The Zulus and Monty had an MPP. I had a multiturn trade deal with Monty, while at the same time I wanted to attack Shaka. But first I allowed the trade deal with the Aztecs to expire 'cuz I feared a rep hit from Monty's automatic declaration of war due to their MPP.

Was this necessary, or could I have gone after Shaka immediately, knowing full well Monty would cancel the deal and attack me? In this case I wouldn't be declaring war directly, Monty would. Would that have made any difference, or would it have been treated the same AS IF I'd declared directly on Monty by attacking his MPP partner? Thanks.

Montezuma has the MPP, not you, so if you attack the Zulus the war will be declared on you by Montezuma instantly. He will break the turn-based-deals. No rep hit in this case.

Of course after they automatically declare war on you, if you attack Montezuma or stay in the war long enough with him, your rep can suffer a hit with him, being a way too difficult to get him gracious even if you did nothing specifically wrong.

 

[Jivilov]

Montezuma has the MPP, not you, so if you attack the Zulus the war will be declared on you by Montezuma instantly. He will break the turn-based-deals. No rep hit in this case.

Of course after they automatically declare war on you, if you attack Montezuma or stay in the war long enough with him, your rep can suffer a hit with him, being a way too difficult to get him gracious even if you did nothing specifically wrong.

OK Everkane, that makes sense. Hope you're right since the next time that situation happens I'll simply go for it. Wish me luck.

 

[CommandoBob]

MPPs are tricky. You don't want them but the AI seems to have a fetish about them.

And just because an MPP existed between Aztecs-Zulu, attacking Zulu does not always trigger the Declartion of War (DoW) by Aztecs.

If the Zulu were inside your borders and you declared war, attacked and destroyed some/any/all of those Zulu units, no DoW from Aztecs.

If the Zulu were in neutral, unclaimed land and you declared war, attacked and destroyed some/any/all of those Zulu units, no DoW from Aztecs.

If the Zulu were inside another AI's border and you declared war, attacked and destroyed some/any/all of those Zulu units, no DoW from Aztecs. Haven't seen this, but it seems to be logical conclusion. Logical, but it could be wrong.

If the Zulu were inside their own borders and you declared war and attacked either a Zulu unit or a Zulu city, then the Aztecs will declare war before you complete your first attack.

If Zulu were to attack you after you declared war on them, that would not trigger a DoW from Aztecs.

Now consider this: After the Aztecs and Zulu sign their MPP, you make a GPT with Aztecs, where you are sending a bunch of gold per turn to the Aztecs for a tech. Like it cost you 123 gold and 100 gpt to get Gunpowder from the Aztecs. You could declare war on Zulu, make a fake attack on one of their cities, which would cause the Aztecs to DoW, thus ending your 100 gpt deal. You still have the tech, your 100 gpt is going back into your bank account and all it cost was 123 gold. And two wars, which could be good or bad, depending upon your situation.

And since the Aztecs DoW on you, you didn't break the deal, they did. Your trading reputation is still good.

Possible? Yes. Allowed? Yes. Ethical/cheat: Undecided; depends on how you play.

 

[Jivilov]

MPPs are tricky. You don't want them but the AI seems to have a fetish about them.

And just because an MPP existed between Aztecs-Zulu, attacking Zulu does not always trigger the Declartion of War (DoW) by Aztecs.

If the Zulu were inside your borders and you declared war, attacked and destroyed some/any/all of those Zulu units, no DoW from Aztecs.

If the Zulu were in neutral, unclaimed land and you declared war, attacked and destroyed some/any/all of those Zulu units, no DoW from Aztecs.

If the Zulu were inside another AI's border and you declared war, attacked and destroyed some/any/all of those Zulu units, no DoW from Aztecs. Haven't seen this, but it seems to be logical conclusion. Logical, but it could be wrong.

If the Zulu were inside their own borders and you declared war and attacked either a Zulu unit or a Zulu city, then the Aztecs will declare war before you complete your first attack.

If Zulu were to attack you after you declared war on them, that would not trigger a DoW from Aztecs.

Now consider this: After the Aztecs and Zulu sign their MPP, you make a GPT with Aztecs, where you are sending a bunch of gold per turn to the Aztecs for a tech. Like it cost you 123 gold and 100 gpt to get Gunpowder from the Aztecs. You could declare war on Zulu, make a fake attack on one of their cities, which would cause the Aztecs to DoW, thus ending your 100 gpt deal. You still have the tech, your 100 gpt is going back into your bank account and all it cost was 123 gold. And two wars, which could be good or bad, depending upon your situation.

And since the Aztecs DoW on you, you didn't break the deal, they did. Your trading reputation is still good.

Possible? Yes. Allowed? Yes. Ethical/cheat: Undecided; depends on how you play.

Wow. Talk about clarification with details, this is it. Thanks much CommandoBob. Your penultimate paragraph, about the MPP partner's DoW NOT trashing my rep was what I was especially looking for, and confirmed Everkane's verdict. (It's also the logical inverse of your earlier observation, "you declare war on them, even if triggered by a Mutual Protection Pact...Then you[r] trading reputation takes a hit.")

Concerning attacking an MPP partner to end your gpt deal without losing rep, let's just call it an exploit. Anyway, all's fair in love and war!