Treaties (Bug?)

[Superdepor]

There seems to be somekind of a bug with treaties or I'm just missing something.
When I'm playing the game always ends up being "me against the world", but I thought that is normal and that's fine with me, because the AI just isn't that good (at least with emperor), but then I noticed this:
I've just started playing new scenario (random map with more civs) and made my first conquers, which were capturing 2 Egyptian and a Aztecz cities and ending their stories. After a while CP civs start attacking me one by one. They're willing to travel around the globe just to attack me. When I try to negotiate rights of passage with other CP civs, they tell me that I've broken that kind of treaty with the Egyptians! The civs aren't also willing to negotate military alliances with me, because I have obviously betrayed the Aztecz. What the... So after this it was againt the usual everyone vs me to the end. Because of this I couldn't later negotiate even mutual protection pacts with anyone.
The thing is that I had never agreed anykind of treaties (ROP, MA, MPP) with any civs and they still claim that I've betrayed them. The way I attacked Egypt and Aztecz was that I first demanded some technology and after they refused I moved my troops over the border.
Any ideas? Am I missing something?

I'm playing Conquest v.1.22

Edit: Apparently wrong sub-forum...

 

[Tomoyo]

If you declare war war with units inside the enemy civ's borders, it qualifies as a broken ROP. This is to prevent you from canceling your ROP the turn before you declare war to ROP rape your enemy.

 

[Superdepor]

That explains the ROP with Egyptians, but doesn't the thing with Aztecz, since I declared war before entering their area.

 

[Tomoyo]

Yeah, but once you do it to one civ, all civs will refuse to sign an ROP with you.

Oh, and I forgot to welcome to you CFC. (Welcome to CFC!)

 

[Praetorian]

Forgot to say that I declared war before entering their territory

Strange, I only get that type of behavior after a ROP rape or excessive use of nukes

 

[Superdepor]

I understand that, but the CP civs claimed that I had broken some treaty with the Aztecz too.

 

[Superdepor]

Oh, and I forgot to welcome to you CFC. (Welcome to CFC!)

Thanks. I've played Civilization since 1992(?) when I bought the first one. Didn't even know what the game was like. Actually I just bought it because I was interested in history and it was cheap, but it caused me a many sleepless nights...

 

[Superdepor]

BTW shouldn't my reputation get better in ~1500 years? Almost every CP civ has sneak attacked me. Some of them several times and they're still able to negotiate treaties, but I'm suffering from something that I possibly made 1500 years ago.

 

[Tomoyo]

Once your rep is toast, there's no way to get the carbon off it.

 

[Praetorian]

I understand that, but the CP civs claimed that I had broken some treaty with the Aztecz too.

1) once your toast with one civ, your toast with all the rest

2) unlike real life diplomacy, the AI occasionally tell fibs

 

[sav]

The being inside borders whan you declare war thing explains SO MUCH!!! I'm always wondering why I get told I broke ROPs.

A weird thing I've noticed is that the only CIVs that will sign military alliances with me are usually the ones I've just been at war with. Strange.

 

[RegentMan]

I wish the rep system was like that of Civ II's. There were different "levels" of reputation and you gradually earned your rep back over time.

 

[HungryMouse]

Interesting... I've also trashed my rep in a way Superdepor did, which should mean that other civs would never sign ROP treaty with me, according to the thread. Indeed, most of them did refuse to do so, but not all. For example I signed ROP with Siamese. So, does this mean that my rep is not completely wasted after ROP rape?

 

[Tomoyo]

Were the Siamese at war with the civ you originally broke your rep with?

 

[BasketCase]

More than once, I see symptoms suggesting I toasted my rep, but I'm not sure if I have toasted it (since there's no display saying "your reputation is X", and I have not the slightest idea how I did it.

 

[HungryMouse]

Were the Siamese at war with the civ you originally broke your rep with?

I dunno. Does it matter?

OK, here is another question. I was trading wool to another civ in exchange for some lux, and my city with wool flipped to Aztecs. Although it was retaken next turn, I understand that the trade was broken and my rep was damaged as a result of broken trade agreement. What followed then was quite similar to the situation with ROP described above, that is most of civilisations refused to sign trade agreements with me except for Romans and again Siamese. So, why are they so loyal to me? Or are they simply afraid of me?

 

[Renata]

If the trade agreement involves only "hard goods" (techs, cash, maps) on both sides, or only "per-turn" goods (gpt, resources, luxes) on the AI's side (your side is irrelevant in this), then you'll be able to trade no matter the state of your reputation. What you can't do is get hard goods from the AI when you're offering any per-turn goods at all on your side of the deal.

For example (AI on the left, you on the right):
Education = 1250 gold: always ok
iron = 23gpt: always ok
23gpt = dyes plus Theology: always ok
Education = 23 gpt: only ok if your reputation is intact
Education = 1240 gold plus 5gpt: only ok if your reputation is intact
dyes plus Theology = 23gpt: only ok if your reputation is intact

Renata

 

[Aardvark]

It could be that the Siamese and Romans are not in contact with the other CP Civs. If they do not "know" about the RoP, then your reputation is still good with them.

 

[brento1138]

BTW shouldn't my reputation get better in ~1500 years? Almost every CP civ has sneak attacked me. Some of them several times and they're still able to negotiate treaties, but I'm suffering from something that I possibly made 1500 years ago.

You're so right! If anything bothers me about Civilization 3, it's how the AI players won't ever forgive you for things you've done thousands of years ago. I mean, England & the U.S. aren't still angry at eachother for the war of independence... even Germany is doing pretty well on the world stage now a mere 50 years later.

Maybe for civilization 4, a government change can allow foreign nations to see you differently.

 

[New World Order]

True; but England, Germany and the others still have 'unique' relationships, and all is not 'forgiven'.

All the modern nations always will hold grudges against the other, as it seems pre-destined. 'Give peace a chance?' What the hell does that mean.

I support all ideas to improve the diplomatic/trade aspect of the game, making it more fun and realistic. I wouldn't mind a more complex system as well, but willing to wait and see.