What causes other civs to hate you?

[anarres]

I have been playing CIV3 for a year now, and I am still in the dark as to how the AI decides civ attitudes.

In particular, why do civs go 'furious' after declaring war on other civs? Some ideas I have come across are:

1) If you have an active deal with the civ you declare war on
- This is well known, and you can check for active deals by going to the deplomacy screen for that civ.

2) If you are in the territory of a civ when you declare war on them
- This I heard recently, and is believable.

3) If the civ you attack has a ROP with another civ that civ will become 'furious'
- This is just an idea, and I have no proof.

But this is obviously not the whole picture. Last night, I declared war on a civ. My troops were waiting outside their borders, I had no active deals with them, and they had no ROP agreements with other civs.

In the same turn I declared war and then entered their territory. They were dead in 6 or 7 turns, but *all* the other civs now are 'furious' and will not accept any kind or gold-per-turn deal except for luxuries.

Why try to keep them happy when they respond like this? It would have been better to set up a ROP with the civ I wanted to kill and then break it and take them in one turn.

Any help is greatly appreciated as this is the one area of CIV3 I feel unable to understand.

 

[Shabbaman]

Well, declaring war is still breaking a deal. And if you've got any other deals with the civ you're declaring war on, they're considered broken too. So, if you had any gpt deal, such as a trade deal...

 

[swiftsure]

I've read that the best thing to do is to try and get the other civ to declare war on you, this can be achieved by asking them to leave your territory or trying to place a spy. Of course its well known that the only way to successfully place a spy is to want him to be caught so the other civ will declare war on you.

 

[Gothmog]

The other civs are angry that you wiped out your enemy. Next time (as long as you are not in danger of culture flips) leave them with one city and let some other civ take the rep hit.

Declaring war is breaking a deal as Shabbaman and swiftsure say. This is also a rep hit.

Finally, agressive settlements tend to piss off the victim. Especially if they take away a luxury or resource.

 

[Cartouche Bee]

As Gothmog says, plus if you razed any of their cities, that is viewed as ethnic cleansing and definitely not approved.

If you are willing to raze a city, why worry about losing that city by culture flipping?

 

[Gothmog]

You are correct Cartouche Bee, and when you put it that way - why worry about breaking a trade deal either? The dogs of war honor nothing.

I wonder to what extent these effects are cumulative and how long they take to wear off.

 

[Cartouche Bee]

If you wipe out another civ, the effect never wears off, as far as I know. If it does wear off at some point it is too long to make a difference.

I usually play the honor game until the consequences no longer matter, then....

 

[DaveMcW]

Breaking a trade deal does not matter much if you have a large treasury (10,000+) since you will never need buy on credit anyway.

Once I am rich enough I pay gold-per-turn for techs from the most advanced civ, then backstab them and buy mpps and alliances against them with my new techs. After that the game ends quickly.

 

[anarres]

I don't need money. I am giving techs and luxs away for free to keep the AIs researching. (Going for a spaceship win in the tourney).

The only reason I care about attitudes is that I don't want war to break out over the world. I am enjoying everyone else researching for me.

The one thing I did need was the land the enemy was on. I needed the island for my second power base, and so I took it. I raised some cities as they were not optimally placed.

Does anyone know if starving a city and producing a settler from it counts as raising a city? And what if I take a city, sell everything and then abandon it. Do these methods still upset eveyone?

 

[Gothmog]

These are good questions ... AFAIK

Starving a city does not cause any rep hit. Nor does producing a settler to disband it.

Abandoning a city with a foreign national in it is as bad as raising it.

 

[anarres]

Is there a guide anywhere that tells you about citizen moods?

If not I may try and find the time to write one, although I will need loads more input...

 

[Tassadar]

Originally posted by anarres


In the same turn I declared war and then entered their territory.

I think this why, i always declare war, end turn, then next turn i attack and i raze city most of the time and i am still able to do gold per turn deal later on with other civilisation.

 

[anarres]

Originally posted by Tassadar
I think this why, i always declare war, end turn, then next turn i attack and i raze city most of the time and i am still able to do gold per turn deal later on with other civilisation.

Interesting. I will reload my game at this point and try it...


...or I would if I had kept a save. I will try and test this both ways.

 

[SanPellegrino]

another point are "slaves" (workers) you got from a civ. If you make them join one of your cities, fine but when you use them, they'll get angry

 

[Moonsinger]

Originally posted by SanPellegrino
another point are "slaves" (workers) you got from a civ. If you make them join one of your cities, fine but when you use them, they'll get angry

That doesn't sound logical! For example, I buy slave workers from other civs all the time. If they don't want me to use them, why on earth would they sell them to me in the first place?

 

[SanPellegrino]

Originally posted by Moonsinger


That doesn't sound logical! For example, I buy slave workers from other civs all the time. If they don't want me to use them, why on earth would they sell them to me in the first place?

Because they just want to sit on their ass in one of our nice cities and get angry when they have to work

 

[Fanny Brice]

Slaves.... does anyone have a definative answer on this?

I'm not sure if this is a myth or a fact at this point. I've seen people swear by both points of view... 1) that it matters how you use them, and 2) that it has no affect what so ever on game play.

And I would love to see a real guide to civ attitudes. They alway seem to hate you. If you are the leading civ, there seems to be very little you can do. I've given away heaps of gold and techs in attempts to solidfy relationships with "minor" civs. They all eventually turn on you.

 

[anarres]

I don't think slaves are any different from foreign national when you add them to a city. On Deity you only get 1 content face in a city then *all* are unhappy after that, so even if slaves were unhappy it would make no difference.

I mentioned somewhere above in this thread that I would put together a guide on CIV attitudes, but this will have to wait for the forum search function to be activated again as that is where the best info is

If anyone else thinks they can do it instead then please do so, as I know very little, but am getting frustrated that there isn't a guide myself.

 

[Fanny Brice]

With "slaves," as far as I know the only penalty you incur is that they are half as productive as a normal worker. I don't think putting them to work angers their home civ... and I don't think putting them to work angers your own population. I think both points are Civ 3 misconceptions or myths.

I generally do not add them to my cities' population unless their own civilization has been wiped out. At least then, you can count on them being "neautral" -- i.e., you don't get that added whining "stop the aggression" stuff from them in the event of war against a "living" civilization.