What does selecting 'very well' vs 'you'll pay for this' actually do?

[Evalis]

So all game I had the ai doing annoying things, like attack city states that I was allied to, building next to my cities and so on, and would periodically come with an apology saying they didn't mean to damage my relations and all that and I was given two choices "Very well" or "You'll pay for this". Choosing very well seemed to make them happy, but didn't stop them from attacking. (Some apology!)

Then I had persia tell me that I had no standing army and it was a wonder I haven't been wiped off the planet yet. Well first off I thought he was declaring war and I had nothing to lose by saying "You'll pay for this".. but upon responding that way no declaration of war occured and my relations suffered.

Did saying that stop him from declaring war? Did the AI just ask me for permission to sack my cities? What exactly does seleting these options do?

 

[12agnar0k]

No idea, but I would guess the more aggressive "you will pay for this" tone will result in a negative diplomacy modifier with that Civ (unless its a Civ that respects aggressive and strong leaders maybe ), where as the "very well" won't have the opponent resent your tone, it also makes you sound like a pushover, so both seem a little negative to me. I would guess the "you will pay for this" statement is likely to cause more damage to your relation ship than the bending over and presenting statement of Very well.

 

[shinkicker]

Elizabeth loves to say "I'm already tired of looking at your face. I keep hoping you'll go away or something."

I laugh in her face and plot for the day when my Roman legions will be marching through London.

(Except that we sorta started London in the first place.)

 

[The Leviathan]

from what I can tell there are some different effects depending on what you say... I believe the rude answer probably worsens relationships more than a "very well"... also when the AI asks you something, "why are there units on my border" or "back off from this city state" and you lie to them and continue your action they seem to get much more angry at you.

However what you're specifically talking about (the ai coming to you and insulting you) is just the AIs way of telling you they don't like you and you are walking a thin line. Usually when they do this, they enter hostile mode with you which means you should be careful when dealing with them and that they are much more likely too declare on you.

I do wish they would give us the exact details over what every little option does... not asking for an in game spread sheet but knowing the exact effects of our choices would be nice

 

[Evalis]

Every other time the ai had a comment of this nature I just selected 'very well' and the following turn there was a DOW. I get the feeling telling him I wouldn't be interested in a war got him to back off.. which is weird to say the least

 

[DalekDavros]

So all game I had the ai doing annoying things, like attack city states that I was allied to, building next to my cities and so on, and would periodically come with an apology saying they didn't mean to damage my relations and all that and I was given two choices "Very well" or "You'll pay for this". Choosing very well seemed to make them happy, but didn't stop them from attacking. (Some apology!)

Sometimes they'll do this if the city-state declared perma-war on them (so that they really didn't have a choice about it). In the other instances, I've found that if you ask them to break off the attack (make a trade where they "make peace with" the city-state and you offer nothing in return), they will about 50-75% of the time if you have decent relations with them.

 

[RagnorIronpants]

I think it's the way the reputation system is implemented in this version. In IV, reputation was rolled into the +/- diplomacy modifiers - e.g. "You declared war on our friend!". In previous versions, whenever you did something bad (particularly invading people you had peace treaties with) you got a "black mark" next to your name and other leaders would remember this when dealing with you. In Alpha Centauri, for instance, other leaders' attitudes towards you were based on your reputation and your power. If you repeatedly broke treaties of friendships, used planet busters, etc, then you'd have a hard time making friends.

This is basically a more varied version of that. Essentially, how you respond is very important - you can pick the neutral option and just take the insults or you can show that you're not going to be pushed around and just insult them back. In the previous games, this either made the leaders mad at you or made them realise that pushing you around wasn't going to work. Presumably this is the case nowadays as well - if you respond passively, then they'll likely not go to war but they will likely try and threaten you in the future. If you threaten them back and call their bluff, it may increase the chances of war but it may also make them think there's no point threatening you. So the obvious option is to just be polite, but that's not necessarily the best long term option.

In the more specific complaints - e.g. you're building an army on our borders - you can get accused of lying if later on you invade with that army. And, presumably, if a weaker nation notes that you're really powerful - Ghandi did this to me in my last game - responding threateningly will make them more scared of you. From what I can tell, passive leaders frame the discussions politely whilst the more aggressive ones are much more blunt.

Of course, I'm largely extrapolating, but I don't see how this pertains to anything other than the reputation system. There may be something about it in the manual or civilopedia, but I've found them a bit difficult to use. Although it's very confusing without guidance, I still like it more than previous games - it basically has the same impact as tribute demands but tied into the reputational system and based on specific game events and/or demographics.