reputation computation

[TCO]

ANybody know a good place for describing the different levels of reputation and how affected? I can't find it in the civopedia. In particular, I've been noticing that my reputation will be perfect and go to atrociaous with one misdeed. Is it storing helf-misdeeds like tribute demands or border crossings?

[War4ever]

i know if your asked to break a treat or declare war it costs you a hit....

if you do a sneak attack it costs you at least two hits....

i have seen four or five hits in one deed but i think its because others declare war on you too.....maybe causing a war by more than one civ ups the ante....

[finbar]

According to the "Civ 2 Official Strategy Guide", a book written by David Ellis, a writer and designer for MicroProse at the time, the Reputation Scale works basically as follows:

Your reputation is based on the number of "black marks" you have. Black marks are essentially penalty points you incur for doing underhanded and dishonourable things. Generally, black marks are accrued when you break treaties. Each treaty you break results in 2 black marks. But there are exceptions:

1) If you are incited to break a treaty by another civ with whom you have a treaty, you receive only one black mark, and the civ who incited you to break the treaty doesn't count the black mark. This is the only situation that can cause your reputation to vary from one civ to another.

2) If you control the Eiffel Tower, you receive only one black mark when you break a treaty.

The effect of having a bad reputation is that your rivals are less likely to trust you when you negotiate treaties. The AI adheres to the following reputation parameters when negotiating peace with you:

* No alliances unless your reputation is Excellent of better;

* No permanent treaties unless your reputation is Questionable or better;

* If your reputation is Atrocious, the AI feels no compulsion to adhere to cease-fires or existing treaties with you.

Civ players with MGE will, of course, already know that the AI rarely respects any treaty in any way, shape or form.

The Reputation Scale is as follows:

0 black marks = Spotless
1 = Excellent
2 = Honourable
3 = Questionable
4 = Dishonourable
5 = Poor
6 = Despicable
7 and 7+ = Atrocious

Reputation points can be regained. If you ever feel the need. Black marks are deleted one at a time, over a number of game turns. And the formula is as follows:

(24xDifficulty Level)Turns

Where Difficulty Level = 1 for Chieftain, 2 for Warlord, etc.

(Note. Some of the other forumlae in the book have been questioned due to peculiar parameters, and I'm not a mathematician, so I can't vouch for this equation)

Reputation is gained at the twice the normal rate if you control the Eiffel Tower.

That's it in a nutshell, GP. In theory anyway.

[TCO]

Thanks. I have noticed at deity that I never regain any repuitation. This makes sense based on the multiplier of difficulty.

[EOL]

Originally posted by finbar
* No alliances unless your reputation is Excellent of better;

* No permanent treaties unless your reputation is Questionable

The book isn't strictly correct on these points, as I posted on Solo's thread below, I've gained an aliiance when I've had a dishonourable rep with a bit of tech trading followed by a tech gift.

[DarkCloud]

When can reputation repair?
Other than the Eiffel tower... does it... I heard it doesn't.

[Blaupanzer]

As a practical matter, repairing your reputation only has value if you are not supreme (e.g., OCC?). Also, any civ you betray will treat you as having a lower reputation than the one the Foreign Minister reports. The AI does not correspondingly reward you for keeping treaties or alliances over time, with them or anyone else. The issue of alliances and how many you may have at the various power levels is addressed in another recent thread from Solo. Bottom Line: Once your reputation goes down, forget about it, it's not coming back. Oh well.

[War4ever]

personally if i see atrocious...... i feel cheated.... as a warmonger i would rather be know as War4ever the despicable...... then War4ever the atrocious.....

at least despicable means i can't be trusted.....atrocious could mean a poor leader

[Scouse Gits]

I agree War ... Despicable is a nice word. Atrocious sounds too much like school reports ....

----------------

SG(2)

[TCO]

(sorta related to reputation)

I just noticed that the AI won't ever declare war when I blow up it's buildings. Doesn't seem right. they lodge complaints and all (that have no effect I assume) but they never go to war over it.

[finbar]

Originally posted by Scouse Gits
I agree War ... Despicable is a nice word. Atrocious sounds too much like school reports ....

Too right, lads. Atrocious should be abolished as a ranking. The rankings should read - in descending order - Despicable, Really Despicable, Totally Despicable, Absolutely Despicable, Utterly Despicable, Absolutely Totally Utterly and Unredeemably Despicable, and so on.

Personally, whenever I play a SP game, I like to get my reputation as terrible as possible as quickly as possible.

[shade]

a way to regain reputation is give them(the AI) gifts:simple you just pick the most retarded civ in game and give them some techgifts,there goes your reputation.I know it doesn't help against sneak attacks,but at least you can say they're the bad guy's )
and after a sneakattack you can wipe them out.

Shade

[Edward]

finbar,

Thanks for the reputation reference. It seems it takes 144 deity turns of being good to gain back one level of reputation (about the length of an entire Ribannah game!).

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Also, any civ you betray will treat you as having a lower reputation than the one the Foreign Minister reports.

Yes, I've noticed this as well. An individual civ can act unto you in a manner conflicting with both your spotless reputation and their supposedly favorable attitude. I think that, like conveniently forgetting a peace treaty and not offering you the option to demand removal of troops, the AI sometimes puts up a deceiving friendly attitude when really it's about to sneak attack you (Pearl Harbor anyone?). A civ needn't be hostile to sneak attack you.

And even without this attitude deception, the AI definitely remembers successful subversions, unit bribes, and tech stealings - even if the spy isn't caught and there's no reputation hit. They know full well who's to blame (as do you in regard to their underhandedness).

[TCO]

I don't think the AI cares about unit bribes. He does get POed about city subversion.

[War4ever]

while i can't verify for sure... i believe that bribing of troops causes the ai to look at you slightly differently.

their attitude towards you seems to decline quickly if you make a habit of bribing their cities or units..... even without a war declaration....


as for rep......

honourable
questionable
despicable.....

thats it.... you either have honour or are in a state of losing it..... so if you screw up once.... its questionable.... but after that your a despicable ........ well you catch my drift...

i dont' let people screw me more than once would you ?

[debeest]

I agree, "atrocious" should be changed to "despicable. And there should be a little cartoon of Sylvester the cat to s(thpr)ay it, too.

[Blaupanzer]

The disappearing treaty problem cannot be entirely explained by any one pattern of events. However, I have noticed that if you let an AI's troops into your territory while a treaty is in effect (that is, you don't immediately protest), the treaty is soon vaporized. Similarly, bribing one or two troops from a civ will also vaporize it; I have tested this recently, albeit not rigorously. Also a " no incident bribe may send the treaty into the ether.

I will note, however, that I recently had a treaty mysteriously disappear in that most frustrating of manners. The AI moves troops into my city space. I call to say "I object," but find no option for requesting the withdrawal of troops. I offer a treaty (that option is available, so there must not be one already). They give me one of the usual "No, you minipulative jerk" responses. Therefore, I'm free to attack their troops. So, I do, only to get the message, "We have a treaty with ____, are you sure you want to break it?" THAT is frustrating! In this case, I had not bribed troops or citiesfrom that civ, or even had much contact except thru the diplo screens. Go figure.

[finbar]

Yes, the Case of the Disappearing Treaty is a puzzler. It seems to manifest itself in two ways -

1. You have a peace treaty with another Civ. Suddenly, they arrive and offer you peace. There was a theory that, somewhere else on the map, one of the other Civs has, at some point, convinced the other Civ to break its treaty with you and they're restoring it. It might be the case in some examples, but, as often as not, it will happen when you're at peace with everyone else and treaty breaking wouldn't arise.

2. The immensely frustrating disappearance of the option to ask another Civ to withdraw its troops even though you have a peace treaty with them. Doesn't happen often, but it happens.

[shade]

little addition to 2)
...especially when they're invading your territorry for a sneack attack.

3) If nr 2 happens you are already lucky because most of the time you aren't even granted an audience.(you should try to move a unit in their territorry,first turn warning, second turn demand redraw,try to get past them this way )

shade

[Blaupanzer]

Agree with potential workaround. But how can I violate a treaty I don't have? My reputation will take a hit for attacking these guys, even though they don't think (aren't programmed for) a treaty exists. The actual, practical response, if you give a damn about reputation, is to let them sneak attack you. Thus, the flawed programming in Civ II says "Ignore reputation, only suckers have a good one." Might be true in real life, but an error in programming in this game as far as I'm concerned.

[finbar]

Just another one of the many glitches. I used to worry about the reputation aspect in the early days until I realised it's ultimately meaningless in terms of how the AI civs treat you. In the MGE version of the game anyway. They will betray and sneak attack you regardless. Which is basically just silly programming. On the other hand, I suppose trying to maintain a perfect reputation could be considered yet another challenge - or self-inflicted handicap - along the same lines as opting not to build Wonders and so on.

[fittstim]

With respect to not being able to demand the removal of troops that move into your land, you have to wait until the next turn (after making peace) in order to kick them out. That is, the option doesn't come up until the next turn.

You can't kick out the troops of a civ that you have a "cease fire" with.

You can't kick out dips/spies or caravans/frieghts. (This is the WORST aspect of the game. Imagine being unable to move your troops around in your own country because a stupid foreign camel, which itself is immune to control zones, blocks all movement in the squares surrounding it ).

One thing I noticed recently was that my reputation went down with all of the other 6 civs after another nation declared war with me. All of the reps were "uncooperative". I demanded the withdrawal of the Celtic troops which always seem to move into my land. They declare war. Next turn I take one of their cities and they ask for peace which the senate forced me to accept.

The next turn my reputation with every civ had degraded two steps to "hostile".

So does a civ get "black marks" for demanding the removal of troops from it's own land???

[Blaupanzer]

Did your reputation actually drop? (That's the one your foreign minister tells you: spotless, honorable, etc.) Their attitude, from worshipful to icy, etc., is not based solely on your reputation. The fact that you took a city produces a response, most likely based on your power rating (supreme, pathetic, etc.). This seems to reflect their fear, if you will, expressed as defiance (e.g., sneak attacks, no treaties, etc). Not a bad reflection of real-world politics in that the other powers were concerned when you took the city of a nation you were at peace with two turns before. These actions lead this way in attitude because for the AI the first goal is to survive, not elect the "man of the year." They don't care if you were innocent, they do care if you are dangerous.

[finbar]

Originally posted by fittstim
With respect to not being able to demand the removal of troops that move into your land, you have to wait until the next turn (after making peace) in order to kick them out. That is, the option doesn't come up until the next turn.

That's right. But there are occasions when you still don't get the option to ask them to withdraw even though you have a peace treaty. It's either a glitch, or a deliberate piece of programming to give the AI an advantage.

The next turn my reputation with every civ had degraded two steps to "hostile".

So does a civ get "black marks" for demanding the removal of troops from it's own land???

The AI's attitude to you - worshipful, etc - and your reputation - spotless, etc - aren't specifically related. They should be, you'd think, but they're not. Particularly in the MGE version of the game, the AI will be almost constantly hostile. Give an AI Civ a bundle of techs and they'll be worshipful. Next turn, they'll be hostile. It's stupid programming, probably conceived to make life more difficult for the human player when the AI is so basically incompetent.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by fittstim
One thing I noticed recently was that my reputation went down with all of the other 6 civs after another nation declared war with me. ...

The next turn my reputation with every civ had degraded two steps to "hostile".

So does a civ get "black marks" for demanding the removal of troops from it's own land???

I've seen this, too. My spotless reputation quickly drops to despicable without doing anything other than "insist the AI withdraw his troops." Not in once swoop, but after several consecutive turns of doing this. Being supreme is a factor in this, to be sure. The other AIs all were hostile after this.

[Edward]

Luckily the Playstation version is very faithful to the reputation mark system. I've never had my reputation go down after demanding the withdraw of troops. The civ's attitude almost always drops after such a request. Requesting the withdraw of troops can even provoke a sneak attack. However my reputation has never suffered.

Alas the AI lawyers can still create the "You can't attack us without breaking a treaty yet simultaneously you can't ask us to withdraw either" situation. It's generally a sign that the AI hates you, regardless of its stated attitude. I think it's more likely that the AI cheats in this way to set up for a sneak attack than that it's a simple glitch or bug - but perhaps I'm crediting the AI with too much forethought.

[Blaupanzer]

On occasion, the AI has the advantage of dealing with the player as though its next turn had already occured. This is why the player can't bribe a city of a still-as-yet unannounced democracy. (The foreign policy gal says they are in anarchy, but an attempted bribe gives the "immune" message.) Maybe the AI's "intention" to sneak attack means the player can't ask for removal. As I noted, it's certainly frustrating to discover an attack can't be executed without violating a treaty the AI is actively ignoring. Hopefully this will be addressed in Civ III programming.

[EOL]

Originally posted by Blaupanzer
On occasion, the AI has the advantage of dealing with the player as though its next turn had already occured. This is why the player can't bribe a city of a still-as-yet unannounced democracy. (The foreign policy gal says they are in anarchy, but an attempted bribe gives the "immune" message.) Maybe the AI's "intention" to sneak attack means the player can't ask for removal. As I noted, it's certainly frustrating to discover an attack can't be executed without violating a treaty the AI is actively ignoring. Hopefully this will be addressed in Civ III programming.

The foreign advisor screen (F3) always shows in advance whch government the AI is going to change to (after you get the message that they are changing) so you can tell that the bribe option isn't going to be allowed before your spy sidles along.