Why can't we be friends, Cleo?

Droplede · December 27, 2001, 19:00

OK, I'm confused. No, I'm vexed -- terribly vexed.

Past couple games I'd played, I'd come to expect that once I went to war with a nation, they'd stay furious with me forever. I chalked it up to my particular style of warfare: I'd take five to six strategically placed cities, raze most of them, then drag their leader to the negotiation table, where they'd sign over their treasury and technology in return for peace. Fine. I could live with that.

This game seemed no different. Playing on a large map, regent, as the Greeks, I'd secured a tasty technology lead and decided to go after the Egyptians about 300 B.C. Didn't have to break any treaties to do it -- just the way I like it. Successful war for about 12 turns, then peace treaty. Same pattern, same furious results.

Flash forward to about 1100 A.D. Despite previous experience, I still plied the Egyptians with trade and gifts, trying to get them out of Furious. No intervening hostilities, but no dice. Meanwhile, I'd been at war with Japan for about 20 turns. I razed a few cities, deprived them of saltpeter, robbed them blind at the peace negotiations and ... they instantly upgraded to a mere Annoyed upon signing the treaty!! Huh? What gives? Cleopatra has gotten bargain-priced gems and furs from me, a free (if useless) tech or two through the years, and I'd even thumped on the Romans to help her out. And can I even get her to crack a smile? Cleo, you're breakin' my heart!

Any advice?

Skanky Burns · December 28, 2001, 07:36

Razing cities make people more upset than if you just captured and held the cities. In 300bc it should be fairly easy to hold the cities as they wouldnt have generated much culture yet.

Solver · December 28, 2001, 07:50

Exactly, if you kill their people, the other leader will be very unhappy. I even got Caesar Gracious once, some 1500 years after our small conflict.

If you kill their people, you can at best hope for Annoyed someday. Maybe. And Cleo has a nice character, she loves to backstab me. I do not trust Egypt, and never give Egypt Right of Passage, for Cleo has often backstabbed me, being Polite or even Gracious.

Marquis de Sodaq · January 4, 2002, 14:25

I just started a thread about trade, and leader attitude is a problem. In my game, my only interaction with 14 AI civs has been trade, gifts (to them), and maps. Yet ALL are annoyed or furious. Only the Americans, who I have squashed like bugs, seem justified in their attitude. Even the Iroquois, our mutual neighbors, who I have helped immensely in an alliance against the Americans, hate me.

Is it simply cuz I lead in culture and many demographic categories? In CivII, the AIs took to sneak attacking and being mean if you took too large a lead. Is this simply a new face on an old way to keep runaway leads in check?

HalfLotus · January 4, 2002, 22:00

I have noticed bad attitude as well. It seems like I see more "annoyed" since the patch, too. If you reject a trade offer from a civ, they're attitude toward you is negatively affected.
As far as the leading civ being hated (ala civ2), I'm not sure.

Zorkk · January 4, 2002, 22:29

I've also noticed it seems to be dependant on time/interaction

If you call each of the other civs up each turn, they likely to stay at their current level. If i dont' talk to a civ in a long time, they're alway's furious with me, so i've made it a habit in my games to make sure to talk to 2 or 3 different civ each turn, and that way they're rating towards me doesn't seem to degrade or at least as fast/as much.

Z