Reputation & Trading Cost

[Catt]

Based upon a question in another thread that went something like "does a poor reputation cost you more in deals with the AI?" I was about to respond something like: "It has been said many times by experienced players that reputation does affect trading relationships and terms demanded, and my own anecdotal experience confirms it for me, but can't recall anything definitive (like a repeatable experiment posted by someone or a comment from a Firaxian)."

But then I realized I could do a simple experiment with a couple of random saved games.

First experiment: I determined the precise gold (lump sum) that a "Polite" (and much weaker civ) would pay for my map. Once determined, I didn't close the deal, but instead demanded as tribute a major city. Repeated until "Polite" civ was "Furious" civ. Went back to the map trade. Price was exactly the same.

Second experiment: I determined the precise gold (lump sum) that, in addition to my supply of furs, I would need to offer to a "Gracious" (and much more powerful) civ in order to acquire Rocketry. Once determined, I didn't close the deal, but instead demanded Rocketry as tribute. Repeated until "Gracious" civ was "Furious" civ. Went back to the gold and furs trade. Price was exactly the same.

So, I've concluded that with respect to trades, the AI civ attitude towards you has no bearing on the cost of trading. Anyone seen evidence to the contrary?

*** Note: I am well aware that breaking turn-based treaties (RoP, military alliance, gpt trades, etc.) seriously hampers your ability to make turn-based trades in the future, even if you rehabilitate your repuatation somewhat so the AI civ attitude towards you is positive. The question in this thread is directed solely as to the cost of trades, not the viability of a civ actually doing a trade.

[Coracle]

You have basically proved that the Diplomatic AI is illogical and braindead, as I have long said.

But. . . I know for a fact that when I try to add on certain things in a deal the civ will say some crap about "not after your perfidy with the" whatever civ it supposedly was.

Now, first of all, more often than not I was attacked, or did nothing to justify such an attitude.

Second, the stupid AI has a civ who I first met a thousand years after another civ was destroyed claiming that destroyed civ told us of your "perfidy". Well, no real civ a thousand years in the future would care what happened a millennium ago, and the destroyed civ told them nothing as they have been long extinct.
But I get blamed anyway.

As for the deals, as I recall I concluded a trade for resources, but when I added on some techs I got the old stuff about my "perfidy" and there was no deal, that despite a HUGE benefit for the other civ. (I had done nothing to justify that "perfidy" remark).

So some deals can be made perhaps at roughly the same rates, but other deals cannot. So, it is generally harder to make bigger deals with civs owing to the stupid, retarded AI. It does often hurt your trade ability to have a bad reputation.

I doubt if reputation effects your going to war with civs as that seems to be a measure of the bean-counting AI more than reputation.

CONCLUSION: I think you are CORRECT about the costs of trades, not their viability.

And that is another dumb thing about this dumb AI.

[Cyclotron]

Attitude probably has a lot more to do with civs keeping their trades, not making them... but your point is quite interesting.

And now, on to the clowns.

Originally posted by Coracle
Second, the stupid AI has a civ who I first met a thousand years after another civ was destroyed claiming that destroyed civ told us of your "perfidy". Well, no real civ a thousand years in the future would care what happened a millennium ago, and the destroyed civ told them nothing as they have been long extinct.
But I get blamed anyway.

Irrelevent. If the human player remembers transgressions back since the beginning of the game, it stands to reason that the AI should remember them since the beginning. Or is this another one of your attempts to make the game so you can win more easily?

As for the deals, as I recall I concluded a trade for resources, but when I added on some techs I got the old stuff about my "perfidy" and there was no deal, that despite a HUGE benefit for the other civ. (I had done nothing to justify that "perfidy" remark).

A Civ will rarely trade you cancellable trades (gpt, lux, strat) for once time irrevocable trades, like techs and gold. What you considered a huge benefit might be interpereted as a way to take their techs and break the deal... especially if they didn't trust you.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Coracle
You have basically proved that the Diplomatic AI is illogical and braindead, as I have long said.

Well, that was not my point, and I don't think my observation proves that. One could certainly take the view that a map (or a technology) is worth $$ on the open market, regardless of one's attitude towards one's trading partner. In fact, I think this is more often the case in the real world . OTOH, since many technologies have a military application (and Rocketry certainly does), I was a bit surprised that the price of the deal didn't change with the change in attitude.

But. . . I know for a fact that when I try to add on certain things in a deal the civ will say some crap about "not after your perfidy with the" whatever civ it supposedly was.

(. . . .)

As for the deals, as I recall I concluded a trade for resources, but when I added on some techs I got the old stuff about my "perfidy" and there was no deal, that despite a HUGE benefit for the other civ. (I had done nothing to justify that "perfidy" remark).

I have only gotten the "perfidy" sorts of comments in relation to deals that are of turn-based length, and then only after I have breached a turn-based deal in the past (whether deliberately or not).

CONCLUSION: I think you are CORRECT about the costs of trades, not their viability.

And that is another dumb thing about this dumb AI.

I'm actually pretty happy with the AI. I'm just trying to nail down facts -- I had been under the impression that rep also affects the price of doing deals (and I think many others share this view which may be incorrectly held.)

Catt

[Coracle]

Oh, let me add this.

Why would another civ refuse a deal that greatly helps THEM, a deal loaded with stuff they can use, because of MY civ's ALLEGED "perfidy"? (Of course, why would I even make such a deal? To test the AI.).

The braindead AI spites ITSELF by refusing such a great deal. Dumb.

[nato]

I guess that depends on whether you want the AI to behave human-like, or to behave in the most optimal, game winning way.

For instance, if I felt someone really was perfidious (the worst thing you could say about someone!) I wouldn't want to deal with them. I would never conclude a deal with someone I thought was evil, even if it wasn't the optimal thing to do. As a human, blood money is no good to me.

However, if you want the AI to act optimally, it probably should take the deal. If I was a robot or something, blood money would be just as good as any money to me.

So I think either is ok, it just depends which you prefer. For myself, I think the AI should be as humanlike as possible ... as long as it can actually do it. Thus I wouldn't try to program it to do some of the clever, complicated things we humans can ... but I would like it to do diplomacy more humanlike than robotlike.

Catt, really good work and good findings. That is interesting info. I myself think it would be better if the AI gave better deals to people it was friendly with (without going overboard with it, of course). This would help make diplomacy and reputation more important.

[fittstim]

Originally posted by Catt

So, I've concluded that with respect to trades, the AI civ attitude towards you has no bearing on the cost of trading. Anyone seen evidence to the contrary?

You're probably correct in your assumption but you haven't proven it conclusively yet. In order to do that you should:

1) Make the offer and see how much you could get.
2) Don't make the trade but instead wait until the next turn and see how much you can now get.
3) Reload the game so that you're at 1) again and demand a bunch of stuff so that the civ is furious.
4) Don't make the trade - wait a turn.
5) Offer the same trade after the civ has been furious with you for a turn. See if the amount is the same as in 1) or 2) above.

Does that make sense? The point is that sometimes you have to wait until a turn goes by for a civ's attitude to change. I don't know if this is by design or by mistake. It happens both for upgrading and degrading relations. That is, when I give a gift to a nation that is furious with me, sometimes nothing happens until the next turn, sometimes something happens immediately.

[Solver]

Good observation, but this isn't exactly reputation. Reputation is where noone will want Right of Passe with you after you betray someone early one.

[MiloMilo]

I agree with nato that reputation, or more specifically, attitude, should probably affect trading values. If someone is feeling gracious towards me, let them actually be gracious, which is to say, generous. If they're annoyed or furious, let them be more stingy. (Of course, you have to give them stuff to make them gracious, so it ends up being expensive anyway, but that's another story...)

Anyway, this seems like it could be implemented pretty easily. There is a range of discrete values for attitude, and a slider with specific values for trading rate. Couldn't they program a correlation between attitutde and AI trading rate, so that the AI would give a sweet deal to their penniless but in-good-stead friend - the same way we (or I anyway) often do with our friendly little vassal states?

Is this something we should clamor for in the upcoming patch or XP? Or maybe just programmed by some savvy modder? I suspect the former is the better option.

[SpencerH]

Originally posted by Coracle
But. . . I know for a fact that when I try to add on certain things in a deal the civ will say some crap about "not after your perfidy with the" whatever civ it supposedly was.

Now, first of all, more often than not I was attacked, or did nothing to justify such an attitude.

Are you saying that you dont know of real world examples where the cause and responsibilty for a military action are in question?

[Catt]

Originally posted by fittstim


You're probably correct in your assumption but you haven't proven it conclusively yet. In order to do that you should:

1) Make the offer and see how much you could get.
2) Don't make the trade but instead wait until the next turn and see how much you can now get.
3) Reload the game so that you're at 1) again and demand a bunch of stuff so that the civ is furious.
4) Don't make the trade - wait a turn.
5) Offer the same trade after the civ has been furious with you for a turn. See if the amount is the same as in 1) or 2) above.

Does that make sense? The point is that sometimes you have to wait until a turn goes by for a civ's attitude to change. I don't know if this is by design or by mistake. It happens both for upgrading and degrading relations. That is, when I give a gift to a nation that is furious with me, sometimes nothing happens until the next turn, sometimes something happens immediately.

Yes, I should try this, but I'm at work now. Note that the AI attitude did definitely change from Gracious to Furious -- but I understand what you're saying -- the algorithm that allows attitude to affect trading values (if it exists) may not kick in until the next turn, even though the attitude identifier seems to hgave changed (just like other effects in the game don't occur until the next full turn).

BTW, I'm not sure I've proven anything either -- I just did two random tests on a saved game. I'm hoping some of our colleagues who like to break apart the game's mysteries will run some truly comprehensive experiements and then share the results

Catt

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Coracle
Oh, let me add this.

Why would another civ refuse a deal that greatly helps THEM, a deal loaded with stuff they can use, because of MY civ's ALLEGED "perfidy"? (Of course, why would I even make such a deal? To test the AI.).

The braindead AI spites ITSELF by refusing such a great deal. Dumb.

I don't know that this is the case, but is it possible that trading with a "perfidious" nation can adversely effect your reputation? Like if I'm playing Germany, and I offer a deal to Britain who 10 turns ago broke a ROP with Rome, does my reputation go down for being friends with the treacherous British?

Again, I'm just guessing, but that could explain why a civ would pass up a sweet deal from you.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Solver
Good observation, but this isn't exactly reputation. Reputation is where noone will want Right of Passe with you after you betray someone early one.

Solver - a very astute observation. I am mixing attitude and reputation a bit here, and therefore muddying the waters.

I went back to the manual [since it's definitive and correct on all matters civ ] and unearthed these two passages:

"Every one of your opponents has an attitude that he or she presents during negotiations. Your rivals' attitudes can range from enthusiastically friendly to furiously hostile. The leader's attitude toward you is noted beneath his or her likeness during negotiations. Rulers also have personality traits that affect their attitudes. Your rivals' attitudes change over time depending on your rank in the game, the current balance of power, the gifts you offer them, and you reputation for keeping your word in negotiations. Every time you go back on your word, international observers notice and remember."
-- From dialogue box in Chapter 13 (emphasis in original)

This seems to make clear the difference between attitude and reputation.

BUT, in the "For Beginner's Only" chapter, we have this refernce:

"Establishing effective communication with your neighbors is vital to success. Early on in the game, you should take any reasonable actions to ensure that nearby civilizations enjoy your company. Not only does this keep your civilization reasonably safe from attack, it can also lead to profitable exchanges. You can see your opponent's attitude toward you when you make contact with one another. The attitudes of rival leaders are based on your past behavior when dealing with other civilizations."
-- From Chapter 4

This would seem to imply that reputation and attitude are much more closely linked than the first quote. This also, IMO, strongly implies that "profitable exchanges" are more likely with an AI civ who holds you in positive attitude.

[and I think we've all been attacked by a gracious or polite civ, so I certainly don't think that attitude alone keeps you "reasonably safe from attack" ].

Would love to hear from others who have seen a linkage between attitude and the price of trades.

Catt

[jshelr]

What always gets me is that Bismark is furious with me after he demands a territory may and 31 gold and, instead, ends up declaring war and getting his posterior whipped. He's just got emotional problems. I've never seen this type of attitude prevent him from making a good deal.

[Miznia]

By the way Coracle, I would refuse your deal due to your perfidy.