Suggestion for international reputation in future expansions.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Hi,

I realise that it's too late to get anything new into PtW, but I had this editor-related idea for improving the system of international reputation, which I would like to see implemented in future patches or expansion (hint, hint )
Basically, I'd like to have an editor screen where you can click on what actions will impact your reputation, and a slider bar to set how much your reputation is effected. Thus, you can select actions like: Building unit(s), using Unit(s), Razing Cities, pollution, building improvement(s)/wonder(s), trading resource(s). Then, adjust the slider bar to indicate how much your reputation drops by each time you take that action.
For the unit, building and resource section, you should be then able to go into each seperate editor screen, and click on each resource/building/resource you want to effect reputation, and then set how much you loose each time (in the same way you currently set culture and pollution, for instance).
As examples, let's say you want to have an opiate resource, a terrorist unit and a labour camp "improvement". In the main screen, you click the button which says that improvement(s), unit(s) and resource(s) can reduce reputation. You then go to each seperate screen, and adjust how much reputation you want each example to drop your reputation. So, trading the Opiate luxury might slightly reduce your reputation, wheras using a terrorist unit might severely harm your reputation. A labour camp, of course, would deeply penalise your standing, and everytime you build one!
Anyway, I hope that all makes sense. What do you reckon? Any opinions or ideas you guys might have on whether it could be done, should be done, or if my idea can be improved, will be appreciated.

Yours,

The_Aussie_Lurker.

[Traelin]

Hehe I'll just be happy if they fix diplomacy the way I've suggested in previous threads. However, the labor camp idea is pretty interesting. You could actually use the UN's ungraded functionality to handle it. So if you build a labor camp, other Civs would look at you in much the same way as they did in SMAC if you built a punishment sphere (or whatever it was called). You could have votes that would allow slavery, or view it as an atrocity.

That would actually be very realistic.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Actually, I had considered mentioning the obvious changes you'd have to make to diplomacy if you were to include numerous actions which could harm reputations. UN aside, I'd like to be able to ask another civ to "disband their
'_____________'(add unit of choice here) for the sake of peace and the world community..." or, likewise, "please cease your trade of '___________' (add appropriate resource) for the sake of your reputation..."
Additionally, arms limitation and pollution reduction pacts would also be nice additions to diplomacy-eg. if you disband X tactical missiles, we will disband y. "If you reduce pollution by x%, we will reduce our pollution by y% and so on"
I think the way the UN would be helpful, with advanced diplomacy, is that you should be able to put such matters to the UN (i.e. I believe that nation A should dismantle X nuclear weapons in y turns.) The UN would then vote yes or no. The effected nation could ignore the vote, but this would further erode their reputation (which hardly matters if you are a rogue state, but have the muscle to back it up ) Also, if you are the rogue, and you control the UN, this should give you Veto power in such votes-just like in real-life! Of course, if you have a bad reputation, then you can forget a diplomatic victory.
Anyway, just a thought-it would certainly make the UN, and diplomacy more generally, very interesting.

The_Aussie_Lurker.

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Oh, on a similar note, as you can have things that reduce your reputation, I'd love for them to bring back the Eiffel Tower and, more importantly, a flag which allows certain improvements or wonders (or even units/resources), which improve reputation! This could be done using the system I described above as, in the same way that you can negative culture, negative production or negative pollution for an improvement, you could also have negative Reputation loss!
Anyway, just another thought!

Yours,
The_Aussie_Lurker.

[aahz_capone]

Anything that makes the UN a workable institution like in SMAC is good in my book. I'd really like to see weapons/pollution/trade reduction treaties. And UN sanctioned military action against thoughs who break thoughs treaties.

There should also be more 'evil' forms of building and governance like in SMAC, with punishment spheres (or labour camps), nerve gas (maybe in special artilery units), clamping down on freedom of speech (like nerve stappling) and all.

[WarpStorm]

While I agree with most of the things in this thread I disagree with an "Eiffel Tower"-like Wonder. Your reputation should be determined solely by your actions, not whether you got to build a Wonder first.

[Trifna]

GOODIE GOODIE!!!
I think they should really look back at SMAC and try to take every tiny bit out of it, from political systems to the notion of atrocity and international image. But they should consider also that you may use something not very correct without having as much consequences on your image because you are able to show an official motive, using undirect ways or simply hide it (may I name the case of USA that sends weapons and money to Israel that makes the job for them?... viva black gold). They should really consider taking ideas from SMAC.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by WarpStorm
While I agree with most of the things in this thread I disagree with an "Eiffel Tower"-like Wonder. Your reputation should be determined solely by your actions, not whether you got to build a Wonder first.

I agree with Warp on this one. I thought the Eiffel Tower was too overpowered. You could do just about anything you wanted to, as long as you built it to clear past transgressions. One's reputation should always be based on his/her actions.

With that being said, Firaxis MUST make sure ALL bugs are fixed that could erroneously cause your reputation to be marred (e.g., declaring war automatically on any Civ that uses nukes, and with whom you don't have an MPP).

[Traelin]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
Actually, I had considered mentioning the obvious changes you'd have to make to diplomacy if you were to include numerous actions which could harm reputations. UN aside, I'd like to be able to ask another civ to "disband their
'_____________'(add unit of choice here) for the sake of peace and the world community..." or, likewise, "please cease your trade of '___________' (add appropriate resource) for the sake of your reputation..."
Additionally, arms limitation and pollution reduction pacts would also be nice additions to diplomacy-eg. if you disband X tactical missiles, we will disband y. "If you reduce pollution by x%, we will reduce our pollution by y% and so on"
I think the way the UN would be helpful, with advanced diplomacy, is that you should be able to put such matters to the UN (i.e. I believe that nation A should dismantle X nuclear weapons in y turns.) The UN would then vote yes or no. The effected nation could ignore the vote, but this would further erode their reputation (which hardly matters if you are a rogue state, but have the muscle to back it up ) Also, if you are the rogue, and you control the UN, this should give you Veto power in such votes-just like in real-life! Of course, if you have a bad reputation, then you can forget a diplomatic victory.
Anyway, just a thought-it would certainly make the UN, and diplomacy more generally, very interesting.

The_Aussie_Lurker.

I still can't believe we can't ask the AI to call off an attack on a third party. Sheesh, we could do that in Civ and Civ II.

[Traelin]

Oh, one other thing. Does anyone know for sure that an AI's rep. is ruined with other AIs in much the same way (and at the same level) as the human's is? So if the AI were to break an MPP, would the other AIs be hesitant to sign one with them?