a rep hit for the wrong reason

ruby_maser · November 10, 2002, 23:02

this some seriously stupid crap.

In my current game I'm playing the Mongols on emperor, and generally, I haven't been doing bad. But I started to wonder why other nations were wary about trading luxuries with me. Everything else didn't seem to be a problem.

Once upon a time, I was trading with Spain (some time ago in terms of the game), and my nearest neighbors, the big bad Zulus, decided it was time to ask me for a little tribute. Well, I told the to go f*** themselves and proceeded to take several of their cities and raze several more.

All the while, I'm not thinking I've done anything wrong. After all, they declared war on me . But apparently, they were my only way of trading with Spain and as the lines of trade were severed during the war, I was slapped with a bad reputation for something I had no part in.

This is a flaw in the game. The 20 turn trade deal shouldn't be hardcoded anyway, but since it is, reputation hits should be reconfigured around the notion of whether or not I had any control in the matter.

Come on, firaxis! I wasting literally hours of time here trying to play a straight game, not step on any toes I don't mean to step on, and you've got it programmed to hate me for things I can't help. Stupid!

asleepathewheel · November 10, 2002, 23:31

yes, this is a big problem.

That said, I certainly use this trick to my advantage agaisnt the AI....

i would hope that somehow this aspect can be rectified and improved, that the AI would be acknowldege the reasons for breaking a treaty and act accordingly.

alva · November 10, 2002, 23:52

If you would have paid the Zulu, you wouldn't have had a rep hit.

You are now paying the price, for not paying the price

The reason, I guess they did it this was (firaxis) is to counter the possible exploits. But yes, sometimes, it IS

asleepathewheel · November 10, 2002, 23:55

Quote:

Originally posted by alva848
If you would have paid the Zulu, you wouldn't have had a rep hit.

You are now paying the price, for not paying the price

The reason, I guess they did it this was (firaxis) is to counter the possible exploits. But yes, sometimes, it IS

good point, that would be a cheap way of getting out of a deal. still, if one AI declares war on you and its not your fault, the ex trade partner should take that into consideration

Theseus · November 11, 2002, 00:41

alva, that was EXACTLY my reaction... I've never really commented on this aspect before, and I know it really POs some people (including Arrian), BUT... it's all part of the in-game geo-politics. Either accept that, and include the impact in your decision-making, or pay the price. And yes, sometimes you will get screwed, for reasons beyond your control... too bad.

YC4B4U · November 11, 2002, 00:47

Think of it this way:

If you set up the deal again after the war, and then a second war breaks out, they lose the luxury again. So it is really an insurance policy against losing the trade route again.

It is pretty clumsy way of doing reputation I admit...

vmxa1 · November 11, 2002, 05:34

I thought razing cities was not looked upon with favor at any time?

aahz_capone · November 11, 2002, 07:01

I totally agree that the favour thing in civ3 needs some work. I've had the same problem of having my deals broken by others and getting the blame. Now, I wouldn't mind it in MP, because humans can understand that and you can explain it. But the AI doesn't really care itself. In fact I can't remeber game I finished in which there was an AI left with a good reputation. They had all either screwed me over or accidently screwed someone else over by means ruby_master has mentioned. In the end everyone distrusts everyone, even their allies, and never forget the atrosity of 4000 years ago. A bit of a shame, really.

I take it there is noe way to fix this in a patch or it would have been done long before. I don't remember the SMAC reputation being so ficle.