How can you improve other civ's attidude toward you?

[Lord Merciless]

I do lots of warmongerings. It's no surprise that other civs are all pissed at me. Here is the question though: suppose I want to settle down and peacefully coexist with others, do other civs's attitude get better with the passage of time?

[GusSmed]

The short answer is, no.

Generally, if you've done a civ any serious harm, they'll be forever furious with you. Simply being at war, or fighting a defensive war, doesn't count, but if you've taken any of their cities you can pretty much forget them ever being friendly again.

You can do various things to make civs you haven't fought happier, but over time they drop toward "annoyed", which is the second-lowest rating.

Every trade seems to give a small bonus to attitude. Gifts of course give a larger bonus to attitude. Being at war with the same civilization (i.e. you're both at war with Japan) greatly improves the other civ's opinion, so long as you're both still at war. Mutual protection pacts and right of passage agreements both give a bonus as long as they're still in effect.

For the most part, though, I wouldn't sweat it.

- Gus

[Lord Merciless]

The answer is that you have to eliminate any civs you already screwed over with. As for others, give them brownies may improve their attitudes.

Well, that basically means settling down peacefully is dangerous business.

[Catt]

My experiences are a little different.

If I've aggressively made war against a certain civ numerous times, each time taking cities, land and slaves, so in the end I have basically eliminated that civ's chance of being a power in the game, I find it very hard to move their attitude into neutral or positive territory (except for the temporary "gracious" or "polit" that comes from an allaince or an MPP during war but goes away with the deal's end).

On the other hand, I can still make war several times, take cities, land, and slaves from a certain civ and later enjoy neutral or even positive attitudes. It is important not to have voluntarily razed cities, of course. It's only my anecdotal speculation, but I get the sense that there is a "tipping over" point at which better relations become very difficult, if not impossible, and taking and holding cities and land certainly builds towards the tipping point without automatically putting you there. Razing cities and eliminating civs completely seems to cause a world-wide "attitude adjustment."

What can you do to improve? Sell your captured slaves back to the civ or to another civ, or join them to your cities. Trade, early and often. Again anecdotally, I have found bona fide trades to be more valuable than simple gifts -- I don't know if (1) this is true because trading honorably also improves reputation (which could improve attitude), (2) this is true because the AI is coded to be suspicious of gifts (I'm sure you've seen those diplo responses which say something like "thanks . . . I wonder what you're up to"), or (3) it's not true at all, and I'm just being silly. Establish embassies if not already established. Provide ROPs if you can do so safely. When they offer an unacceptable deal, try to find something to trade (even buying their map for a few gold) -- this is related to "trade often."

It's easier to keep them friendly than it is to make them friendly after they're angry.

Also, be aware that the larger, more powerful, more advanced your civ is compared to theirs, the harder it will be to keep positive attittudes. In those games in which I just run away from the crowd, I will often find everyone is annoyed or furious, even though I have never been to war with some of them, never broke a deal with anyone, never razed cities, etc. -- I am simply far, far more powerful than they'll ever be .

Final note: as much as I enjoy the "attitudinal" aspects of the game, I really think attititude is not terribly important. Reputation, and preserving a good reputation despite negative attitudes, is far more important and offers much more game flexibility than maintaining positive attitudes. I wouldn't put a whole lot of effort into maintaining positive attitudes - I just don't see significant reward for doing so.

Catt

[GusSmed]

Originally posted by Catt
Reputation, and preserving a good reputation despite negative attitudes, is far more important and offers much more game flexibility than maintaining positive attitudes.

You're right, I should have mentioned that. I'm very, very careful about being as "honorable" as I can manage. I never break an agreement before the 20 turn period expires voluntarily, not even through declaring war.

The main dishonorable thing I do is declare war. When possible, I prefer the other civ to declare war instead. Even when I do declare war, I will never do so if I'm inside the 20 turn limit of a peace treaty.

I've found that if you ever break a Military Alliance by declaring peace before it expires, you can forget about any civ ever agreeing to another Military Alliance.

If you purchase a technology with a 20 turn trade for luxuries, and then declare war immediately afterward, breaking that agreement, you can forget about any civ accepting a similar deal. I've actually seen it go from "This trade will be acceptable" to "They would never make such a deal" just by adding a luxury to my side after such a betrayal.

That was actually pretty bizzare, since the new deal was of course identical to the old, except for the luxury. The AI had just developed a conditioned pain response to luxuries. It was pretty specific, since I could sell luxuries for gold per turn deals, I just couldn't include them when buying technology.

The difference between attitude and reputation is reputation actually affects AI behavior. Attitude doesn't. I've had civs execute a sneak attack from a Right of Passage agreement even though they had the most positive ("Gracious") attitude.

- Gus

[Catt]

Originally posted by GusSmed

The difference between attitude and reputation is reputation actually affects AI behavior. Attitude doesn't. I've had civs execute a sneak attack from a Right of Passage agreement even though they had the most positive ("Gracious") attitude.

Yup - I've had a "Gracious" ally, during our RoP and MPP, sneak attack me -- that's when I changed my mind about MPPs -- I had always treated them as a very effective "non-aggression" pact, essentially ensuring 20 turns of peace with that civ.

I do think attitude affects AI behavior, but I think it is very subtle (and therefore not a great "lever" for the player to manipulate). For instance, I think attitude matters if a UN vote is called. More commonly, I think securing an alliance against a 3rd civ is easier if the target partner's attitude is more positive -- and conversely, I think a negative attitude means it will take less for a 3rd civ to bribe the target civ into an alliance against you (or less provocation for the target civ to declare war on you). As I said though, IMHO, the effect is subtle and I rarely (if ever) find it worthwhile to take any action for the sake of improved attitudes that I otherwise wouldn't take on its merits without considering attitude.

I also try to play honorably and will never break a deal unless the game circumstances call for a "forget rep and just go" rest of the game. My experiences are the same as yours -- break a deal, and forget about trading your per turn item for an upfront item (i.e., resource for tech) -- probably won't happen again for a long time.

Catt

[Coracle]

Originally posted by GusSmed
The short answer is, no.

Generally, if you've done a civ any serious harm, they'll be forever furious with you. . .

Which is completely unrealistic. Soon after World War Two both (West) Germany and Japan were American allies.

In Civ 3, I have been blamed for things I never did. Civs I would not meet for a thousand years hated me for having destroyed another civ eight hundred years earlier as they wouldn't make peace with me. The most minor infraction always would be remembered forever.

Great trade deals were cancelled by other civs because of this reputation thing. Why would a civ turn down six free resources??!

I have been attacked for no reason by a civ on the other side of the continent. After I stop their feeble attacks and they ask for peace (and get it) centuries later another civ hates me for what I supposedly did to THEM?!?

The whacky Trade/Diplomatic AI is one of the things that irritates me the most about the Civ 3. It has not been improved with PTW.

I miss the Eifel Tower in Civ 2 that could improve reputations.

[Kc7mxo]

The whacky Trade/Diplomatic AI is one of the things that irritates me the most about the Civ 3. It has not been improved with PTW.

I agree, from the instant i first played civ 3, the Ai was an arrogant jerk. Why did it take 5 resources of mine and a tech, to give me one stinking luxury?

[Konquest02]

Originally posted by Coracle
Which is completely unrealistic. Soon after World War Two both (West) Germany and Japan were American allies ...
[...]
I miss the Eifel Tower in Civ 2 that could improve reputations.

Then stop whining and go back to Civ 2 or play another game!

--Kon--

[Theseus]

I agree with Catt... beyond a "tipping point" neither attitude nor rep are truly recoverable.

That said, the tipping point is fairly extreme... I can usually manage to get just about every AI civ back to Polit and even Gracious.

[Harovan]

Originally posted by Coracle
Which is completely unrealistic. Soon after World War Two both (West) Germany and Japan were American allies.

A civ's attitude towards you and the ability to make an alliance with them are two completely different things. You can make an alliance or a MPP with a "furious" civ any time, it just will cost you a bit more, if at all. Another thing is, if you ever have broken an alliance or MPP, or abused a RoP. If you did so, you'll have a hard time to make an alliance for the rest of the game.

There was a bug in the game. I've seen it till 1.21f. I was blamed to have violated a RoP, although I didn't even sign a single one for the whole game. I've not seen it again in 1.29f or PtW, but I also didn't see a "fixed" note in the change logs.

[punkbass2000]

Originally posted by Coracle
Which is completely unrealistic. Soon after World War Two both (West) Germany and Japan were American allies.

Do the words 'Marshall Plan' mean anything to you?

[Mazarin]

Originally posted by Sir Ralph
There was a bug in the game. I've seen it till 1.21f. I was blamed to have violated a RoP, although I didn't even sign a single one for the whole game. I've not seen it again in 1.29f or PtW, but I also didn't see a "fixed" note in the change logs.

That isn't a bug....and happened to me in 1.29f also: When you march in a civ's territory, they ask you to leave and you declare ware then, you'll be treated like you violated a RoP. That is why you should alway declare ware before letting your troups to enemy territory.

[MiloMilo]

I concur w/ Mazarin... I think "violating a RoP agreement" is actually a misnomer. What is actually bad is declaring war while you have any units in the other civ's territory. The idea is that you moved units to strategic positions under the guise of peace, and then sneak attacked; this is mean. Abusing a RoP agreement is the most effective way to do this, but it can still happen before writing or with civs you don't have RoP with.

In short: the effect of declaring war on a civ while you have any units within their territory (not sure if explorers trip this, but they probably do), regardless of your diplomatic relations with them, is that they and the civs they're in contact with will no longer sign RoP agreements with you.

[GusSmed]

Originally posted by MiloMilo
What is actually bad is declaring war while you have any units in the other civ's territory.

This is not actually true. I've run multiple ROP rapes by agreeing to a ROP, waiting 20 turns, moving units deep into enemy territory, calling up the other civ and peacefully cancelling the ROP (possible because it's been 20+ turns), and then declaring war.

Other civs were perfectly happy to agree to a ROP after I've done this.

That said, I never wait until the other civ calls me up to complain about units in their territory. I always declare war, one way or another, on my turn, rather than doing so in response to the "move your units or declare war!" dialog.

I don't mind the AI being nasty in its negotiations if it's in its best interests. In fact, I rather see the insistance on 5:1 luxury trades as being a major weakness in the AI, since it's only hurting itself by turning down something more reasonable. It doesn't have to be 1:1, in fact it makes sense to insist on more if I'm larger and getting a larger benefit. However, the AI's trading guidelines are skewed way beyond that.

What does steam me a bit is that the AI effectively has a partial unilateral ROP with you at all times, because it marches troops through your territory all the time. Attitude steadily drops every time you insist they cease this stupidity, and eventually they declare war.

It's stupid because 90% of the time, they're not annoyed at you at all, they just can't see fit to find another way around, which you as a human player always do.

That means your choices are either to accept the AI casually violating your territory when its marching to attack someone else, or accept the idea that you're going to be at war with them pretty soon. Of course, if you do the same thing, they always insist you get out.

At least it's only a partial ROP, since they can't use your roads.

- Gus

[Thoth]

Depending on your relative military strength, you may want to agree to an ROP with the offender. The AI will send units through your territory regardless, I find letting the AI use my roads/railroads decreases the annoyance factor and tends to improve relations.

In my last game as the French, both the Germans and the English were using my rail system to ferry troops back and forth. Both were very happy with me (despite the heavy prunings I'd given both of them earlier in the game.) and I didn't have AI units in my territory except when the occasional unit retreated into it. Coventry changed hands at least 6 times in 15 turns.

[GusSmed]

Originally posted by Thoth
Depending on your relative military strength, you may want to agree to an ROP with the offender. The AI will send units through your territory regardless, I find letting the AI use my roads/railroads decreases the annoyance factor and tends to improve relations.

I thought that way until the first time a "friendly" civ performed a ROP rape against me. Even really weak civs will do this to you if you leave a city relatively undefended, which I am prone to do late in the game with my inner cities.

This is particularly bad if you've got a rail network. A ROP means you've got to treat every city as if it were a front line defender, with 3 good defensive units. That's more than I really want to spend, both in shields and in gold per turn upkeep.

I do still occasionally grant ROPs to civs that I want to move quickly through my territory, but I'm usually terribly paranoid about them and I cancel them as soon as I can honorably do so.

I think the fact that ROP rapes are possible, either for the human player or for the AI, is a nasty flaw. I wish they'd gone with the Civ 2 model, where if you broke an alliance (which granted an equivalent of ROP), all of your units immediately moved out of enemy territory.

- Gus