Declaring War

[TheStinger]

In my most recent game, my security serives discovered the ottomans carrying out espionage in one of my cities.

If I decalred war would I take a rep hit, its already quite low because I have only just recently finished a war to stop them getting the theory of evolution( which failed by 1 turn so I razed it instead )

The AI often declares war on me when it discover my attempts at being James Bond

[badams52]

Originally posted by TheStinger
If I decalred war would I take a rep hit, its already quite low because I have only just recently finished a war to stop them getting the theory of evolution( which failed by 1 turn so I razed it instead )

Hmmm, so you razed it for spite? The effects of ToE certainly were already used up.

Whether or not to declare war based on rep depends upon a lot of factors. If you two are the super powers, I say take 'em out and switch govt. if you need to.

[TheStinger]

Completley out of spite. Its the best reason

[Spec]

Anytime YOU declare war, you always screew up your rep. The best way to get it back is to make a Military alliance with who ever you can vs the ottoman, those civs will become gracious or polite....very rarely the'll be annoyed if they were furious before.

[Master Zen]

Of course, you will need mayor $$ sometimes if those neighbouring civs are anything near friendly to your enemy.

I've also heard that declaring war "before" invading them (ie not in their territory) is better.

Not that I really give a rat's @$$ at my reputation. Best to be feared than loved!

[Arrian]

Originally posted by TheStinger
Completley out of spite. Its the best reason

I've done something like that once. I was playing the Iroquois on Emperor and, after a hard fight, FINALLY managed to conquer my continent. I was just settling in for a nice millenium of building, when the Germans (offshore, largish island) tried a sneak attack via landing (oh, I sure hope the human doesn't notice that I just dropped of a lone longbowman next to his city ). I was extremely put out. I massed a few galleon loads of Cavalry and sent them to Berlin, and removed it from the map, Great Library and all.

-Arrian

[pedrojedi]

I never raze cities with wonders... It sounds such a waste to me.

[badams52]

Originally posted by pedrojedi
I never raze cities with wonders... It sounds such a waste to me.

Not if you think the AI will get it back and it's a wonder like ToE that gives him culture and not you or any of the outdated ones. I just contradicted myself didn't I?

[Master Zen]

I'll do it, if only to leave a lasting impression!

[Theseus]

Raze raze raze.

I've been playing the end of AU204... Egypt has several GW cities that I want, but 1) I will only capture and occupy them at 1 pop, and 2) I am razing everything else just on principle.

[Master Zen]

I wanna start playing those AU games... hope I have time in the coming weeks/months.

[The Mad Monk]

I never declare war -- it's so much more satisfying to trick them into declaring on me...

[pedrojedi]

I like razing cities without GW. I almost never lose such cities, as I usually know where the GW are and then I attack with a large gigantic force with good defence. Just in case.

[theNiceOne]

Spectator, you're only half right by saying that you get a good reputation back by allying with someone. You're right, because your ally will stop caring about all the wrongs you've done against your common victim, and even like you more for a lot of it.

But you're wrong, because as soon as the war ends, either since you eliminated the victim or declared peace, then your former ally goes back to pre-war attitude and despises you for all you did to your common victim again.

Check Bamspeedy's excellent reputation thread at CFC.

[Chemical Ollie]

Don't care about reputation. They will eventually hate you anyway. I have seen the AI go from polite to sneak attack quite often.

[Ephesos]

Of course, you can't forget the ones who go from polite to war after one simple refused tribute.

[Catt]

Reputation and Attitude are different. A good reputation is often well worth guarding; a good "attitudinal" standing with the AIs is not as valuable IMHO.

Catt

[Master Zen]

Catt's right.

Still, not that I care much about reputation or attitude...

I just started a world war in my latest game...me, all by myself... love to do that!

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by TheStinger
In my most recent game, my security serives discovered the ottomans carrying out espionage in one of my cities.

If I decalred war would I take a rep hit, its already quite low because I have only just recently finished a war to stop them getting the theory of evolution( which failed by 1 turn so I razed it instead )

If you declare war after a peace treaty has expired, it does not hurt your reputation. Reputation means you keep your promises, and can therefore be trusted in negotiations.

Also, if you raze a city, it hurts your . . . .
Edit: Correction. Razing adversely affects Attitude.

[Jaybe]

Originally posted by Zachriel
...
Also, if you raze a city, it hurts your reputation.

Hurts their Attitude* (when they are not also at war with the victim) towards you, but your reputation??

*Per Bamspeedy's article

[Master Zen]

Originally posted by Zachriel


If you declare war after a peace treaty has expired, it does not hurt your reputation. Reputation means you keep your promises, and can therefore be trusted in negotiations.

Also, if you raze a city, it hurts your reputation.

How long do peace treaties last? 20 turns? I always thought it said "peace treaty will last until war is redeclared".

[Jaybe]

Peace Treaties cannot be broken without rep hit for 20 turns (see the # in parentheses in current agreements). If no parentheses, then you are not breaking the agreement.

You are STILL declaring war however, and will still incur an attitude hit. Again, reference Bamspeedy's AI Attitude article at Civfanatic's Civ3 War Academy.

[bongo]

What if you finish a wonder an AI were constructing? Will it hurt his feelings?

[Kampus majore]

How do you know what the status of your rep is? You can see other civs attitude, but not you rep, right?

By the way I am playing a hot seat game now and I am playing with 4 civs at the same time. One civ was a bit behind with units and they are all behind in tech. Then suddenly the Russians (who have declared war a lot of times but without doing something the whole game) land 8 cossacks near my large cities. I lost 2 cities the next turn (defending with 1 legion or 1 musketman per city). Next turn they capture and raze 3 cities....

Lucky enough a different civ I am playing with, the Japanese, are able to send 15 cav to the Romans. The Carthaginians (AI controlled) have railroad, so I can be there in 3 turns. Soon enough to stop them, but the damage is already done.....

Talk about razing. It's a b!tch sometimes....

But I'll be back!

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Jaybe

Hurts their Attitude* (when they are not also at war with the victim) towards you, but your reputation??

*Per Bamspeedy's article

Under "Permanent Attitude Changes"
+1 if you raze the city of another AI.
I would be happy to concede the point. This may not be the same as Reputation, and I have little personal experience with razing. Still, if you raze a lot of cities, you won't be very popular. Starting a couple of wars may make other Civs a little cautious, but razing a couple of dozen cities is another matter.

Bamspeedy admits there are many unknowns as he could only measure attitude. Reputation is hidden, though Bamspeedy indicates he believes it is all or nothing. In other words, don't break a Peace Treaty (or other deal) before the expiration date.

Bamspeedy
Note: Some of the attitude changes you do to a victim during war is hard to test, since it’s hard to find the difference between acts, because you can’t find the attitude level until the war is over with. And figuring the difference between what penalties are just from being at war, and what was caused by breaking treaties, razing cities, etc.

Originally posted by Jaybe
You are STILL declaring war however, and will still incur an attitude hit. Again, reference Bamspeedy's AI Attitude article at Civfanatic's Civ3 War Academy.

Absolutely. If you declare war, there is no doubt your victim won't like you very much (attitude). Of course, the question of reputation is what other Civs think.

Bamspeedy says there is a +1 permanent attitude change in all other non-involved Civs when you declare war. Nevertheless, my superstitious beliefs indicate this is not exactly the same as reputation. I declare war in nearly every game, and no one ever says anything bad about my reputation, and they are always willing to make deals. They trust me to keep my word, though they may despise me as a warmonger.

[Catt]

Originally posted by Zachriel

Absolutely. If you declare war, there is no doubt your victim won't like you very much (attitude). Of course, the question of reputation is what other Civs think.

I think it's a little bit different than that, Zachriel. I define reputation as a measure of other civs' willingness to enter into certain 20-turn deals with you; attitude, on the other hand, seems to represent a default state of mind towards your civ from all the other civs (and as Bamspeedy deciphered, has many, many influences -- so much so that Civ B's attitude of you is lessened if you raze a Civ A city even if Civ A is an enemy of Civ B).

I tend to guard my reputation carefully because I may very well need (or just strongly want) to be able to make certain 20-turn deals in the later game. As long as I take care not to break deals, a "furious" attitude does not prevent such deals (though it seems to make them mildly more expensive). For example, let's assume that early in the game I go to war against my neighbor. I may have several wars with this neighbor and during the course of the conflict I raze numerous enemy cities (I never do this, but it's a hypothetical ). My declarations of war are honorable, and I break no deals (RoP, resource trade, or 20-turn peace) through my declarations. Given my now dominant position in the world, my refusal to enter into trades with others, my refusal to offer gifts, and the umpteen city razings I did against my enemy, the entire world is "furious" towards me. Nonetheless, I can still trade 3 excess luxuries and a strategic resource for a bypassed technology from another civ -- they may be furious, but they have no cause to believe that I will not honor my 20-turn deal in exchange for their one time asset (technology) and they will do the deal. It works the other way too. If, in declaring war against my neighbor I RoP-raped him, broke an existing 20-turn peace treaty, and also suspended my 20-turn payments I agreed to make in exchange for the technology I purchased from him, then I will be very hard-pressed to get another "risky" deal (20 turn deliveries from me in exchange for assest from an AI) from any other civ, even if, due to my decision never to raze, my willingness to give tribute often, and my smaller world stature -- I enjoy varying worldwide opinions from "cautious" to "gracious."

I think (but don't know) that attitude (1) effects trade prices modestly; (2) influences the willingness of an AI to join a military alliance with or against you; (3) influences an AI's willingness to demand tribute; and (4) influences any UN vote (this is off the top of my head, there may very well be more). By contrast, I think reputation (1) determines whether an AI is willing to accept 20-turn promises in exchange for up-front assets; (2) determines whether certain 20-turn for 20-turn deals are acceptable (RoP's and peace treaties, principally); and (3) influences any UN vote. I am also not sure of whether reputation is "all or nothing" or there are varying degrees -- I personally think that there are varying "versions" of reputation -- anecdotally, declaring war with troops in enemy territory can greatly complicate future RoP negotiations with third-party civs; declaring war with troops in enemy territory AND with an active RoP dooms any attempt at future RoP negotiations.

I usually try to sum up my views on the differences between attitude and reputation by saying that the entire world can be gracious with you and still respond to a trade proposal with: "I'm sorry. After your despicable betrayal of the XXX, we can entertain no such deal." Similarly, the entire world can be furious with you, but respond to the same trade proposal with: "We'll take it. I'm so happy we could come to agreement."

Catt

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Catt
I think it's a little bit different than that, Zachriel. Catt
. . .
I usually try to sum up my views on the differences between attitude and reputation by saying that the entire world can be gracious with you and still respond to a trade proposal with: "I'm sorry. After your despicable betrayal of the XXX, we can entertain no such deal." Similarly, the entire world can be furious with you, but respond to the same trade proposal with: "We'll take it. I'm so happy we could come to agreement."

That would be my experience as well. Reputation affects your ability to make deals, including with those who may not like you, even those you may have previously had a war with. (My phrasing was not precise, I admit. )

[badams52]

Originally posted by Catt
I am also not sure of whether reputation is "all or nothing" or there are varying degrees -- I personally think that there are varying "versions" of reputation -- anecdotally, declaring war with troops in enemy territory can greatly complicate future RoP negotiations with third-party civs; declaring war with troops in enemy territory AND with an active RoP dooms any attempt at future RoP negotiations.

To extend this out a bit, one time I essentially RoP raped India. The RoP ended on my turn with troops in his territory. I declared war on India and destroyed him to 1 city. Later when I contacted India, I could offer him an RoP but even at 14000+ gold for the RoP and 300+ gpt, horses, iron and saltpeter, my advisor said he doubted India would take the deal. But France, America and Russia (on the other continent with lots of land) would take the deal if I offered them around 1000 gold, and China, Persia, and Rome (each with 1 city near my continent) were happy to accept RoP deals with me.

And Maybe you implied this Catt, but I thought this next part should be stated outright.

In addition to varying degrees, I think there is also a separate reputation for peace treaties, rop's, alliances, and gpt deals.

If I break a gpt deal by going to war, say a 135 gpt I was giving to any other civ, then I've found that no other civ will ever accept any gpt deals from me in the future. I can be getting "close" to a deal from my advisor, then I add gpt and he immediately says "never." But if I ask for an RoP, the other civs would be fine with that.

[Catt]

@badams52 - yup, my experience is similar.

Just wanted to note that it is not a "black-and-white" bar to gpt deals if your reputation has been tarnished. Even in a game in which I establish a proclivity to break deals, I can seemingly always accept gpt or a per-turn deal (like a luxury resource) in exchange for an asset; i.e., I can offer a technology for a luxury resource, but I will never succeed at closing a deal of my luxury for a technology, nor a deal in which I pay full value in gold for a tech and throw in a luxury to boot -- when one's reputation is blackened, it destorys one's ability to mix and match per-turn and up-front payments/assets in deals.

Catt

[Zachriel]

Originally posted by Catt

I am also not sure of whether reputation is "all or nothing" or there are varying degrees -- I personally think that there are varying "versions" of reputationCatt

That's my experience also. Just be known to keep your promises is a sufficient rule for most ocassions.


http://www.zachriel.com/Justification.htm
It is not a dishonor to declare war. It is only a dishonor to promise one thing and do another. Declare war before attacking.