Questions about reputation.

[daran]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

A belief I've picked up from reading this group, but have not confirmed, is
that the elimination of a common enemy with the resulting termination of the
alliance against it causes a loss of reputation. Is this correct, and if
so, does it depend upon whether the coup de grace is administered by the
player or one of the AI's? Also does it depend upon whether there was a
lump-sum payment on the AI side for the alliance.

In the case of a broken resource trade, it certainly does depend upon
whether there was a lump-sum payment on the AI's side. If such a deal
breaks, for any reason, no AI will ever agree to make any kind of lump sum
payment to you for a resource trade again. But how badly do broken trades
with no lump sum involved affect your rep?


--
Daran

The problem with defending the purity of the English language is that
English is about as pure as a cribhouse whore. We don't just borrow words;
on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat them
unconscious and riffle their pockets for new vocabulary. -- James D. Nicoll

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Daran" <daranSPAMg@lineone.net> wrote in message
news:9dlpi2-lp5.ln1@wheresmeshirt.clara.net...
>A belief I've picked up from reading this group, but have not confirmed, is
> that the elimination of a common enemy with the resulting termination of
> the
> alliance against it causes a loss of reputation. Is this correct, and if
> so, does it depend upon whether the coup de grace is administered by the
> player or one of the AI's? Also does it depend upon whether there was a
> lump-sum payment on the AI side for the alliance.

There is no reputation hit but after attitudes normalize there will be an
attitude hit for acts done during the war. Because of this, i (almost)
always let the AI destroy the enemy civ.


> In the case of a broken resource trade, it certainly does depend upon
> whether there was a lump-sum payment on the AI's side. If such a deal
> breaks, for any reason, no AI will ever agree to make any kind of lump sum
> payment to you for a resource trade again. But how badly do broken trades
> with no lump sum involved affect your rep?

AFAIK, a broken trade is a broken trade to the AI.

 

[alex]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"Daran" <daranSPAMg@lineone.net> wrote in message news:9dlpi2-lp5.ln1@wheresmeshirt.clara.net...

> In the case of a broken resource trade, it certainly does depend upon
> whether there was a lump-sum payment on the AI's side. If such a deal
> breaks, for any reason, no AI will ever agree to make any kind of lump sum
> payment to you for a resource trade again. But how badly do broken trades
> with no lump sum involved affect your rep?

The side which is responsible for the broken trade takes the blame.
For example, before attempt of technology theft it's a good idea to
borrow as much cash as you can paying by gpt and trade goods. Either
way you win. If the theft fails, then the war is declared on you and
you can keep enormous ~$10,000 principal and do not take reputation hit.
Few turns later after peace is reestablished that very same AI will
gladly offer you new loans of gold and lump payments for your exports.

It's not a question of how much, it's a question who did it.
The presence or absence of lump objects on AI side of broken trade
does not affect your reputation hit. The only thing that matters is your
ability to deliver your side of the deal as promised. However, once
you break your word, you will not be allowed to trade per-turn objects for
lump objects until your reputation recovers. In other words AI side
composition of broken trade does not affect your reputation, but your
reputation does affect what AI will be offering there in future trades.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

"alex" <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
news:aFA6e.1751$dT4.802@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
>
> "Daran" <daranSPAMg@lineone.net> wrote in message
> news:9dlpi2-lp5.ln1@wheresmeshirt.clara.net...
>
>> In the case of a broken resource trade, it certainly does depend upon
>> whether there was a lump-sum payment on the AI's side. If such a deal
>> breaks, for any reason, no AI will ever agree to make any kind of lump
>> sum
>> payment to you for a resource trade again. But how badly do broken
>> trades
>> with no lump sum involved affect your rep?
>
> The side which is responsible for the broken trade takes the blame.
> For example, before attempt of technology theft it's a good idea to
> borrow as much cash as you can paying by gpt and trade goods. Either
> way you win. If the theft fails, then the war is declared on you and
> you can keep enormous ~$10,000 principal and do not take reputation hit.
> Few turns later after peace is reestablished that very same AI will
> gladly offer you new loans of gold and lump payments for your exports.
>
> It's not a question of how much, it's a question who did it.
> The presence or absence of lump objects on AI side of broken trade
> does not affect your reputation hit. The only thing that matters is your
> ability to deliver your side of the deal as promised. However, once
> you break your word, you will not be allowed to trade per-turn objects for
> lump objects until your reputation recovers. In other words AI side
> composition of broken trade does not affect your reputation, but your
> reputation does affect what AI will be offering there in future trades.

This is only true if the AI you have the trade deal with declares war on you
or an ally ends a war by destroying a civ. Any other broken deal, whether it
is your fault or not, will get blamed on you. For example: an AI declares
war on you and breaks the trade route between you and a third AI or a third
AI pillages roads breaking the trade route between you and your trading
partner. Even barbarian ships blocking early coastal tile routes will get
blamed on you.

 

[alex]

Archived from groups: alt.games.civ3 (More info?)

> > The side which is responsible for the broken trade takes the blame.
> > For example, before attempt of technology theft it's a good idea to
> > borrow as much cash as you can paying by gpt and trade goods. Either
> > way you win. If the theft fails, then the war is declared on you and
> > you can keep enormous ~$10,000 principal and do not take reputation hit.
> > Few turns later after peace is reestablished that very same AI will
> > gladly offer you new loans of gold and lump payments for your exports.
> >
> > It's not a question of how much, it's a question who did it.
> > The presence or absence of lump objects on AI side of broken trade
> > does not affect your reputation hit. The only thing that matters is your
> > ability to deliver your side of the deal as promised. However, once
> > you break your word, you will not be allowed to trade per-turn objects for
> > lump objects until your reputation recovers. In other words AI side
> > composition of broken trade does not affect your reputation, but your
> > reputation does affect what AI will be offering there in future trades.
>
> This is only true if the AI you have the trade deal with declares war on you
> or an ally ends a war by destroying a civ. Any other broken deal, whether it
> is your fault or not, will get blamed on you. For example: an AI declares
> war on you and breaks the trade route between you and a third AI or a third
> AI pillages roads breaking the trade route between you and your trading
> partner. Even barbarian ships blocking early coastal tile routes will get
> blamed on you.

You are absolutely right. In fact I think this is exactly the kind of
situation which created widespread belief that "the deal broken for any
reason ruins your reputation". In reality in case of barbarian ship you
are unable to deliver your goods, thus you _are_ responsible for broken trade.
If it was say gems for furs, both sides are unable to fulfill their duties,
and both get punished. But if the deal is broken because AI lost their furs,
then you are not responsible for that; AI loses its credibility, but you do not.
Same thing if you purchased furs for 20 gpt and trade route is broken.
You are still able to make the payment, but AI cannot deliver.
Again your reputation does not suffer, but AI is responsible for broken deal
and gets punished.

The distinction may seem insignificant at first glance, but in reality it is
very important because it allows human player to engineer specific trades
with intention to force early termination of such a trade and get away with it.