Do you care about your reputation?

Caligastia · June 1, 2001, 13:39

I try to keep it intact as much as I can, but if another civ is pissing me off I will break a treaty to take them out...

The only difference between having a good reputation and a bad one that I can see is that when you have a bad one the AI civs attack you a bit more. At the end of the game they will attack you anyway, even if you have a spotless rep.

Is reputation very important to you?

Jaguar · June 1, 2001, 13:50

I am evil.

EOL · June 1, 2001, 17:19

Honourable until the AI makes the mistake of trying to interfere with my expansion. If I see settlers moving near my territory they're toast

EOL

Bohlen · June 1, 2001, 17:51

Depends on my mood, but usually...Hell no!

Scouse Gits · June 1, 2001, 19:06

Poll: when did you last see an honourable rabid aggressive rodent?
__________________
The SGs just finishing the second ...

Zopperoni · June 1, 2001, 19:42

I used to care about it....but after a while not anymore....that's when I turned evil

solo · June 1, 2001, 20:48

As much as the AI care about theirs.

War4ever · June 1, 2001, 21:05

reputation was very much a pupil of mine until he turned to evil

shade · June 2, 2001, 05:27

why should i care about my reputation the AI doesn't.
(they always find a way to attack me through their alliances)
shade

Jay Bee · June 2, 2001, 05:31

I always keep my rep as high as possible. Not that it matters much but I like to regard myself as a gentleman

Juggler · June 2, 2001, 10:57

I don't really care about my reputation as long as I have a strong army.

The Mad Monk · June 2, 2001, 11:41

I just don't grok treachery...

Besides, when they're all at war with you, and allied with each other, and your Senate forces a cease-fire, it is soooo easy to start it all up again by hitting a civ you haven't hit recently--it's WWI all over again...

TCO · June 2, 2001, 22:37

I used to never care about it, but now I like to keep it intact.

-game is easy anyway
-foreign advisor says nice things
-no attacks (minor issue)

Can still buy cities with double cost. can still be at war by allowing AI to steal techs.

Marquis de Sodaq · June 3, 2001, 21:29

I did until I discovered that the AI didn't change how it treated (read: sneak attacked) you during the course of the game. Altho a good rep is best if you are stretching your forces thin - they usually don't sneak attack you again until you've had time to reinforce your recent conquests.

drake · June 4, 2001, 09:43

I'm very honorable in the games I play. No cheap shots or underhanded methods used here........

Not that civs definition of reputation means in anything in MP games

Blaupanzer · June 4, 2001, 11:33

Reputation can be seen as another way to measure how well you are playing the game from the point of view of the designers. I try to keep mine positive, but once I'm "Supreme," I'm a target even with peace treaties in place. I would think it would matter more in MP, not less, contrary to the post above. However, I don't play MP, so you folks who do would know. In the end, how much can it matter how mad an AI civ gets when its designed to get mad anway. Sid says he's working on that for Civ III; we'll see.

drake · June 4, 2001, 14:23

Quote:

I would think it would matter more in MP, not less, contrary to the post above.

I'm afraid you misinterpreted my post. Notice I said "the civ definition" of reputation, meaning the rating you get on the foreign relations screen. In a MP game, it doesnt matter what this says necessarily as a human makes a better assessment of their opponent than a computer ever could. The eiffel tower is useless in Mp because of this fact.

Now your personal reputation in regards to your fellow player is certainly very important. If you're hated, most likely you're going to be ganged up on and probably get nowhere. Diplomatic skill and reputation can make or break an mp game for you.....(Of course this depends on the crowd you're playing with

)

Everyman · June 4, 2001, 14:41

There are times when I find it a challenge to conquer the world and maintain a spotless reputation. This often means waiting for my opponent(s) to pull a sneak attack on my honorable nation.

At other times, I'll do whatever is necessary to win the game and end up with a despicable reputation.

Ben E Gas · June 4, 2001, 15:26

I used to care about my rep. in civ2 but the compo has been 2faced to me too many times. I never trust them. They always want want want but never give.

My Wife Hates CIV · June 4, 2001, 23:56

Against the AI it does not matter. With MP it matters too much. Too much in terms of next game. If you break a treaty and attack no one will trust you the next game. If you never break a treaty... why play?

My Wife Hates CIV · June 5, 2001, 00:04

Against the AI it does not matter. With MP it matters too much. Too much in terms of next game. If you break a treaty and attack no one will trust you the next game. If you never break a treaty... why play?

drake · June 5, 2001, 09:37

Quote:

If you never break a treaty... why play?

A skilled diplomat doesnt have to break treaties to get what they want

Using brains over brawn in a civ game is actually an option mwhc btw.......

rixxe · June 5, 2001, 10:13

I try to keep it spotless ... As long as the frogs are staying away from my empire

Andromeda · June 6, 2001, 03:44

I agree with Drake concerning brain over brawn in Civ games.

Experienced Deity players are no longer finding much of a challenge in SP Civ2 games. These players have generally developed and refined a winning strategy which is guaranteed to work virtually every time.

While waiting for Civ3 to revitalise the SP experience, all we can do is experiment with our own little personal ways of introducing extra challenge, such as setting milestones, keeping reputation intact, conquering a civ completely in one turn, conquering a civ without shedding a drop of blood, etc., etc.

One idea I thought I might try for my next game was to play on a large map with 7 civs, as I usually do, but to tweak the civ profiles so as to guarantee that I will be faced with 6 aggressive and expansionist civs. I am really fed up with always finding (with my state-of-the-art modern navy), 2-3 small, peaceful and backward civs, meekly hiding in a remote corner of the map. There's no satisfaction whatever in squashing these pitiful, harmless civs ! If only they had the balls to come out roaring and fighting at me earlier in the game, then we could all have some excitement !

What do people think ? I know it's probably unbalancing the game a bit, but what the hell, I'm curious !

Bohlen · June 6, 2001, 11:41

Andromeda:

Do it. Tweaking with rules.txt is how to keep the SP game interesting. Nothing wrong with some experimentation.

Alexander's Horse · June 6, 2001, 17:50

In single player I always play spotless. It isn't hard at Deity level because the ai is constantly attacking you.

In multiplayer I do what I have to do. Reputation is relevant but in different ways. All multiplayers have reps - it counts a lot more with human players. Better to have a good one, but spotless is almost impossible.

TCO · June 6, 2001, 18:21

What is Makeo's rep?

Alexander's Horse · June 6, 2001, 23:00

makeo's rep is good with me - but it depends on who you're talking to.

SlowwHand · June 7, 2001, 11:03

I'd rather have my word mean something. Talking MP.

popcornvendor · June 13, 2001, 23:54

i make it a personal goal to keep my reputation as high as possible. if i want to take over a civ, ill make it THIER fault for being conquered. *well u shouldnt have declared war after i demanded tribute, next time just gimme money*