Is there a formula for reputation?

Rufus T. Firefly · October 3, 2000, 07:46

I tend to play aiming for as good a reputation as possible, and I have no idea if it's worth it. Does anyone know *exactly* how reputation affects final score? In other words, if 2 civs with the same population, # of wonders, happy citizens, polluted squares, etc. ended the game at the exact same time, and one had an excellent reputation while the others was spotless, how would final score differ? TIA

------------------
But there must be a war! I've paid a month's rent on the battlefield!
-- Rufus T. Firefly

DaveV · October 3, 2000, 07:55

It's generally agreed around here that reputation has no impact whatsoever on final score. So go ahead and backstab to your heart's content!

Barington · October 3, 2000, 08:27

Yes reputation does not seem to affect final score in any way. The main purpose of keeping a spotless reputation is that it is essential to being able to wage war under a representative government (Republic or Democracy). I always keep a spotless reputation through the game because I do not ever use Communism or Fundamentalism and I only play Bloodlust rules (NO Spaceships). I just find winning under Democracy much more interesting.
eg plotting to provoke the AI to attack; using dips and spys rather than Howitzers etc.
PS I never build the reputation enhancing wonder Eifel Tower as that only helps when you have lost your Spotless rep.

DaveV · October 3, 2000, 09:14

Sorry, Barington, but I don't see where a spotless reputation is an advantage for a representative government bloodlust win. If you can reach the point where the AIs refuse to talk with you, then you don't have to worry about the senate going behind your back to sign a peace treaty. And it's easier to provoke the AI to attack you if they already hate you

.

johnmcd · October 3, 2000, 14:42

Yeah, but it is a nice challenge. I've never managed to win bloodlust with a spotless reputation. I've come close though.

Barington · October 3, 2000, 17:39

quote:

Originally posted by DaveV on 10-03-2000 09:14 AM
Sorry, Barington, but I don't see where a spotless reputation is an advantage for a representative government bloodlust win. If you can reach the point where the AIs refuse to talk with you, then you don't have to worry about the senate going behind your back to sign a peace treaty. And it's easier to provoke the AI to attack you if they already hate you

.

Yes Dave but the senate will declare a cease fire whether or not the AI will talk to you. The point is a spotless reputation makes it more likely that the Senate will not constantly declare a peace behind your back.
The AI can be made to be enraged with you even if you have a spotless reputation. It seems to me that your military might is much more of a factor when they decide to start or continue a war. eg they are less likely to attack if you have nukes. I never build nukes for this reason.

Barington · October 3, 2000, 17:57

quote:

Originally posted by johnmcd on 10-03-2000 02:42 PM
Yeah, but it is a nice challenge. I've never managed to win bloodlust with a spotless reputation. I've come close though.

Thanks John. It took me a long time and the main problem is running out of time. I once did it by 1920 but it usually takes me until about 1990 because you have to wait for the AI to get mad enough to attack you. Surrounding an AI city with units and / or paying double for subverting cities (no incident) usually provokes them eventually.

SCG · October 3, 2000, 18:17

quote:

Originally posted by johnmcd on 10-03-2000 02:42 PM
Yeah, but it is a nice challenge. I've never managed to win bloodlust with a spotless reputation. I've come close though.

It doesn't seem that hard to win a bloodlust game with a spotless reputation if you only subvert cities. Eventually, all those OCCing AI's will decide to declare war and that will be that. I had an old game I never completed where 5 AI were left, all OCCing and 4 had declared war on me quite a few turns after I reduced them to 1 city. The 5th was only recently reduced, so hasn't had time to decide it would rather have war. If they only have 1 city and they declare war on you, its pretty easy to wipe them out with a spotless reputation

------------------
Sleep is a luxury and I don't have Shakespeare's Theatre in my back yard.

Barington · October 3, 2000, 19:00

Respect to you for finding it easy. I just find it more difficult to win spotless under democracy than going to fundy and shooting up the AI.

Scouse Gits · October 3, 2000, 23:43

Just keep asking them to "withdraw their troops" - whether or not they have any intruders on your patch. This usually works the AI up to declare war.
----------------
SG (2)

Scouse Gits · October 4, 2000, 00:13

Several games ago I built the Eiffel Tower - by mistake!

(I actually thought I was building Darwin's Voyage)

The one thing I did notice was that the usual "Secret Pacts" made against me were not much in evidence. This had very little impact on the game. In conquest, everything that moves gets killed, and if it doesn't move it is bribed! However, in a perfectionist AC game it may be useful if the alliances against the human player are reduced. Has anyone else similar thoughts?

Reputation only affects other civilisations' attitudes towards you. It means nothing in the final score.
----------------
SG (2)

Barington · October 4, 2000, 04:51

Yes; think that works best when the AI have no troops on your territory but you are in fact trepassing on theirs. Of course you have to be at peace rather than just a cease fire for the option to appear. I try to avoid cease fires, accepting peace whenever it is offered after the cease fire offer. (Unless of course I am fairly sure they will pay for a peace)

N35t0r · October 4, 2000, 15:18

What i hate is that a civ on the other end of the map KNOWS you broke a peace treaty with the civ you conquered on the beginning of the game.

Scouse Gits · October 4, 2000, 15:26

News travels; bad news travels fast.

----------
SG (2)

N35t0r · October 5, 2000, 10:45

"Nothing travels faster than the speed of light with the probable exeption of bad news"

-Douglas Adams

johnmcd · October 7, 2000, 06:28

I don't use subvert city if I'm trying to win this way, it seems to break the rules for my money. Also it may be easy on a small map but I only ever play huge, where they have a shed load of cities. Last time I tried it I don't know if I'd properly worked out how reputation worked too, so I may have been handicapping myself further. I'll give it another go and see how I do.

SCG · October 9, 2000, 08:04

quote:

Originally posted by johnmcd on 10-07-2000 06:28 AM
I don't use subvert city if I'm trying to win this way, it seems to break the rules for my money. Also it may be easy on a small map but I only ever play huge, where they have a shed load of cities. Last time I tried it I don't know if I'd properly worked out how reputation worked too, so I may have been handicapping myself further. I'll give it another go and see how I do.

I personally find it easier to win by subverting all AI cities on a large map vs a small map. The reason is that you have so much more economic power when you have room for lots of extra cities. The expansionist AIs' cities are cheap, and you can grow them into huge money generators quite quickly, while those AI keep founding new ones for you since they have room to expand (no need to found your own cities) and with the extra money, you can buy even the largest perfectionist AI city next to its capital. The perfectionist AIs will tend to have the same number of cities reguardless of map size, so the smaller the map, the harder they are to take out. As for reputation, all I ever do is subvert cities untill they decide to make war (no rep hit), max taxes for 1 round and then go on a coordinated buying spree when the cities are 1/2 off

If you line up a couple caravans or freights to go to AIs you're not at war with and have a lot of cities, you can sometimes buy off an entire empire in 1 round if they have railroad or you have lots of engineers. For democratic AI, I'll box them with whatever units and wait for them to sneak attack or revolt to talk to me.

------------------
Sleep is a luxury and I don't have Shakespeare's Theatre in my back yard.

johnmcd · October 9, 2000, 13:42

quote:

Originally posted by SCG on 10-09-2000 08:04 AM
I personally find it easier to win by subverting all AI cities on a large map vs a small map

Hummm, this may be true but I clearly didn't express myself clearly. I should have started a new paragraph with my second sentence. I meant winning with a spotless reputation on a small map may be easier than on a large map as there would be fewer occasions when you would be forced into kissing and making up, and so fewer irritation iterations to perform to get the lot.

johnmcd · October 9, 2000, 13:42

Hummm, even if it is true it didn't need to be said twice.
[This message has been edited by johnmcd (edited October 09, 2000).]