Guide to Improving/Tarnishing Reputation

[Pnutmaster]

For those that have not played a M2TW campaign: Reputation is one of the 'new' features in M2TW, adding somewhat more depth to diplomacy between the player and AI. Every faction starts with a 'mixed' reputation, which can either rise to 'reliable' and 'very reliable' or degrade to 'dubious', 'untrustworthy', and so on.

I wish to compile a list of ways to improve/tarnish your reputation over the course of a campaign. The list will be routinely updated in the effort to create a definitive guide for all unconcern M2TW players.

You can tarnish your reputation by...

- Declaring war on a neutral faction, aggressively (unprovoked, with purely imperial ambitions)

- Sacking or exterminating a city/castle (applies to rebel settlements as well).

- Marching military units into an allied/neutral/enemy region without military access.

- Failing to join a Crusade/Jihad (you are not required to capture the settlement in question, but by not creating a Crusader/Jihadi army, your reputation can be affected)

- Consistently executing prisoners. Prisoners that are ransomed and ultimately executed do count.

You can maintain/improve your reputation by...

- Acting defensively at all times. When war is declared on you by a psychotic and seemingly irrational neighbor, do not vent your frustration by eradicating it off the map. Repel the invading army and then sue for peace.

- Lending "military assistance".

Example: Helping besieged allies. In my current Sicilian campaign, I sent two units of cavalry to attack a full Venetian stack besieging Imperial Bologna. After winning the battle, my reputation improved from 'mixed' to 'reliable'. (Note: Following the battle, plan to remove your units from the region using your remaining movement points, OR, wait one turn and then move out)

- Releasing prisoners.


I have reviewed descr_faction_standing.txt. All of the above are officially confirmed

[Sher Khan]

But if you help a besieged ally, wouldn't that mean you're sending an army into an allied region without military access? Wouldn't you have to have this first before attempting to march on their lands - even if it is to help them win a fight? How does the game handle a situation where you attack an enemy stack besieging your ally, but you marched there over your ally's lands without military access?

[Pnutmaster]

Ah yes, you remind me...

After the battle against the Venetians, I attacked a force of brigands, and following the battle, received news that my relationship with the HRE had worsened. I reloaded from my post-battle save point and, rather than attack the brigands in the HR region, moved my units straight back into Florence without worsening relations.

I'll make a revision.

[dearmad]

You shouldn't make the revision, CA should- Alliances should COME with a military traffic agreement for gods' sakes!

[Vhailor]

You shouldn't make the revision, CA should- Alliances should COME with a military traffic agreement for gods' sakes!

I agree, its a military alliance anyway, well or at least it would be if the AI wasnt such a warmongering idiot.

On topic I must say that IMO you simply cant have a good reputation, well not if you plan to actually, you know,
"play" the game and not just sit down and watch.
Also, again IMO, your reputation shouldnt be "faction" reputation, as much as it should be "leader" reputation.

Well perhaps it will be fixed with the patch, perhaps.....

[alanschu]

Also, again IMO, your reputation shouldnt be "faction" reputation, as much as it should be "leader" reputation.

I like this idea. If a leader is particularly chivalrous or something, then they'd be more likely to have a good reputation.

In fact, I think it'd work to just have it based on your leader.

[Pnutmaster]

On topic I must say that IMO you simply cant have a good reputation, well not if you plan to actually, you know,
"play" the game and not just sit down and watch.

Agreed. Look at the AI. They'll outright betray allies and reduce their reputation to 'very untrustworthy'. Apparently reputation means absolutely nothing to them, and actually conflicts with their expansionist nature. At the moment, a conqueror has to sacrifice reputation for gameplay.

Also, again IMO, your reputation shouldnt be "faction" reputation, as much as it should be "leader" reputation.

Exactly. I believe, if anything, that your faction reputation should be returned to 'mixed' when a new faction leader arises (similar to the way relations with the Papacy are returned to neutral when a new one is elected), but your relationship with other factions should remain the same.

[vikrant]

moved to battle plannig

[Metellus]

On topic I must say that IMO you simply cant have a good reputation, well not if you plan to actually, you know,
"play" the game and not just sit down and watch.

Not true, you just have to be careful when and where you prosecute war. Check who the Papacy likes and doesn't like, attack the latter. Influence the Papacy or get your cardinal elected to sway Papal allegiance (or assassinate the Pope, I did it once!). There are so many different layers of 'aggressiveness' in this game but if you approach it strictly with the methodology "to conquer my enemy I just have to walk him off the map", you'll be frustrated with why things aren't working out that way to you.

They'll outright betray allies and reduce their reputation to 'very untrustworthy'.

Yes in fact just like you as the player are capable of doing. What's the issue? At least then you know (for future reference) that the faction is now tagged as untrustworthy, a bad characteristic to have as a faction, even with the advantage of having surprised your enemy.

Really, nothing is broken here. a player's alliances are good only so long as they serve the player's interest. Same with the AI.

Also, again IMO, your reputation shouldn't be "faction" reputation, as much as it should be "leader" reputation.

This would be a nice-to-have. Factions keep their reputations way too long.

[Pnutmaster]

Really, nothing is broken here. a player's alliances are good only so long as they serve the player's interest. Same with the AI.

You do have a point. Diplomacy isn't as broken as players make it out to be. I think the AI has a tendency of being 'very demanding' far too often, but as far as reputation goes, they behave as deceptively as the average player bent on fulfilling his win conditions.

I would also add that a player can work around his 'reputation' and still conquer foreign lands. It's called the Crusades Very effective and inconspicuous way of acquiring provinces that you want to add to your kingdom/empire. Sure, you have to wait a number of years before you can embark on a new crusade, but who's in a rush to complete their campaign?

That strategy worked for me. Well, until the Byzantines, Venetians and Milanese assassinated all of my family members in one turn. Should have been saving -_-...

[Gattamelata]

Not true, you just have to be careful when and where you prosecute war. Check who the Papacy likes and doesn't like, attack the latter. Influence the Papacy or get your cardinal elected to sway Papal allegiance (or assassinate the Pope, I did it once!). There are so many different layers of 'aggressiveness' in this game but if you approach it strictly with the methodology "to conquer my enemy I just have to walk him off the map", you'll be frustrated with why things aren't working out that way to you.

I think you're conflating Reputation with Papal regard. You can have a perfect reputation with the Pope, but if you initiate a war of conquest with an excommunicated kingdom, your reputation will suffer. Reputation isn't how the Pope views you, it's how all kingdoms (including the non-Catholic factions) regard you.


As an aside, does anybody know if reputation affects what other kingdoms look for in diplomatic negotiations? I have been consistently disgusted by factions that have no armies, one city and are facing two full armies and demand tens of thousands of florins for a peace treaty. Could this be because my reputation was low? If I had a high reputation, would they see reason and sue for peace at any (affordable) cost?

[Lord Ben]

The AI doesn't make peace often enough. They just want a perpetual state of war to exist all the time without actually building a stack and coming after me (France). Yet you can keep seiging their cities and crushing them but they never relent.

They should give up more often and quicker and be my vassals.

[Trajan]

The AI doesn't make peace often enough. They just want a perpetual state of war to exist all the time without actually building a stack and coming after me (France). Yet you can keep seiging their cities and crushing them but they never relent.

They should give up more often and quicker and be my vassals.

What difficulty are you playing with? Medium, the AI factions are more reasonable when it comes to diplomacy. On hard and very hard, they usually want war all day, every day.

[Metellus]

On hard and very hard, they usually want war all day, every day.

I'm well into my England H/H campaign and I'm definitely not finding this. I had a 100+ turn alliance with Milan, which they eventually broke off in a friendly way. Neighbours tend to get itchy though, but nothing like constant war. And I have most of France, so not like I'm keeping to myself on my island. Although AI often struggles to admit its beaten, and the Danes on my border have started lately attacking, asking ceasefire, then attacking again. So everytime they do I extort money out of them. Fun, fun, fun!

[Endeav]

You can maintain/improve your reputation by...

- Acting defensively at all times. When war is declared on you by a psychotic and seemingly irrational neighbor, do not vent your frustration by eradicating it off the map. Repel the invading army and then sue for peace.

Oops. Guess conquering all of central Europe and knocking off all my neighbours isn't "repel the invading army and then sue for peace." I never backstabbed or attacked with trade rights on or anything, but conquering kills the reputation. Oh well

[carlisimo]

Makes sense. Look at the US's global reputation at the moment.

Editorials aside, if you're conquering the known world (even against those who've attacked you first), other nations WILL have reason to be wary. Conversely, look at who has one of the best reputations in the world: Switzerland. They did it by being boring, and you can too.

What I try to do is expand without pissing off the pope. It's not too hard, since my neighbors keep declaring war on me (and each other) and getting excommunicated for attacking other Catholic kingdoms. So they're fair game, as are Africa and the Holy Lands. On the other hand I should stop sacking so often...

[EmperorJulian]

I keep alliances, I'm not devious and I tend to get a "Very Reliable" reputation fairly easily. I also tend to fail in my campaigns. I find on hard/hard reputation is a useless quantity so long as I'm not excommunicated. The only thing the AI understands is being rushed, and if you don't do that you will be overpowered, eventually once 4-5 factions decide to ally against you and attack you at once.

In fact the AI is about a thousand times more devious than I am. I'd like to play the gallant, live and let live knight, but the AI is so bent on being a jerk that I haven't got the luxury of doing that. The reputation system is cool but unless the AI is made to be less moronically aggressive and more cold, calculating and manipulative, it really isn't all that useful in my mind.

[napoleonic]

^
use shaba diplomacy mod dude.

[Finnbat]

I allways play with all settings at very hard for every part.
Now I understand why the AI is so aggressive and dont listen to sense spoken by my diplomats.
Frustating situations rose when you taken all of them and standing with full army outside their last city and offering a truce, but they refuse.

"You must surrender before all is killed by sword. We dont want you all to perish..."

[Kallitheus]

Is your reputation affected by moving and placing agents at foreign provinces?

For example placing a priest to convert population or moving a a spy to explore the map?