Bad reputation?

[Kawligia]

I just upgraded from 2.0 (Haven't played in a while) and I noticed on VH/VH campaigns, my reputation steadily goes down no matter what I do.

I used to get a good rep after a while from not attacking allys or breaking alliances. Even though I would usually still get trade rights with someone I was going to wind up attacking...not sure if that had an effect.

Now I do what I have always done (above) and my reputation drops hard and fast. I even tried not getting trade rights with factions I would attack, but it didn't help.

Is this a bug, or a feature to make diplomacy harder?

[smitty]

I just upgraded from 2.0 (Haven't played in a while) and I noticed on VH/VH campaigns, my reputation steadily goes down no matter what I do.

I used to get a good rep after a while from not attacking allys or breaking alliances. Even though I would usually still get trade rights with someone I was going to wind up attacking...not sure if that had an effect.

Now I do what I have always done (above) and my reputation drops hard and fast. I even tried not getting trade rights with factions I would attack, but it didn't help.

Is this a bug, or a feature to make diplomacy harder?

Do you execute soldiers, ransom them, or release them?

Do you occupy cities, sack them, or exterminate them?

These options have a HUGE effect on your reputation with other countries. The more you occupy/release the better your reputation. The more you execute/exterminate the worse it gets.

[chewy]

is reliable the highest rep btw? i've played the whole game almost with only reliable rep and i rarely execute or sack.

[Garnier]

I am deceitful in my game. I am forced to exterminate cities with 50,000 people in them because otherwise they would rebel.

[smitty]

I am deceitful in my game. I am forced to exterminate cities with 50,000 people in them because otherwise they would rebel.

Can't blame you. Man I love when the plague hits, I really do. Helps out with squalor so much.

[Kawligia]

I have sacked pretty much every town, BUT they were all rebel towns until now (Playing Egypt).

Why does sacking/exterminating towns or killing prisoners reduce your reliability? I can see it giving you certain traits or permanently destroying relations with that faction, but why does that hurt your "backstab-o-meter"?

Is this an addition in LTC? If so what file(s) can I edit to remove those changes? I don't want to never get an alliance just because I need to sack cities for cash or execute prisoners to dwindle down the enemy.

Thx for reply btw.

[smitty]

This feature was part of vanilla as well. Your reputation is not necessarily a 'backstab-o-meter' but it rather reflects your dealings with other nations across the globe. If you're known to keep alliances but butcher every living person and burn every building of your enemies, people are going to be reluctant to have dealings with you because of your sinister approach to warfare. The more forgiving you are of an enemy nation's soldiers and townfolk the more willing other nations will be to work with you.

[Kawligia]

If they are frightened by the shocking brutality I inflict on my enemies, but feel safe that I will honor an alliance, who in their right mind would tick me off! lol

Ok new question...do the rep penalties increase when going from h/h to vh/vh when using LTC (Or vanilla)? This is the first vh/vh campaign I have done. Maybe that's why I have never noticed a hit before?

...I found the file, but if it was part of vanilla, I will leave it alone i guess.

[smitty]

Ok new question...do the rep penalties increase when going from h/h to vh/vh when using LTC (Or vanilla)? This is the first vh/vh campaign I have done. Maybe that's why I have never noticed a hit before?

This I do not know. I play a H/H game right now and find that the reputation influences are pretty justified. For a while I had 2 dread Kings in a row and my reputation got all the way down to dubious for a while. Soon after the 2nd king died I had a chivalrous son take the throne and lead my armies. After only a few battles of releasing prisoners I was up to 'mixed' reputation and only a few more (2 or 3) I was back up to reliable. I was quite pleased with the system. Back to your question though, perhaps Lusted could shed some light on this?

[Kawligia]

This I do not know. I play a H/H game right now and find that the reputation influences are pretty justified. For a while I had 2 dread Kings in a row and my reputation got all the way down to dubious for a while. Soon after the 2nd king died I had a chivalrous son take the throne and lead my armies. After only a few battles of releasing prisoners I was up to 'mixed' reputation and only a few more (2 or 3) I was back up to reliable. I was quite pleased with the system. Back to your question though, perhaps Lusted could shed some light on this?

Ok then I am thinking it is magnified by difficulty. I used to play on h/h and I never noticed such a drastic swing as I see now.

Now on my new vh/vh campaigns I start out at the usual "mixed" and after sacking only 1 rebel city, I am down to dubious. One more city and I am down to untrustworthy.

[Duke_of_Bavaria]

This feature was part of vanilla as well. Your reputation is not necessarily a 'backstab-o-meter' but it rather reflects your dealings with other nations across the globe. If you're known to keep alliances but butcher every living person and burn every building of your enemies, people are going to be reluctant to have dealings with you because of your sinister approach to warfare. The more forgiving you are of an enemy nation's soldiers and townfolk the more willing other nations will be to work with you.

Does ransom affect the rep in any way? I mean if I execute em after the enemy refuses the ransom it's not my fault.

[smitty]

Does ransom affect the rep in any way? I mean if I execute em after the enemy refuses the ransom it's not my fault.

Based on my experiences it does not. You are offering a fair deal with ransom and if the enemy refuses you you are not penalized for the executions. Quite handy if you know an enemy is bankrupt and rather than gaining dread you choose the neutral path by offering ransoms you know will be rejected again and again. I tried to keep one general's chivalry untouched by ransoming off about 750 quality enemy units. The enemy accepted. I pretty much had to fight the same battle a second time and attempt to inflict more casualties rather than rout the enemy.

[Duke_of_Bavaria]

Based on my experiences it does not. You are offering a fair deal with ransom and if the enemy refuses you you are not penalized for the executions. Quite handy if you know an enemy is bankrupt and rather than gaining dread you choose the neutral path by offering ransoms you know will be rejected again and again. I tried to keep one general's chivalry untouched by ransoming off about 750 quality enemy units. The enemy accepted. I pretty much had to fight the same battle a second time and attempt to inflict more casualties rather than rout the enemy.

Right, thanks, I know just what to do then . //back to the game