Reputation mechanics

[dopp]

That's the truth, but not the whole of the truth : not only does your reputation needs to be at least somewhat good, but your allies' rep must be better than average as well.
If you're trusted but they're scumbags, the alliance doesn't become the sought-after Trusted Alliance, but a mere alliance of convenience like every other (ie, they'll help you if they get the chance, but they might just attack you if the odds are on their side and you're not both at war against a common enemy)

Yeah, that's the difference (I think) between leaked and official v1.2.; it didn't matter in leaked what their reputation was.

[Whacker]

Gosh we're two filthy power-gamers. Replacing an exploit with another exploit

Welp... Managed to hit "deceitful". Still never broke my one and only alliance. Still never attacked anyone first. I must be this huge ripe royal bastard.

[WhiskeyGhost]

I performed a little test, and it seems if you give someone a territory, and even if they go to war with you and attempt to take your cities, and you try to retake that territory (within a certain time threshold, like 15 turns or something) you get a massive rep hit for it. I've gotten from trustworthy to very untrustworthy for doing this to Milan, despite the fact they started and sieged 3 of my cities constantly (even after i fended them off at the walls)

[Whacker]

Whacker, when you say the Moors initiated the war and you defended your self by going after them, this brought your rep down. If you only fought them on your own soil then no it shouldn't hurt your rep. BUT when you become the aggressor (and go after them) this should and does hurt your rep as people will become suspicious of your intentions (defence or conquor(sp)?)

Again disagree strongly. If I keep to myself, and only mulch those who come after me first, why am I distrustful? Leave me alone, and I leave you alone. I've honored my very few and carefully selected arrangements.

IIRC taking rebel settlements has a slight negitive effect for the same reason, other factions begin to see you as an aggressor, and are therefore less likely to trust you,

This just plain won't work. Rebel cities are 'free game', taking them should do nothing to your rep.

As alpaca said, the system was not very well designed at all. Personally, I don't think you should have a 'global' rep at all. It should be a average of all of your individual relationships with other factions. If I keep and hold 5 alliances, ignore the other 9 factions, and backstab one, my rep should stay relatively positive because I am trustworthy for 5 factions and not for only 1. Sure I'll agree that negatives should weigh a bit more heavily against someone than positives, but one single value for you that represents everything is erronious in my view.

I sincerely hope in future patches or in the next title they put some significant effort into this, as it'll be a decision point for me.

[alpaca]

Oh, I actually don't think the reputation system goes far enough. In my opinion you should be punished for taking settlements, no matter if you occupy, sack or exterminate them (although the latter options should punish you more strongly).
To maintain a good reputation through a long drawn-out war should be nearly impossible.
And it should heavily influence the AI's decisions in invasions, not mainly in diplomacy.

Edit: However that only holds true if the rest of the game is designed accordingly, so for vanilla I agree that some of the rep mechanics don't fit too well, as the aim still is to conquer half the continent.

[HughTower]

I think the model that CA were looking for might have been a country such as Switzerland, whose sheer consistent & unchanging neutrality means that it enjoys a 'very reliable' reputation. However, whilst they are reliable, they will never be able to build an empire without damaging that rep. So, it is true to a certain degree that diplomatic integrity & empire-building are at odds with each other, & I think, rightly or wrongly, the game's reputation system tries to reflect this tension.

[gingergenius]

My empire is basically all of the 'old world', my borders being with Marrakesh and Algiers in the west and Baghdad, Buraidah, Damascus and Gaza in the East. I also have the new world Rebel lands. Throughout the game my empire has had a reputation varying from untrustworthy to reliable - I've bribed a fair few enemy generals,done a lot of assassination and I always ransom my prisoners. However, I always occupy cities, try to stay allied to as many people as possible, I've never decalred war and it's a good idea to send diplomats out even just to swap map information as successful diplomacy seems to improve your rep.