How do you cancel a trade or treaty?

Jinglehopper

Chieftain
Joined
Feb 20, 2002
Messages
45
Location
Durham, NC
I've seen it discussed in the forums many times before but I can't figure out how to cancel a peace treaty or trade agreement before the twenty years are up.

I've clicked on every part of the screen in my trade advisor, my diplomatic advisor even my military advisor. Nothing seems to happen. Am I crazy? Is it even possible to cancel?
 
go to the diplomacy screen with the other civ, click on active trades, and then click on the trade
 
I don't have the game in front of me now as I am at work but just to clarify, I don't have to go to the advisor screen at all? Just go and talk to the guy I traded with?
 
It can't really be canceled before the 20 turns are up. Sure you could go to war, or disconnect the resource from your road network, but your reputation will be shot for the entire game, and you'll be stuck paying in lump sum, with everybody permanently annoyed at you.

May be worth mentioning that whether you, the nation you're trading with, or a third party breaks the deal, you will always be blamed for it, 100% of the time. Eliminates any nifty MPP tricks one might try to pull. The AI never forgets, if you broke a deal 2 millenia ago, they'll still be as mad as ever.

After the initial 20 turns have expired, you can enter diplomacy with the nation you're trading with and click the "active" button on the bottom of window. It will display all of your current agreements. Selecting an agreement will bring you to the trade table with that civ, where you can either renogiate better terms, or take the deal off the table.
 
Originally posted by No.Dice
May be worth mentioning that whether you, the nation you're trading with, or a third party breaks the deal, you will always be blamed for it, 100% of the time. Eliminates any nifty MPP tricks one might try to pull. The AI never forgets, if you broke a deal 2 millenia ago, they'll still be as mad as ever.

Wait a minute! Are you saying that if the AI declares war on me and breaks his trade agreement with me, I will be blame for eternity? That's not fair!:(
 
Thanks for the info. I've been playing since Nov. but I guess I just never saw that button while talking to somebady I had a trade with.

Taking the hit in reputation is key though, No.Dice. But I've noticed sometimes that trades go on for longer than twenty years if the AI doesn't choose to negotiate better terms. Now I can cancel after that 20 without the loss of reputation, right?
 
Originally posted by Moonsinger


Wait a minute! Are you saying that if the AI declares war on me and breaks his trade agreement with me, I will be blame for eternity? That's not fair!:(

Hmm i believe so. I do know that when giving per turn gifts, after 3-4 turns the AI forgets that it is recieving them. When that annoyed neighbor that you had manage to quell for a few turns declares war, you are blamed for the discontinuation of your gift. :crazyeye:

If trading by coastal squares, and a foriegn/barbarian galley gets in the way, you're blamed for breaking the deal. I only trade until road until astronomy rolls around.

Having the tile the resource is located on bombarded by a foriegn nation, is also your fault. Though i guess thats justifiable. Same goes if your resource is swallowed up by foriegn borders.

Jinglehopper: Yup after the 20 turns you can cancel the agreement with no consequence.

EDIT: Heres a nifty post by Cracker on a similiar subject. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=21498
 
No.Dice: Thanks for the info; I feel a lot better now.:) In my case, India is currently paying me 201 golds per turn for 20 turns for a tech that I gave them. I'm very sure they are going to declare war on me any time soon to avoid paying me golds. According to you, I will be free of blame if they break the treaty.:)
 
Dude thanx for the info everyone. I have been trying to figure out how to cancel trade agreements.
 
@ Moonsinger: yes you get blamed when the other guy breaks the treaty! I had the in a game yesterday: The only treaty I ever signed was a ROP with India. Two turns later they attacked. I had never moved troops out of my territory, never had attacked anyone - but the next turn when I wanted ROP with another neighbour so I could get into Gandhis back, he said I had broken the ROP with India!!!!!!!!
 
Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
@ Moonsinger: yes you get blamed when the other guy breaks the treaty! I had the in a game yesterday: The only treaty I ever signed was a ROP with India. Two turns later they attacked. I had never moved troops out of my territory, never had attacked anyone - but the next turn when I wanted ROP with another neighbour so I could get into Gandhis back, he said I had broken the ROP with India!!!!!!!!
That's not fair!:(
 
Originally posted by Moonsinger

That's not fair!:(

No it isn't :mad: :( You also get blamed for breaking trades when a barbarian Galley blocks the coast, if a barbarian stands on the road needed for the trade and so on.

What do we learn from that:

DO NOT TRADE, MAKE NO TREATIES - OR SIMPLY FU*K THEM ALL OVER!!! :D
 
Originally posted by Moonsinger


Wait a minute! Are you saying that if the AI declares war on me and breaks his trade agreement with me, I will be blame for eternity? That's not fair!:(

That's not correct. I enter many deals with AI civs, Peace Treaties, RoP, trade, MPP, etc., and always have a good reputation -- even if the AI breaks his end of the bargain.
 
Zachriel:

that's how it should be, but I've been called a trade-breaker so often when i had a clean conscience that I have to assume it is otherwise..... Remember, even if they are gracious it doesn't mean they think you are trusworthy.
 
Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.
Zachriel:

that's how it should be, but I've been called a trade-breaker so often when i had a clean conscience that I have to assume it is otherwise..... Remember, even if they are gracious it doesn't mean they think you are trusworthy.

Nevertheless, I have never been told that I was a trade breaker. We probably need some specifics, though I'm not sure what would be required, as reputation occurs over the entire game. It may have something to do with conflicting MPP's.

Any evidence would be greatly appreciated.
 
Originally posted by Lt. 'Killer' M.


No it isn't :mad: :( You also get blamed for breaking trades when a barbarian Galley blocks the coast, if a barbarian stands on the road needed for the trade and so on.

Maybe I'm arguing semantics here, but I don't see a problem with the barbarian situations you describe. Don't think of it as being "blamed." Instead, consider that the AI civ had an agreement with you for you to provide some resource to them. Then, before the agreement expired, you stopped providing said resource.

The result is that the AI civ is unhappy with you. Maybe even distrusting of you. Now, maybe this effect shouldn't last as long as if you had taken action to end the trade (like pillaging the road for instance) but the bottom line to the AI civ is still the same - they don't have that resource anymore, and they aren't happy about it.
 
Originally posted by Zachriel


That's not correct. I enter many deals with AI civs, Peace Treaties, RoP, trade, MPP, etc., and always have a good reputation -- even if the AI breaks his end of the bargain.

This is a pretty hazy subject, making sense of the AI and all. :)

You definetly DO get blamed for any gold per turn agreements you had with the AI, regardless of who broke the deal. Next time you notice your relations faltering with Bismarck, save your game, and tribute him a few gold per turn. When he (and undoubtedly he will) declares war, see if your future gold per turn agreements are worth the paper they're written on. I would assume it worked the same way with any other 20 turn agreement, maybe we don't see it so often because the AI will very rarely declare war (unless through MPPs) if it is benefiting from trade from you. ROPs are a different story, the AI breaks them left and right, yet still manages to sign them with everybody else.

The AI civs that break these trade agreements, were they generally the common enemy of the world? I've noticed breaking ROPs/trade agreements with the outcast has a less detrimental effect on your reputation.


I think one of the problems may be that the AIs don't take into consideration the reputation of other AI players when negotiating trade deals. Maybe deals broken with the human player aren't punished? Its always funny when my advisor tells me that bismarck is a known liar and cheater, yet he has a ROP with everybody, all of his luxuries are being exported, and he has several alliances in place. Its curious how the AIs can break several ROPs with me, yet the ROPs they have with the other civs stay for the rest of the game.

When that barbarian galley interrupts your trade route, not only is the AI who is no longer recieving your resource annoyed, but every other AI nation will refuse to trade with you as well. However, though you are no longer living up to your end of the bargain, neither is the AI. Isn't there a mutual responsibilty to protect the trade route? Furthermore, while YOU are punished (by everyone no less!) for breaking the deal, a few short turns later, with a miniscule per turn income, your former trading partner is now trading with another nation, seeminly penalty free.

Perhaps the trust of that one nation may have been shaken for the entire game, but having every nation refuse trade with your civ for the remainder of the game, thats just a bit harsh.
 
Originally posted by Zachriel


You might.

;)

Actually it seems i don't, guess i was mistaken. :) Just set up a tiny deity game, placing bismarck, shaka, and monty all within a few tiles of me, and try as i may, i just can't get the game to cheat. Oh, it will again soon, just not under such close scrutiny...its a crafty one, that game. :p

However, i've still yet to see proof that the AI is in fact penalized for breaking deals/treaties when negotiating with other nations. My advisor telling me that Bismarck is a known liar and a cheat is simply eye candy and has no effect on gameplay. Somebody convince me otherwise? :)
 
Back
Top Bottom