I don't see why a civ would break a research agreement

Some guy

Warlord
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
213
Unless you're getting in their face and really pushing them around, I don't get why a civ would wanted to cut off the agreement. Even if suddenly it appears your borders will conflict with your opponents, they could simply just wait 15 (or is it 30?) turns to get the tech and then declare war.
 

iggymnrr

Deity
Joined
May 20, 2003
Messages
2,249
This does make things interesting. Perhaps they could be in war mod at the time the agreement is made.
 

berni19

Chieftain
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
68
Location
Slovenia
As the creators say, they try to get computer think like human, so in human history there was a lot examples like this..germany has trade-non aggresive pact with Russia ( Molotov- Ribbentrop pact). On the first week of the broken pact caused by Hitler operation Barbarossa decision, russians still sent the germany countless trains filled with grain to respect this trade pact...human deal is always human..you never know...;)
 

drowzyus360

Chieftain
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Messages
25
apparently they would do it just to make you lose money.... i suppose to gain a financial advantage over you.
 

Shurdus

Am I Napoleon?
Joined
Feb 24, 2004
Messages
2,301
Location
Settle in place
Because the developers thought they could demonstrate how smart the AI is by letting it do something rather iffy that a human may come up with.
 

berni19

Chieftain
Joined
May 21, 2006
Messages
68
Location
Slovenia
maybe mathematics behind the computer decision is not one way...or is it...i hope they develop some basics for theirs decision..we will see..;)
 

GoodSarmatian

Jokerfied Western Male
Joined
Apr 25, 2006
Messages
9,408
I'd really hate it if it turns out that there's a coupel of civs who'll almost always honor the agreement and some than will always break it. I hope leaders will be less predictable than i Civ4.
 

Olleus

Deity
Joined
Oct 30, 2005
Messages
6,478
Location
Beyond the Veil
Its almost never a good idea to break a pack.

Sure you make them lose something, and you might be able to cope with the gold loss more, but you still lose some and every other civ in the game doesn't. So, at its best, breaking the treaty makes you lose a bit, the other civ lose a bit more, and everyone else nothing. Unless its absolutely a two horse race, it simply isn't worth it.
 

Churchdown Yank

Cyber Caesar
Joined
Aug 2, 2009
Messages
274
Location
Gloucester UK
Its almost never a good idea to break a pack.

Sure you make them lose something, and you might be able to cope with the gold loss more, but you still lose some and every other civ in the game doesn't. So, at its best, breaking the treaty makes you lose a bit, the other civ lose a bit more, and everyone else nothing. Unless its absolutely a two horse race, it simply isn't worth it.

This makes logical sense, but I bet the way it works in reality is the likelihood of an AI breaking a research pact is a combo of their relative financial (and overall) strength vs. yours and personality.

So - don't make a research pact with a strong, rich Monty. Do make one with poor, weak Ramkhamhaeng? - or whoever the Mansa Musa of V is.
 

Some guy

Warlord
Joined
May 26, 2008
Messages
213
Exactly. It sounds dangerous to me. Also, can anyone confirm if the Agreement is 15 or 30 turns until random tech is generated?
 

Sheng-ji

Chieftain
Joined
Jul 27, 2007
Messages
18
I think it will be more the case that if a civ has already decided they are going to war with you in the near future, it would be good to accept the pact/offer you a pact then break it, assuming their finances are healthy enough to cope.

I would imagine that certain leaders are more predisposed to doing it than others, but remember the leaders have a slight randomness to their personalities, so Montezuma may have an 80-100% chance to do it if he was planning to war with you anyway, but Gandhi may have a 10-20% chance! (Not the chance of every trade offer resulting in a backstab and war, if they don't want to go to war with you, they will honour it to the end!)
 

Spiceweasel

Warlord
Joined
Aug 1, 2007
Messages
150
I suspect that breaking research agreements will come about most often from pressures with a 3rd civ or city-state.

Imagine you're going for a diplomatic victory. You're trying to befriend England, and you get them to agree to a research pact. Several turns later, they declare war on America, who is already a strong ally of yours. What do you do? Do you break the research pact and help your ally, or do you suffer the reputation hit in the name of more research? Of course, if you have a defensive pact, you might not even have a choice in the matter.
 

Schuesseled

Deity
Joined
Mar 31, 2008
Messages
2,081
Unless you're getting in their face and really pushing them around, I don't get why a civ would wanted to cut off the agreement. Even if suddenly it appears your borders will conflict with your opponents, they could simply just wait 15 (or is it 30?) turns to get the tech and then declare war.

This is the concept of i will hurt you no matter what happens to me. They don't care if they waste gold and lose out on a free tech, as long as it happens to you too.
 

Ahriman

Tyrant
Joined
Jun 8, 2008
Messages
13,266
Location
Washington, DC
I don't think its intended that breaking pacts is common. Its just, you can't make people not want to break a pact unless you have harsh penalties for doing so.

The existence of the option of breaking a pact doesn't mean its something you're likely to want to do. Its just, it would be lame if a research pact hard-code locked you out of declaring war. So this lets you declare war if you really want to, but makes you not want to.
 

Landiron

Chieftain
Joined
Aug 9, 2010
Messages
30
The whole "AI breaks Research agreements on purpose" explanation always sounded to me like a way to advertise the typical behaviour of a mediocre AI as Feature :lol:
 

Abraxis

Joined
Nov 17, 2008
Messages
1,313
Location
Ottawa, Canada
Also... say you're playing chess, and I as your opponent take your queen with mine, knowing full well I'll lose mine next turn. Most poor chess players assume nothing was accomplished here.

Fact is, losing my queen has been part of my strategy all along, whilst you had been building your strategy based on having a queen. My advantage is now enormous.

While I doubt the research agreements will be as important as queens in chess, it's the same idea.
 
Top Bottom