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.
I don't see why a civ would break a research agreement
- Thread starter Some guy
- Start date
Perfection
The Great Head.
That's a lot of turns to wait for a stupid tech when there's someone who needs to die.
matt112986
Chieftain
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2010
- Messages
- 67
If they can afford to lose the gold and you can't then it hurts you more.
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?
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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!)
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!)
Its probably different for different game speeds
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.
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
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
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.
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.
Abraxis
☮
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.
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.
