Great questions; I hadn't considered some of those situations.
Here are my thoughts for how it would work out:
If a Civ breaks the contract, whether by withdrawing, engaging in an embargo, declaring war, etc.:
All accumlated beakers to this point stay toward common goal, so that those who remain in the joint venture continue to contribute toward this goal.
The Civ who withdraws early will receive the amount of beakers that Civ contributed to the project to be put towards its own tech goal. If the offending Civ decides to change tech goals from the one that was began as part of the venture, then no beakers are received. The joint venture would continue between the remaining Civs.
If the project is cancelled when only two remained, each Civ will receive the number of beakers it contributed to the goal toward its own research goal. Again, if either Civ decides to change its research goal from the one began as part of the venture, then all beakers that WOULD have been received are NOT received.
Reputation and A.I. evaluation:
If you pledge a certain number of beakers per turn, and do not meet that goal, you will receive a one turn warning along with a small rep hit (I'm not sure exactly how rep is calculated; this would depend on there being small increments of reputation). If you do not contribute the amount of beakers you pledge the following turn, you are then forced out of the deal, and take the same rep hit as breaking a treaty (however, you would NOT being declaring war). If reputation is modified to consider categories, then it would be a scientific rep hit, but reputation concerning war policy, financial policy, etc., would not be harmed.
If your reputation is questionable or worse, or you have received a warning at some point, then the other Civs can remove you from the deal with a majority vote at no rep penalty to them. This point needs to be worked out with the A.I., so that they can evaluate your harmfulness to their research goals.
Taken together, this means that you must consider whether or not you can have a stable amount of beakers for the number of turns needed. If you feel you can't meet a certain amount, then do an increment less. This forces the player to consider such factors as impending Golden Age (or ending thereof), possible wars, financial situation, government situation, etc.
Please feel free to comment on this, as I would love to see science become even more of a diplomatic and strategic component of the game. I propose this scheme as an option for those Civs slightly behind to be able to keep up by collaborating with others to secure key advances.
Here are my thoughts for how it would work out:
If a Civ breaks the contract, whether by withdrawing, engaging in an embargo, declaring war, etc.:
All accumlated beakers to this point stay toward common goal, so that those who remain in the joint venture continue to contribute toward this goal.
The Civ who withdraws early will receive the amount of beakers that Civ contributed to the project to be put towards its own tech goal. If the offending Civ decides to change tech goals from the one that was began as part of the venture, then no beakers are received. The joint venture would continue between the remaining Civs.
If the project is cancelled when only two remained, each Civ will receive the number of beakers it contributed to the goal toward its own research goal. Again, if either Civ decides to change its research goal from the one began as part of the venture, then all beakers that WOULD have been received are NOT received.
Reputation and A.I. evaluation:
If you pledge a certain number of beakers per turn, and do not meet that goal, you will receive a one turn warning along with a small rep hit (I'm not sure exactly how rep is calculated; this would depend on there being small increments of reputation). If you do not contribute the amount of beakers you pledge the following turn, you are then forced out of the deal, and take the same rep hit as breaking a treaty (however, you would NOT being declaring war). If reputation is modified to consider categories, then it would be a scientific rep hit, but reputation concerning war policy, financial policy, etc., would not be harmed.
If your reputation is questionable or worse, or you have received a warning at some point, then the other Civs can remove you from the deal with a majority vote at no rep penalty to them. This point needs to be worked out with the A.I., so that they can evaluate your harmfulness to their research goals.
Taken together, this means that you must consider whether or not you can have a stable amount of beakers for the number of turns needed. If you feel you can't meet a certain amount, then do an increment less. This forces the player to consider such factors as impending Golden Age (or ending thereof), possible wars, financial situation, government situation, etc.
Please feel free to comment on this, as I would love to see science become even more of a diplomatic and strategic component of the game. I propose this scheme as an option for those Civs slightly behind to be able to keep up by collaborating with others to secure key advances.
