war=loss of shared tech?

[JimMac]

Another preview, this time from TenTonhammer. Not much new I think. However use of Direct X 11 gets a mention and there is the following on shared research:

"Civ V will also see at least one new avenue of peaceful cooperation between civilizations. “Research agreements” allow two nations to share resources to discover new technology quickly. The one caveat is that if you go to war against that country later on, you’ll lose that tech"

Could that be accurate?

For the full article:
http://www.tentonhammer.com/events/g.../CivilizationV

[Jaybe]

Yah, supposedly your pooling of research is lost if it is broken off by going to war with each other. Whether it is ALL your research of it or just the "surplus" you get for combining the research isn't clear at this time.

Nothing to get upset about (yet).

[SpencerH]

Either way it just suggests not going to war with your tech allies.

[rah]

That seems a bit silly. We researched gunpowder so we could make muskets. We've got the production line making muskets and go to war, and have now forgotten how to make muskets. DOH

I could see losing progress if you hadn't finished researching it yet. But after you've already discovered it. Just stupid.

[LDiCesare]

What I read in another paper was that research projects were an investment which requires time to pay off, so if you broke it early the net result would be a loss of money (which was invested and didn't pay dividends). I think it will be the only penalty, since I think losing a tech would be a pain both to the players and to code/manage (what about that freshly built unit or building?)

[rah]

That would make more sense.

Of course I see this as just another way for the AI to get an advantage against warmongers like myself. But I guess that's the point

[Garth Vader]

I had assumed it was like research treaties in Moo2 where you get x number of beakers per turn, so if you go to war you'd lose those beakers.

[rah]

Again, that type of thing would make sense.

[giblets]

Why, everyone knows the French forgot how to fight when the Germans declared war on them.

[wodan11]

Why, everyone knows the French forgot how to fight when the Germans declared war on them.

Actually, they didn't know how to fight long before then. e.g., building a line of fortresses along the German border but completely forgetting the Belgian border.

[Nikolai]

But, but, but...Belgium were tech allies!

[Theben]

Screw the forts, the French could've marched from the Rhine to Berlin while Hitler was playing in Poland with little opposition.

[Felch]

Theben's right. The only the stopping the French from winning WWII early on was a certain je ne sais quoi. I believe the English phrase is "lack of balls."

[wodan11]

What is that, a pre-emptive shush? (zip it!)

[vulture]

Actually, they didn't know how to fight long before then. e.g., building a line of fortresses along the German border but completely forgetting the Belgian border.

It's nothing to do with 'forgetting'. It was politically impossible to build a line of forts along a frontier with an ally who you are meant to help defend if Germany attacks. Having a strongly fortified line along your mutual border does rather suggest that that is the line you are going to defend, and not contest the territory in front of it (i.e. don't defend Belgium at all). That option wasn't on the cards for them.

Nor were the French unaware of the possibility of the Germans simply going around the Maginot line. They knew that was exactly what they were going to do, and planned on fighting the battle in Belgium, the Netherlands, and northern France (and as it happens, having more forces available to do so since fewer men were needed to defend the long common border with Germany, since it was now heavily fortified).

All this worked as planned. The only minor problem was that the allies - French, British, Belgian, Dutch - simply lost the battle. Exactly as happened in Poland and Norway before, and the Balkans and Russia after. No-one figured out how to stop the German blitzkrieg until Kursk in 1942.

The failing of the French (and the other western allies) wasn't the Maginot line; it was not knowing how to stop a blitzkreig - something which no-one in the world had any idea how to do until they'd spent several more years getting steamrollered by it.

If, in alternate history, the French had completed the Maginot line, France would still have fallen, since it simply isn't large enough for them to experiment whilst losing territory in the way the Soviets could. The fall of France might have taken a bit longer, and cost the Germans more, but the result would have been the same.