Poll: Tech Trading

[Pinchak]

Basicly, what sort of rules do we want concerning this most important aspect of the game.

[Pinchak]

Hmm, it didn't post the poll.

Lets just vote manually.


1. No tech trading

2. Trade only self researched techs.

3. Trade only self researched techs once.

4. Trade only self researched techs twice.

5. No rules tech trading.


Keep in mind this choice affects the speed of the game. The more liberal the tech trade rules, the faster the game will go (exponentially).

[Pinchak]

I vote no tech trade.

[Keygen]

I believe it should be allowable.

[Pinchak]

By allowable, do you mean no restrictions?

[Keygen]

No restrictions of any kind.

This should encourage diplomacy and it might accelerate the game but I don't think all will trade with everyone so wouldn't be much of a problem.

[proviisori]

5. no rules tech trading

[Beta]

All tech trading allowed. Rock on.

I think that is a 5.

[AdamTG02]

One more vote for option 5/five (no restrictions of any kind).

[emperor]

It should be between (1) and (5) in my opinion. The sub-options are the kind of things that are decided between individual teams in individual deals, and restricting them is just silly.

I'm all for tech trading on. It makes for so many more diplomatic options, and as a result such a more interesting game. Of course, the tech pace does tend to go a bit faster, but that can easily be compensated for. (At the Strategamer site we've adopted a fairly standard practice of having a minimum of Monarch difficulty level in games with tech trading on [which is pretty much all of them]. This increases the tech costs for every team and thus restores a bit of balance to compensate for the ability to tech trade, such that you don't reach the modern age in 1300 AD [for example].)

[Niessuh]

1. No tech trading

Playing without tech trading is much more balanced, fair, and relaxing, with 24 hour turns specially

[proviisori]

Originally posted by Niessuh
Playing without tech trading is much more balanced, fair, and relaxing, with 24 hour turns specially

We have 48 hour turns.

[Keygen]

Originally posted by Lord Parkin

Of course, the tech pace does tend to go a bit faster, but that can easily be compensated for. (At the Strategamer site we've adopted a fairly standard practice of having a minimum of Monarch difficulty level in games with tech trading on [which is pretty much all of them]. This increases the tech costs for every team and thus restores a bit of balance to compensate for the ability to tech trade, such that you don't reach the modern age in 1300 AD [for example].)

I am not sure why accelerating the game a bit is of any problem at all. Depending on the play style of each team and their abilities, as well as how fast they will take their turns, this game could easily last somewhere between 2 and 3 years, it's not that will last a few days of joy

[Keygen]

Originally posted by Niessuh

1. No tech trading

Playing without tech trading is much more balanced, fair, and relaxing, with 24 hour turns specially

Playing without tech trading can unbalance the game too, will definitely favor certain leader traits.

As for relaxing, I don't want it that way, I want the game more intriguing, harder to manage, more competitive. That will increase the challenge and thus the interest and enjoyment. If I want to relax I'll play single-player or watch some TV

[snoopy369]

Tech trading is very important in a demo game, and should absolutely be allowed. Pinchak, for all that other PTBS games might be interesting without tech trading, for me this is not a question that should even be asked. Demo games are about diplomacy first, and tech trading is an important aspect of diplomacy.

[Aidun]

I don't mean to offend anyone who is opposed to tech trading, but without tech trading, team demogames are really extremely boring.

I have played several team demogames since the very first, the PTWDG, and as Snoopy says, diplomacy is a keay aspect of team demogaming. All other ways to play Civ have no real diplomacy, but team demogames like this one normally have a very lively inter-team diplomacy. Without tech trading much of that diplomacy is taken away.

Tech trading is normally involved in the following:
1) tech-trading pacts
2) repairs after a war
3) making use of the contact with another civ
4) interdependence strategy to prevent war
5) a reason to coerce another civ: to trade a tech.
6) a vital element to military and non-military alliances.

Without all of that, single player games are more exciting.

Again, no offense to those against tech trading, but I think that in that case you've picked the wrong kind of game to play. The SPDG doesn't necessarily involve tech trading and a game like Nationstates also doesn't involve that: Even better: with nation states you don't have to worry about another civ invading your country. But I guess all of that is what civ is about and what at least demogaming is about.

[AdamTG02]

I think it behooves those opposed to tech trading to give their reasons as to why. Saying it's "balanced" and giving no evidence doesn't cut it. If you want to alter the rules that drastically, the burden of proof falls to you to demonstrate that it is better.

My reasons for supporting allowing tech trading are the following.

1) It's the standard rule.
2) It's a major part of the game.
3) It allows for a much more dynamic game.
4) The only halfway reasonable argument against, that allowing tech trading would result in the Modern age being reached in 1300, is completely divorced from my experience.
5) It allows for a much more strategic game.
6) It allows for many more options in diplomacy.
7) A ton of other reasons I don't feel like articulating right now.

I could see a protocol banning players from revealing what tech their team was researching to members of other teams, though it'd be difficult to enforce. If there are any genuine objections, maybe that's the way to go. But I really don't see the point in eliminiating tech trading entirely.

[Beta]

snnopy, Aidun, Adam

[Pinchak]

Pinchak, for all that other PTBS games might be interesting without tech trading, for me this is not a question that should even be asked.

Again, no offense to those against tech trading, but I think that in that case you've picked the wrong kind of game to play.

Just because it has "always been this way" doesn't mean there isn't room for improving on the past. Posing a question of this nature brings up alot of valid points for both sides.

Just because you disagree with the possablity of changing the past doesn't mean you have to slap down the entire argument as invalid because it doesn't fit a predetermined ideal of how YOU imagine the game should be played. I don't appriciate people coming into my poll, and posting that the poll shouldn't even exist, and that perhaps I am in the wrong game for questioning the rules of the game. If you feel strongly one way or the other, vote so. Don't try to degrade the validity of the discussion.

In all honesty, I do think there should be tech trading, but it should be restriced. I voted no tech tradeing just to offset votes for absolutly no restrictions.

My reasons for restricting tech trading...

1. No rules creates an artificial tech boon which speeds up tech to the point where which newly crafted units can be obsoleted before they even reach their targets.

2. No rules tends to keep most civs very close in the tech race, while leaving the few isolated ones in the dust.

3. Civs develop tech with the idea of "who is going to want this" as opposed to "what does my civ need".

4. Civs that choose to focus on tech can never really get a good lead, because their inventions are quickly passed around (at no cost to those doing the passing). Same reason there are copyright laws in real life.

5. The "no cost for passing" concept in my opinion cheapens the value of tech and having a tech focused civ. If i trade you money or a resorce, I no longer have that money or resorce. With tech, there is no penalty for me giving it away.


Like I said before, I do think it should be allowed, but restriced to keep the above mentioned items in check.

Trade only self researched techs twice is what I personally think would be the best of both worlds. That way, teams have to give heavy consideration before trading. It does however keep the dipo tool of trading alive, while not speeding up the game in an unrealistic fashion.

[Rhothaerill]

I vote yes for allowing tech trading.

[UnOrthOdOx]

4. Civs that choose to focus on tech can never really get a good lead, because their inventions are quickly passed around (at no cost to those doing the passing). Same reason there are copyright laws in real life.

5. The "no cost for passing" concept in my opinion cheapens the value of tech and having a tech focused civ. If i trade you money or a resorce, I no longer have that money or resorce. With tech, there is no penalty for me giving it away.

Just a comment on those 2 points:

Hence the no-trade clauses typically attached in demogames.

It's not a rule, just a natural developement. Teams ask you not to trade 'their' tech they traded to you. Do so and you risk going to war, or at the least, losing a trading partner in the future.

Creates the #2 option without having to really create it as a set in stone rule.

As for the poll, I think everyone knows I'm for fewer rules = better.

Now, you want to see some folks get riled up, ask about great leader trading.

[astrologix]

Originally posted by AdamTG02

I could see a protocol banning players from revealing what tech their team was researching to members of other teams, though it'd be difficult to enforce. If there are any genuine objections, maybe that's the way to go. But I really don't see the point in eliminiating tech trading entirely.

I support tech trading with this restriction

[ChrisiusMaximus]

tech trading without restrictions.


teams can always set there own restrictions when trading in game, and often do.

[emperor]

Originally posted by Keygen


I am not sure why accelerating the game a bit is of any problem at all. Depending on the play style of each team and their abilities, as well as how fast they will take their turns, this game could easily last somewhere between 2 and 3 years, it's not that will last a few days of joy

The main problem comes from tech research vastly outdoing production capabilities, and thus units becoming obsolete soon after they arrive at a battle-front. However, the Monarch+ difficulty level, and (if it goes through) Epic game speed will help to counter those things.

As before, I am still very strongly in favour of tech trading. What diplomacy is there going to be in this democracy game otherwise? And No Tech Trading so heavily favours traits like Financial that it's almost ridiculous.

As for the 'restricted tech trading' rules, they tend to happen naturally anyway. No need to enforce them as a rule (one thing we certainly don't need are more rules ). See UnOrthOdOx's excellent post above.

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Now, you want to see some folks get riled up, ask about great leader trading.

Really?

Seriously, I see no big deal at all there myself.

Originally posted by AdamTG02

I could see a protocol banning players from revealing what tech their team was researching to members of other teams, though it'd be difficult to enforce. If there are any genuine objections, maybe that's the way to go.

It'd be impossible to enforce. In the words of Paul McCartney: Let It Be.

[Paddy]

so shall we have an actual poll on this then? get some clear numbers

[emperor]

Originally posted by Paddy the Scot
so shall we have an actual poll on this then? get some clear numbers

Sounds like a plan.

[Beta]

Indeed, Although I think the sentiment was pretty clear.

[Pinchak]

If we want to just pass techs around like baseball cards and we all advance up the tree at the same pace fine by me.

Some restriction would add to the game imo. Make teams really think about who and what they are trading instead of "oh, 10 gold? Fine by me, not like it costs me anything to trade this tech".

[emperor]

Originally posted by Pinchak
If we want to just pass techs around like baseball cards and we all advance up the tree at the same pace fine by me.

Some restriction would add to the game imo. Make teams really think about who and what they are trading instead of "oh, 10 gold? Fine by me, not like it costs me anything to trade this tech".

Well, if your team wishes to do that then that's fine by me. Go ahead! I can assure you that Team Stratega, on the other hand, will probably be considerably more sensible in trading techs around. For example, we're not going to give another civ access to Machinery and Crossbowmen for 10 gold. That would just be plain stupid.

There are costs in trading techs. The cost is that the person you are trading it with will gain infrastructural/military/wonder options. That person can also trade to other nations. I think it's safe to say that you will never find a team who will just sell you a tech for 10 gold without even thinking about it. If there are any such teams, I've never heard of them... probably because they'd get obliterated fairly early on. (Here neighbours, have Construction for 10 gold... wait... what are all those catapults doing approaching our lands?)

[Pinchak]

Without restrictions it still just boils down to a swap meet where in the end everyone pretty much has the same tech.

The argument has been made that it makes the game more dynamic to have no restrictions on tech trade. It doesn't. Just because you don't trade me construction because im your war hungry neighboor doesn't mean some civ on the other side of the globe isn't going to.

Without trade on, civs pick paths. They may climb the religion path hoping to found a religion at the risk of falling behind militarily. They may go the culture route. Or the military route.

With trade on, it is all just a big swap meet where everyone has about the same tech, give or take a few.