Tech trading is / is not a bore (delete as appropriate)

[Swiss Pauli]

I enjoy it, although the WFYABTA limit is a bit silly.

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Swiss Pauli
I enjoy it, although the WFYABTA limit is a bit silly.

that acronym is huge. what are you trying to say?

[Swiss Pauli]

We Fear You Are Becoming Too Advanced.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by Steve Clark


After playing quite a few long games, I'm still not sure which way to go. I have played with it off and with it on and can come up with pros and cons of either way. As been said, you reach a point where tech trading hurts you more because of the unwillingness of the AI to trade key techs with you but they will easily trade among themselves. The key turning point, I have found, is right after Rifling. That's the point I lose my tech lead and can't catch up - the AI seems to be constantly 2-3 techs ahead of you while you are spending time to get to Steel.

No tech trading always hurts the human more on the higher levels. Below that it doesn't really matter either way.

It's also pretty easy to outtech the AI in the late game - no reasonable amount of bonuses can beat a human who has been setting up his empire the whole game to tech in the later stages.

[rah]

I disagree to a point because the AI will stop trading with you but still trade with the others. I have no problems keeping up early, but when they stop trading with me, they all see to go by quite quickly.

When I have it turned off, the middle to late game seems easier.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by rah
I disagree to a point because the AI will stop trading with you but still trade with the others. I have no problems keeping up early, but when they stop trading with me, they all see to go by quite quickly.

When I have it turned off, the middle to late game seems easier.

Sums up my experiences nicely.

I've been trying to win on Prince (typically with me and the AI going for domination) with tech trading on but had been unsuccessful in four tries. Sounds like I would get over the hump by turning off tech trading.

[zeace]

The AI only stops trading tech with you if you're winning. In that case, you're winning so just finish the game and win already. If you're not winning, tech trading is a very useful tool to catch-up and eventually win. That means tech trading can only help.

(Ok, a bit of gross simplification, but nonetheless the ideas are right)

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by zeace
The AI only stops trading tech with you if you're winning. In that case, you're winning so just finish the game and win already. If you're not winning, tech trading is a very useful tool to catch-up and eventually win. That means tech trading can only help.

(Ok, a bit of gross simplification, but nonetheless the ideas are right)

"winning" or just have the highest score?

It seems to be possible to have a huge lead in score in civ4 while becoming the weakest civ by various other more important criteria.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by zeace
The AI only stops trading tech with you if you're winning. In that case, you're winning so just finish the game and win already. If you're not winning, tech trading is a very useful tool to catch-up and eventually win. That means tech trading can only help.

(Ok, a bit of gross simplification, but nonetheless the ideas are right)

That's pretty much it - on the higher levels trading is a necessary device to compete (because like other things humans are better at it) and once the game advances to the later stages you just shouldn't be getting out-teched anyway.

[Steve Clark]

Originally posted by DrSpike


That's pretty much it - on the higher levels trading is a necessary device to compete (because like other things humans are better at it) and once the game advances to the later stages you just shouldn't be getting out-teched anyway.

I think the difference is that the AI generally plays peaceful and only occassionally going to war weakly. I play the other way around, alternating periods of warfare and growing the peace. If I play in the same manner as the AI, then I would agree with you but my aim has been to get ahead in techs solely for the purpose of having superior military units.

[DrSpike]

Well in that case you need to do one of two things: Either win by domination before your strongest rival wins by spaceship, or realise when this is inappropriate and leverage your no doubt large empire for late game teching. You'll need to plan this a little in advance.

You don't need to turn tech trading off. What will happen is that you will use that as a crutch and when you play higher levels the crutch will turn around and whack you one.

[zeace]

Originally posted by Geronimo


"winning" or just have the highest score?

It seems to be possible to have a huge lead in score in civ4 while becoming the weakest civ by various other more important criteria.

By winning, I mean most likely to win the game. If the AI doesn't think you're winning, but you are, they'll probably keep trading techs with you. Yay!

If you're not winning, but the AI thinks you are, then you're screwed. But in this case it's your own fault for making yourself seem to powerful.

Maybe you're losing because your army is obsolete, but it's so big that the AI thinks you're powerful. In this case, disband the army until the AI thinks you're no threat. Switch to peaceful civics and try to build some research capabilities.

Maybe you've got a bit of a tech lead, but some other civ has a much larger empire and is going to out tech you for the rest of the game. Shame on you for letting an AI get so big, but you've got a tech lead right now so do something about it. Start building an army and conquer someone. Or trade your techs to the #3 civ to bribe them into a war with the other civ.


If the AI thinks you're winning, then you should still have a shot at winning because clearly you have an advantage somewhere. So if the AI thinks you're winning then you can probably win, and if they don't think you're winning you can use tech trading to win.

Yay tech trading!

[Stolen Rutters]

Originally posted by rah
I disagree to a point because the AI will stop trading with you but still trade with the others. I have no problems keeping up early, but when they stop trading with me, they all see to go by quite quickly.

When I have it turned off, the middle to late game seems easier.

That is what diplomacy is for. If you can get different AIs to declare war at least once on eachother, or to take on different religions from eachother (which tends to lead to more AI on AI wars), the negative relations will discourage tech trading between them and help you keep up.

For example, let's look at one scenario. Let's say you have one neighbor with a religion and another who doesn't. If you have founded your own religion, open borders with the godless neighbor to spread your religion to that realm. The two AI will now have different religions (negative relation modifier), which means they wont generally trade with eachother. If they get into a fight afterwards, they will almost never be on good enough terms to trade. Trade problem solved.

[Steve Clark]

On higher levels, I have the found the AI to be very timid when going to war against a neighbor - whether prompted by me or on their own. They would do some raiding, maybe take one city and then they would negotiate a peace, usually resulting in one becoming the vassal of another or simply, back to the way it was - with me suffering the diplomatic hit of getting an ally to declare war on another. Getting a 2nd or 3rd place civ to war against a lower placed civ (of different religions and annoyed or worse) will only make the bigger stronger. Going the other way will never benefit me. It almost always ends up being better to be aggressive militarily up until the time they catch up tech-wise (at least for the continent I am on).

[Geronimo]

Originally posted by Steve Clark
On higher levels, I have the found the AI to be very timid when going to war against a neighbor - whether prompted by me or on their own. They would do some raiding, maybe take one city and then they would negotiate a peace, usually resulting in one becoming the vassal of another or simply, back to the way it was - with me suffering the diplomatic hit of getting an ally to declare war on another. Getting a 2nd or 3rd place civ to war against a lower placed civ (of different religions and annoyed or worse) will only make the bigger stronger. Going the other way will never benefit me. It almost always ends up being better to be aggressive militarily up until the time they catch up tech-wise (at least for the continent I am on).

i'm finding the same problem. They are happy to go to war against me for all eternity even though I never wronged them in any way and have the same state religion. But the wars they have with presumed arch enemies with whom they have every reason to fight invariably draw to a close after a couple timid turns of pillaging a few neighboring tiles.