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

[rah]

With Dr spike.
Yes, and nothing quantified yet. My opinion is based on a considerbable amount of experience playing since I probably play half the time using it and half the time not.
This will be tough to quantify since there are so many factors involved, so I doubt we'll ever get any concensus on this one. A lot depends on play style. So I'm sure it will come down to everyone's own evaluation based on their own style and other settings prefered.

[couerdelion]

In older times, it was quite common to value things in terms of salt - the word salary originally comes from the Latin word for salt. Furthermore, there has, throughout history, been a practice of a girl’s father paying a dowry to a man who marries his daughter and this practice existed also in ancient times between different tribes.

A wife of salt therefore became a typical standard denoting the amount of salt that would be required to be paid as a dowry in Iron Age times. It would be a substantial amount of salt.

Rah, I fail to see where DrSpike is in agreement with you? Although he does mention once that “No Tech Trading” creates a crutch, the bulk of his argument seems to me to be clearly on the side that Tech Trading is beneficial to the human more than the AI.

[rah]

We're agreeing on certain aspects, and if you reread the discussion you will see those points. (lower than immortal, if you can keep up in the early game without trading which we both seem to believe is doable) But yes, there is still some disagreement overall.

[DrSpike]

Couerdelion, I can see your cause for confusion as Rah did initially disagree (to a point) with my oft expressed view:

Originally posted by DrSpike


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.

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.

We've now (partly anyway!) agreed I was right about higher levels, particularly in terms of equalising, but Rah still thinks (despite your helpful post on trading!) that in his games predominantly on Monarch and emperor turning off tech trading makes it easier.

Personally I still think that middle and late game problems with tech indicate the need to work on economy building, not any problems with the AI trading too much amongst themselves but not to the player, as implied in Rah's original post.

As you suggest I do think (and I said as much to Steve when he expressed similar views to Rah) that turning off trading encourages bad play that hinders development as a player - basically whether turning off trading helps or not making the trading system a scapegoat for poor outcomes doesn't faciliate the critical thinking needed for improvement, and to the extent that Blake's nuance (around the AI not researching key techs) is a factor that reinforces my view, making turning off trading an even bigger crutch.

Rah might counter that if trading makes things easier for the human on the higher levels that too is a crutch. Personally I'd argue that to win on the higher levels you need to trade well AND have a strong economy, so it's not really a crutch in the same way.

So, in conclusion, we mostly agree now on the points I made on the higher levels, but there is still disagreement below that!

Hope that helps.

[rah]

And you must consider style of play for a game.
If you're planning a conquest game where no one is going to be particularly pleased with you, it's definately to your advantage to turn it off. At any level of difficulty. And there are those that prefer a warring game.

Heck I've had the UN on a few times where it got so annoying that I went out and almost wiped out every civ just so the couldn't vote for something I didn't want.
Yeah, no more tech trading that game

[rah]

Originally posted by rah
And you must consider style of play for a game.
If you're planning a conquest game where no one is going to be particularly pleased with you, it's definately to your advantage to turn it off. At any level of difficulty. And there are those that prefer a warring game.

Heck I've had the UN on a few times where it got so annoying that I went out and almost wiped out every civ just so the couldn't vote for something I didn't want.
Yeah, no more tech trading that game

And I've won deity games doing OCC conquest without tech trading that I know I wouldn't have won if tech trading was on.

[DrSpike]

One thing I find interesting comes from a thread on this topic about 3 months ago:

Originally posted by MasterDave
I have tried No Tech Trading on Monarch, and I have found that unless you are EXTREMELY aggressive early in the game, the AI will leave you in the dust fairly quickly. On this level or above, it is clever use of tech arbitrage and an early monopoly on Alpahabet that allows the typical human empire to keep up with the AI's. (Edit: bolding by DrSpike)

Originally posted by rah
I used to think it (using no tech tech trading option - DrSpike) was an advantage but at the higher levels (here referring to Monarch and above - DrSpike) I have learned better and agree with MD.

Funny how when I said the same thing as MD you suddenly disagreed, both with me and your earlier self!

Thread is:

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=156632

[DrSpike]

This post from Sirian the official map designer in an even older thread made me chuckle:

Originally posted by Sirian
I think to a large extent, the impact of turning off tech trading depends on the player's trading skill. Players who are particularly strong in the ways of brokering will make a net gain from tech trading, so turning it off will make the game harder. Players who lack understanding of the AI and/or the trading system will probably get less out of trading than the AIs do, so turning it off will make the game easier

Hehe.

[couerdelion]

Part of the problem is that there are certain “critical points” in every game. They depend a lot on all sorts of random factors as well as those created by the game conditions and the way it develops. A good example is early access to metal. If you get this and your neighbours don’t it is not too difficult to start taking chunks out of them. Almost at a stroke you have managed to reach the objective of gaining local supremacy (Regional and Global come later). Much like the acquisition of wonders, holy cities, and in this context Alphabet and Currency, these pivotal techs/circumstances generate the opportunity costs which you can leverage to acquire other assets in the game.

The critical points may be very different in each game but the objective is to get there soon and to use that advantage while it last.

I think this is one reason why tech trading is advantageous even on levels down to Monarch. It allows the human play to leap forward to their particular critical juncture that gives them the leverage to push further ahead and start to leave the AI in its wake. However, at any level where the AI is so slow that there are almost no tech trading opportunities for the human player, it becomes more beneficial to the AI and since this advantage can reduce the window in which the human is holding a limited time advantage it becomes a disadvantage.

So in reality, the level at which tech trading is a good thing for the human is relative to their standard of play. The strongest players will only see benefits at the highest levels because there are so few opportunities for trading. I would guess that tech trading is advantageous (to the human) at up to 2-3 levels below the level which they find challenging – ie around 50:50 chance of winning.

With regards to the human style of play determining whether or not an option is beneficial or not, I have to disagree. The style or play must reflect all the relevant information that is open to us at any point in a game. To take an obvious example, if you are playing the Romans and want to find Iron but have Deer, Ivory, Fur, Corn and various other animal resources, you should no ignore all of those facts just to get to Iron. You adjust your game plan to reflect this information. Similarly, the priority for sea techs will be heavily influenced by your map type, your early defense plans will be affected by the barbarian setting etc. In my view, the setting for “Tech Trading” is the thing that influences the human rather than the other way round.

[rah]

Spike, yes I said that earlier but fortunately Humans can learn and change their opinion. There are some situations where I still agree with that but after playing many occ conquest games I have experienced different.
I have never won an occ conquest game at deity where tech trading is on. But a few with it off. So even assuming that i'm a dumb ass and don't understand the basics of a game i've been playing for over a year, the best I could do is match what I do with it turned off. Common sense tells me that it must be easier with it turned off for the style that is needed to win a conquest game.

[rah]

Or at least the only style I've figured out that works.
But then again, reread the dumb ass comment

[couerdelion]

I don’t think adapting style is straightforward. There are many settings that I have not played on so would have to guess how my own play would adapt to them.

One of the hardest thing to adapt to, I find, are the leader traits. If you spend a long time playing leaders with certain traits then it can be very hard to move away from this trait - particularly traits like CHA, EXP and CRE which kick into gear right from the start. I’m sure many people have set up city two in an “ideal” location to grab lots of resources only to find that they have to wait forever before they can develop them.

Another one I find a little problematic is whether you have hunting or not. If you don’t you can almost give up on any idea of gaining lots of money and techs from huts and may even have to wait for your neighbours to find you.

Given that “Tech Trading Allowed” is a set up, it is likely that this sort of setting will be fixed for most players over many games so they will either play one or the other. For that reason, I could well imagine that the setting can so much influence your style of play that it can be very hard to change it if the setting is reversed.

Which rather means that I am contradicting myself here by saying that if

a) you play with “No Tech Trading Allowed”, your play will be worse if you allow it
b) you play with “Tech Trading Allowed”, your play will be worse if you disallow it

Of course, this was not the original question and the answer to that is YES

[rah]

Bravo, great point.

The question here, is are most of the people discussing it used to one way or the other?

I've actually played about half my games with it on and half with it off at many different levels (except the few lowest levels that I never have played), so I think I have a decent understanding of the differences.

Have you and Spike played many games with it off or are you just speculating/or applying some type of logic.
I'd love to hear about both of your personal experiences with this. Unless it just one or two games and then I'll just conclude that you really have no experience with it.

I will agree that people do get into a rut. We've started playing random civs in some of our MP games and it's been quite an eye opener. Using some of the characteristics that I don't normally select has been quite entertaining. All the possibilities and combinations is one of the MAIN strengths of the game in my opinion and I expect the MP community to be quite long lasting due to it.

[couerdelion]

Well I have to admit to having a bit of a fetish with Tech Trading so have never turned it off. The speculation is more a case that I know, with tech trading, that I am able, at some point in a game, to make a dramatic leap forward and then use my advanced knowledge to stymie any attempt by AIs to trade.

It all really comes from Civ III Deity level games where trading was a way of life for me and very profitable.

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by rah
Spike, yes I said that earlier but fortunately Humans can learn and change their opinion.

Hehe ok, Civ4 is a pretty intricate game after all.