Poll: Tech Trading

[snoopy369]

I don't see why you should have any tech restrictions. Trading a tech with a no-trade clause as opposed to trading a tech that is further tradeable has always been one of the interesting elements of strategy in democracy games.

I would also remind those who haven't played a demogame before that they DO indeed vary dramatically from the other formats, even other PTBS games. Demogames are interesting for three major reasons.

1. Playing a game on a team with others gives a valuable sense of team spirit and also gives interesting insights into others' strategy.

2. The fact that you have many players means you can have more diplomatic complexity than you typically would in a normal PTBS game. Many teams will have several diplomats who are specifically tasked with having diplomatic discussions with others.

3. The team dynamic typically gives more complexity to the game than a normal PTBS, as a result of different individual dynamics affecting the diplomacy.

Taking away tech trading, or substantially limiting it, takes away 1/3 of the value of the demogame, in my opinion. Particularly in the early game, where it can be quite boring except for the diplomatic discussions involving tech trading (depending on our map choice of course).

[Fosse]

I could get behind astrolix's "no research discussion" rule. I will have faith in the players that they can adhere to such a thing.

It does make the choice of research more interesting. In many tech arrangements who researches what is often decided by tech rates instead of immediate utility.

I say no trading limits, but I'm willing to take on this "gag rule" about future techs.

[Bernout]

Originally posted by snoopy369
I don't see why you should have any tech restrictions. Trading a tech with a no-trade clause as opposed to trading a tech that is further tradeable has always been one of the interesting elements of strategy in democracy games.

I'll second the above. Also, just for the sake of simplicity I'm a fan of "the less rules the better" philosophy. As soon as you start putting in place out of game rules you are asking for potential problems further down the road.

Bernout

[snoopy369]

Hmm, I misread astrologix' suggestion. Still I'm quite against it, as tech coordination is a substantial 'fun' element in the early game (and makes it a lot more interesting).

Demo games are interesting because of the diplomacy far more than the technical gameplay. Rules that restrict diplomatic options nearly always make demo games less fun, excepting when they exist to prevent cheating or game-breaking actions, and even then they tend to make the game less fun. For example, in C4DG there is a no-talk-before-contact rule, which exists partially to make the game have more realistic continents (as the game was played on such) and also prevents coordination between continents, slightly decreasing the likelihood of a superalliance early in the game. However, it certainly reduces the fun for many of the players also, as they can't really chat much.

Tech coordination does little to hurt the game, and does a lot to advantage diplomatically savvy teams. It makes the techs go by a little faster, but at normal speed that's not really a huge problem, and for a demo game that is probably a good thing; a faster moving game means people lose interest less quickly.

[Nugog]

No restrictions for me.

[RobWorham]

No restrictions for me too

[Aidun]

I'm still against any restrictions. As an experienced demogamer I know that techtrading is not quite easy and deals are not easily struck. No trade clauses prevent most the trading of most techs. But also don't forget that trading a tech to an enemy is not quite the first any team will consider as a way to make more money, at least I don't and I know enough people here I've either played with or against, who think just like me.

No team demogame has ever gone out of hand as a result of no restrictions on tech trade, and I see no reason to impose it now.

Second point is that I plainly don't trust other teams to play fairly. I remember too well the ISDG I and I believe it was the C3C DG, in which one team actually cheated, and the heated PTW DG I in which emotions got so high that it was not at all unlikely to happen, fortunately it didn't happen then. I'll be fair here: I trust a few people that I know to play fair and others whom I don't know I cannot be sure of. That's not meant to be unkind, its how things work.

A more general note:

Demogames are the most challenging way to play civ, because most team are composed of excellent veteran players as well as newbies eager to learn as quikcly as possible. Generally the experienced players are more or less evenly divided among the teams, so no reason to worry there. A team in a demogame is the most formidable opponent you can wish to meet in a game of Civ, better than any multiplayer or AI opponent you've ever played. That makes demogames so challenging. Those teams are not crazy, they are super-rational and highly protective.

Demogames can best be compared as a game of internations relations in Europe before WW 2. Anyone's who's familiar knows how nations treated each other back then. Well, that's pretty much how demo games work. The fun here is that teams will make sure things remain balanced. If one team gets too strong too early, others will ally against it or such. It rarely happens that a balance will be disturbed.

The careful placement of teams at the start, by making sure no team is on its own, exiled from the rest, we make sure that from the very start each tem has roughly the same chances for survival. Resources and nice yterrain are not always presented on trays by butters, sometimes you have to put some effort in acquiring them, or have to make the best out the lack of them. Being creative is part of the game. Lack of some resources is never an imbalance, as you can be sure other teams are lacking other things. If a team seems to have all the luck of the world, you can bet that lateron it will be punished for it. Just never give up when the wind blows in your face instead of from behind, it is not seldom that those clever enough to compensate for their losses, hit themselves through difficulr parts of the game and grow in to fearsome civs once their time has come. A good diplomacy is vital for that, exactly what makes demogames so unique.

To me it seems the wish to restrict tech trade is based on a fear for imbalance and I don't think such imbalance exists. It can be the result of a series of stupid choices, yes, but then it is no less than your own fault. I've been on teams that won and teams that lost, winning is great, losing sucks, but you get over it, I got over the terrible loss suffered by team Roleplay in the PTWDG and after that anything else seemed trivial.