No Tech Trading

Is the lack of Tech Trading a Bad thing?

  • Yes, Tech Trading is an important feature of Civilization & the real world

    Votes: 113 34.2%

  • No, Tech Trading isn't an important feature.

    Votes: 217 65.8%
  • Total voters
    330
  • Poll closed .
After even more play with no tech trading in civ4, I'm convinced it's a better system and adds more strategy to the game. In the old days you could trade for those dead end techs that had some usefulness, but not enough to deviate from beelines (like the liberalism beeline). But now I find myself having to make more strategic decisions. Like prioritizing military techs like Feudalism before liberalism (which means I often don't get it first). I feel there is more strategy this way. Sure there was some thought involved with trading techs, but that's hardly "real" strategy.
 
Great news. I always turn it off. Im an isolationist player. Always keep one ai happy to permanent alliance with and stomp the hell out of the other Civs.
 
bonafide11 said:
Well, I think this will still happen for two reasons. One, research pacts are replacing tech trading.....So being stranded in Civilization pretty much makes the game impossible if the other civilizations are in close contact with each other.
Click to expand...
The "new world" without a specially designed map. . .

I agree with your analysis of the ciV research paradigm. Yes. It would require more than a simple button to implement the option of playing with Tech Trading. In the same way that having a button to disable Tech Trading requires programming the AI to be able to deal with it.

I strongly suspect that the code for tech trading exists (or did at some point in the design process). It is much easier to remove something than it is to add it later. Had they built the initial platform without Tech Trading, it would be much harder to add it later if they discovered that they did not like the effect that it had on the game/AI.

All speculation, btw, but fun to discuss none the less.
 
bonafide11 said:
Well, I think this will still happen for two reasons. One, research pacts are replacing tech trading. By signing research pacts, you and another Civ will both gain research bonuses, but if a civ is on a continent by itself, it will be unable to sign research pacts and will fall behind. Two, in Civ IV -- and I imagine they'll keep it in Civ V -- techs are cheaper if you know more people who have them. Again, if a civ is alone on a continent, it won't get research discounts. So being stranded in Civilization pretty much makes the game impossible if the other civilizations are in close contact with each other.
Click to expand...
Respectfully have to disagree there. In Civ IV you would have the option to trade with the AI, therefore you could almost double the tech rate you had. It could propel another continent pretty much an era beyond whatever techs you had.

As it seems to be in Civ V this will not be the case. Sure the AIs who work together may be ahead of you by 15% because of the bonus they get. Also their trade routes and such may be better so they may be ahead a bit even further. Add another friendly AI and you can add another bit of bunus the AI may have.

So all in all another Civ may have a bit of a lead on you there, but it was not as bad as in Civ IV where the AI trading amongst themselves could mean that you would fall impossibly behind in techs. The lead would be slimmer now, since there is a limit on how far the AI can get ahead. I cannot imagine the opportunities from winning when coming from being behind are next to nil now, so I would take it it will not be much more of an issue than it is in Civ IV, maybe even less so since it shouldn't be possible for the AI to double their science output by trading.
 
Thyrwyn said:
The "new world" without a specially designed map. . .

I strongly suspect that the code for tech trading exists (or did at some point in the design process). It is much easier to remove something than it is to add it later. Had they built the initial platform without Tech Trading, it would be much harder to add it later if they discovered that they did not like the effect that it had on the game/AI.
Click to expand...

In that case, I suspect it's woefully out of date, and it would still be quite a bit of effort to enable it again.
 
Shurdus said:
maybe even less so since it shouldn't be possible for the AI to double their science output by trading.
Click to expand...

let's say that two civs start next to each other and are pretty much even. they can't trade technologies anymore, but they'll be able to have constant tech pacts, or whatever they'll be called. that might not exactly double their output, but it'll still be faster.
 
i'll just be glad i'll no longer be getting the 'give me tech x or i'll kill you/ not be your bff anyone' pop ups anymore.

i'd be happy with having a system of tech leaching (so maybe they'll actually reason to be an isolationist if you have a tech lead) and maybe tech pillaging for anti social warmongers (looting beakers in the same way as gold on city captures).
 
there definitely needs to be some kind of tech trading system, even if it's not direct. like maybe tech diffusion or something.
 
I think I'll probably like the cooperative research model better, but I'm waiting to see. I think there could eventually be a place for tech trading and stealing to return in some form in an expansion or mod, but I don't want it to be quite so important as a game mechanic.

Really, however, I'd like to see technology diffusion become more explicit. In CivIV that's kind of modeled by the research discount you get for techs already known to other civs, but I think it might be interesting if technologies could propagate between civs. This spread could be aided by having open borders, certain techs, or social policies (writing, printing press, radio, free speech, etc.), or impeded by others (police state, bureaucracy, theocracy, etc.). Might make for some interesting decisions.
 
this thread has reaffirmed my belief that removing tech trading from the game is one of the worst decisions they could have possibly made for the next sequel.
 
awesome said:
this thread has reaffirmed my belief that removing tech trading from the game is one of the worst decisions they could have possibly made for the next sequel.
Click to expand...

Wow, that was insightful. :rolleyes: One of the worst decisions they could have possibly made? I'm sure I could think of quite a few worse possible decisions. Care to explain why, or do you prefer to make bold statements without having any reason to back it up?
 
note the phrase "one of the worst." of course there are worse decisions. all of the arguments for removing tech trading are really just, "it makes the game harder" and "it's not perfectly realistic." the same can be said for at least half the features in the game.
 
awesome said:
note the phrase "one of the worst." of course there are worse decisions. all of the arguments for removing tech trading are really just, "it makes the game harder" and "it's not perfectly realistic." the same can be said for at least half the features in the game.
Click to expand...

Again, you haven't stated a single reason why you think they should leave tech trading in the game. Those are not the arguments made for why they should take it out -- actually, those two arguments have both been made in this thread for why they should KEEP tech trading in the game. The reason they should and are taking tech trading out is because it made the game unbalanced; AIs such as Mansa Musa always performed much better than AIs such as Stalin and Tokugawa because Mansa Musa was always willing to trade techs and the latter were almost never. Without tech trading, all AIs will have a fair chance at winning.
 
maybe we're reading different threads here, but okay, let's go with what you're saying. that's a pretty lame reason that could be fixed with better game design.
and here, i'll quote myself from earlier:
awesome said:
let's say that two civs start next to each other and are pretty much even. they can't trade technologies anymore, but they'll be able to have constant tech pacts, or whatever they'll be called. that might not exactly double their output, but it'll still be faster.
Click to expand...
i didn't think i'd have to walk anyone through this step by step, but here goes:
let's take the example of the americas in an earth map. because there are only a few civs in the americas and tons in the old world, it'll be extremely unbalanced for the americas as there will only be a few civs with which you can form research pacts right away, and they won't even be close enough to each other to get the same bonus as, say, european civs would. also, because this is the main method of getting bonuses to research from your relations with other civilizations and there is no tech trading present, you won't be able to catch up with civs that are that far ahead of you. if tech trading were also present, you could take advantage of both methods and it would be much more balanced. the ai might still constantly trade with each other, but that's how things work in the real world.
 
moscaverde said:
Sometimes I like giving techs to vassals, for the diplomatic effect or for other eviler purposes.
This is not really tech trading, but I feel it would be removed also.
Click to expand...

I was all for the no tech trading till I read this point. I also like to do this, creating evil vic minions to do my bidding, I find it more interesting than doing things myself. Guess that's out of the picture now... but overall I still think it's a good idea not to have tech trading, It should emphasize the personal taste of each civ more
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

K
Capital location in mass Jungle terrain bad or good
Replies
6
Views
737
ghost toast
G
mastrude
[BNW] A puzzle about allies
Replies
0
Views
161
mastrude
mastrude
Blake00
CivBattleRoyale Season 4 (CBR X4)
Replies
6
Views
1K
Blake00
Blake00
D
[BNW] Byblos? Babylon?
Replies
0
Views
306
Draynul
D
foreverlost
Questions
Replies
7
Views
493
aafritz17
aafritz17
Top Bottom