No Tech Trading

Is the lack of Tech Trading a Bad thing?


  • Total voters
    330
  • Poll closed .
Tech trading/brokering is one area where human players have an enormous advantage over the AI. Trying to determine the differences between 2 abstract technologies and decide whether the trade is fair or not is an incredibly difficult problem. It sounds like they are taking the easy way out and just disabling the whole thing.

It's probably for the best, as good players could exploit tech trading to the extreme and build a huge lead.
 
one thing I wonder about is the value of warfare. It seems to me you are better off at peace, as you will get increased research rate.

Is there any reason to go to war (I'm safely assuming that you can't get techs from conquering cities)??

I suppose if you are behind, going to war is your only choice. Or if you are shut out of an alliance. Diplomacy in this game will be very interesting. I look forward to it. I just don't want this game to be all diplomacy, no war.
 
one thing I wonder about is the value of warfare. It seems to me you are better off at peace, as you will get increased research rate.

Is there any reason to go to war (I'm safely assuming that you can't get techs from conquering cities)?? .

Why are you assuming that.

I doubt every time you take an enemy city you will get a tech of your choice but they could give you X points towards a tech, or give you an X% chance of getting a tech.

Both of those are useful because they could be balanced (particularly X points) to allow someone to actually do war and maintain a research rate (even a slow one)


Also war gives you cities... cities that can research tech for you. So either make someone your ally OR conquer them, get their research either way.
 
You'd probably need to expand your realm through war to secure resources. It seems like a reasonable reason for war.
 
been messing around with civ4 with no tech trading. It changes the game quite a bit. Although I would suspect it's based on difficulty level. I normally play Noble, but now find Noble games offer no challenge with no tech trading. I realize now that tech trading was the only way the ai could get any useful tech. Their tech progress really stalls out before the industrial age. I think maybe it has to do with the massive unit maintenance they have to keep up with. I never opened the editor to find out. But they simply cannot keep up with me in tech. This also signifies I really was not exploiting tech trading as much as I should have, and the ai was getting the advantage over me.

Although I'd imagine the higher levels they could outtech me.

So what does this mean for civ5? Well it means they better make the ai significantly better. They need to program the importance of maintaining a good economy in civ5. Or if they do give aggressive civs more inclination to build military, they need to program the ability for them to use it to gain a terrain/population advantage.

The good news is I can no go up a level in civ4. :). back to playing
 
I've always disliked tech trading in civ. It's something the AIs have always been too free with and something players have exploited in numerous ways.

I usually play with no tech brokering in Civ IV, even though it's still not controlled enough.

I'm looking forward to seeing how the new system shapes up.
 
Is the lack of Tech Trading a Bad thing?
This poll will close on Jul 01, 2010 at 11:06 PM
1. Yes, Tech Trading is an important feature of Civilization & the real world
2. No, Tech Trading isn't an important feature.

3. No, Tech Trading has been too important a feature of Civilization.
 
3. No, Tech Trading has been too important a feature of Civilization.
Perhaps in the modern era. But in earlier eras, it would have been impossible for any government to control the spread of any technology/knowledge that was widespread enough (within a given culture) to provide any real benefits.

The concept works in a game play sense, and there are specific examples from history. But governments did not trade technologies regularly. (Disclaimer: I usually play with no technology brokering).

I can take it or leave it - not sorry to see it go. Another point, it is possible that there will be an option to enable tech trading, too...
 
Should improve gameplay to see it go, removing exploits and "gamey-ness." Of course, like many have noted already, it should also make things harder for the human player. But gameplay is more important; I'm not too proud to play at Monarch level. Perhaps it will also keep tech whores like Mansa Musa from always doing well and isolationists like Tokugawa from always sucking- or perhaps these "research agreements" will keep the Tokugawas of the world backward.
 
There are already mechanics for speeding up research of known techs in cIV. You get a research discount for every civ you know that knows the tech.
It would just need to be expanded upon in ciV.

I play on deity and can't imagine that ciV would have the same AI handicaps as cIV with regards to research if I can't somehow catch up. Fair play and you'd be destroyed. The only alternative then would be if stealing techs use similar mechanics to that of cIV. But it's ridiculous to assume that Firaxis would not attempt to balance the new game with this knowledge.
 
I like this.
Now the most advanced nations will be those with the best empires/economies instead of simply the friendliest guys on the largest continent.
 
Unsure what to make of that feature to be honest. I liked tech trading since it was really something that sped up the game and it was basically a good thing imo. I liked the implications of trading and the strategies that went with it.

Then again I can see the game becoming more individualistic now, where joint efforts are needed and therefore keeping friends alive is more important now. You will no longer be able to use some AI for trading and smash him to bits once you reach a certain point because this will cost you the late game.

All in all I am unsure yet if it improves the game, but I am hopeful overall. Without seeing how it works out however I am inclined to say I dislike it hence I voted no.
 
I like Thyrwyn's idea on this. Tech trading should be an option at least.
 
Making tech trading an option isn't as easy as it sounds. Then you have to completely reprogram the AI in order to know how to trade techs, when not to trade techs, who to trade with, what techs to hold on to, etc. Plus they have to create new AI "flavors" for tech trading, like how Mansa Musa loved trading techs and Tokugawa hated it in Civ IV. None of that will be in Civ V, so you want them to completely rebuild the AI just for the option of trading techs? Not going to happen.
 
This should at least reduce the issues with AI civs that begin on smaller continents ending up having their technological advancement crippled due to having less civs to trade with.

I'm not sure I like it either though... it depends how it plays.
 
This should at least reduce the issues with AI civs that begin on smaller continents ending up having their technological advancement crippled due to having less civs to trade with.

I'm not sure I like it either though... it depends how it plays.

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.
 
Top Bottom