Game settings: Tech tradings

[remake20]

Open for 5 days

 

[nabaxo]

Embarrasing: What does tech-brokering mean?

 

[Sommerswerd]

Embarrasing: What does tech-brokering mean?

Tech Brokering is trading to get a tech and then trading (brokering) that tech to somebody else... Like how a stock broker trades with one person and then trades away what he just got to somebody else.

"Brokering" is what we all do in single player (SP) to catch-up/keep up with the AI in tech. You get get Metal Casting then trade for Alphabet and Iron Working from one AI, then go to another AI and trade Iron Working for everything he has, then go to every other AI and do the same thing...

If Brokering is turned off, you will only be able to trade away techs that you researched yourself, not tech that you got by trading.

 

[nabaxo]

Thanks for the explanation.

 

[SilentConfusion]

Not sure how I feel about this one. I'll have to give it more thought and maybe wait to hear other opinions.

 

[Sommerswerd]

I can not stress enough how important this decision is... there will be HUGE differences in the game, depending on what setting is chosen...

With tech trading ON, forming and maintaining tech trading alliances will be a critical part of the game... So diplomacy will be very important.

If tech trading is ON, we will have lots and lots of diplomacy-related talk, mostly revolving around making and managing tech alliances, and one time tech trades. We will always be talking about diplomacy, and meeting our rivals before the other teams do will be one of the most important things in the game.

With tech trading OFF, mastery of tile, city, and specialist micromanagement will be essential, because it will be those small advantages... an extra beaker here, an extra commerce point there... who gets a great person first and what type etc., which will allow one team to get ahead in tech, growth, everything.

If tech trading is OFF, the discussions about what we will do each turn will be dominated by MMing (micromanagement) talk. For example... Whether to work the corn or the gold and how many versus how much we will generate by doing one or the other. We will talk about this stuff anyway, but with tech trading off, it will be a much more important part of our game.

Restrictions on tech trading tends to favor players with tons and tons of MP experience, because those are how ladder games are typically played. I can say from experience, that most casual players do not think alot about MMing, and you will learn alot of new stuff about it just by participating in this game. MMing is a little more technical and requires a little more research and calculation than diplomacy, because it is all about the numbers.

Diplomacy (diplo) on the other hand is a little bit less about CIV and more about people, politics and interpersonal relationships. The skills needed for good diplo are different from the skills needed for good MMing, but generally, it takes more CIV experience to be good at MMing than it does to be good at diplo.

I hope this was helpful.

 

[Tinkerbell]

Oops, I voted wrong. It shows I voted for "Bo Tech brokering", which means No ofcourse. I want normal tech stuff.

 

[RasmCiv]

I'm not sure. a dying civ can gift all of their techs to another civ right?

 

[remake20]

I'm not sure. a dying civ can gift all of their techs to another civ right?

Yes, that's right.

 

[SilentConfusion]

I'm not sure. a dying civ can gift all of their techs to another civ right?

They can also gift all of their cities away too, so eliminating tech trades doesn't solve this problem. I guess in an Always War game you couldn't trade anything.

I really don't know which way I am leaning on this one.

 

[wideyedwanderer]

I haven't voted yet but I'm leaning in favor of tech trading and brokering. It adds so much to the diplomatic side of the game. Diplomacy, interacting with real people, is much more interesting than micromanaging. We can have internal debates about who to ally with in order to trade techs, and if/when we should stab our allies. While micromanaging will be important either way, diplomacy would be much more important with tech trading on.

I suppose this brings up the question: Will alliance wins be on or off? I don't like the idea of alliance wins. Having only one winning team means at some point allies will have to stab each other, which adds so much intrigue. Reminds me of the game Diplomacy.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Restrictions on tech trading tends to favor players with tons and tons of MP experience, because those are how ladder games are typically played. I can say from experience, that most casual players do not think alot about MMing

The turn players that carry the weight/hopes of the entire team on their shoulders in these things tend not to be casual players .

Usually alliances are not for the whole game. Permanent alliances will probably be disabled as that can instantly ruin a game if enabled. Team-designed alliances will exist, but typically for a fixed #turns.

I voted trades off but I can understand the desire to have them on, too. I just caution that in such a situation it is diplo, rather than any other facet of play, that will decide the outcome most.

 

[Norton I]

One of the things that attract me to this type of play is that you really have a lot of time to discuss all the details... MM play an important role. So I voted "no trading".

 

[Loev]

Normal tech trading is the best option IMHO. You don't want that teams trade techs that you just gave them to a hostile team.

 

[classical_hero]

Well in that case you would want to vote for no tech brokering, since it means you can only trade away techs you have researched not those that have been traded for. Tech brokering allows trading of techs, just those you have researched.

 

[SilentConfusion]

Normal tech trading is the best option IMHO. You don't want that teams trade techs that you just gave them to a hostile team.

I may not be understanding what you're saying correctly, but if tech trading is normal a team WOULD be able to trade a tech you just gave them with whomever they liked, even someone hostile to you.

Do you mean you want that you can only trade techs you research? Because that would be No Tech Brokering.

EDIT: Cross post with CH... Yeah, what CH said.

 

[Loev]

Well in that case you would want to vote for no tech brokering, since it means you can only trade away techs you have researched not those that have been traded for. Tech brokering allows trading of techs, just those you have researched.

Ow god it was early this morning. Sorry, I was still sleeping. Of course I mean no tech brokering. Also voted wrong...

 

[SilentConfusion]

Ow god it was early this morning. Sorry, I was still sleeping. Of course I mean no tech brokering. Also voted wrong...

It happens.

 

[damnrunner]

Tech trading encourages permanent alliances, I like a game that is more dynamic and has the potential for backstabbing.

Tech trading also allows teams to over expand without falling behind due to econ crash. See Team Cav and Sacta in the last game. They should have had anemic tech at the end but were able to use other teams to maintain tech parity.

 

[TheMeInTeam]

Tech trading encourages permanent alliances, I like a game that is more dynamic and has the potential for backstabbing.

Tech trading also allows teams to over expand without falling behind due to econ crash. See Team Cav and Sacta in the last game. They should have had anemic tech at the end but were able to use other teams to maintain tech parity.

Just for the record, I'm going to push us to expand ridiculously if we leave tech trades on. It's a great way to vulture/siphon off other teams, and often you're considered noble for helping them with production or units or whatever, when the reality is whoever is getting more land in peaceful deals is getting the stronger long term position. Without a well-placed backstab or a huge tech lead it's hard to beat a larger civ lead by human players.