Is Civ5 really more simple than Civ4?

[Earthling]

I agree again, and I'd rather not judge the differences between complexity, excitingness, micromanagement and so on - and some will end up with player preferences anyway (like, I consider forest chopping/slavery in civ4 much more of a micromanagement task, than something particularly interesting.)

But I am chiefly concerned about one thing the developers should know in development, which is again, how the player relates to the AI and other rivals in general. It should be clear how streamlined or how intricate this is, and whether it actually remains dynamic or gets boring - which I why I like what we've heard about city-states, but not what we've heard about obscuring or making more annoying AI personalities and modifiers to deal with.

Plus, I wish we had meaningful mechanics that affected human relations in multiplayer, but I guess that will remain a pipe-dream. (So that even in human play, where "relations" aren't there, various effects on your citizens or empire's economy or whatever could depend on agreements with neighboring civs, or if they still had it, things like religion)

 

[hk2717]

Tech trading and religion and espionage? These are exactly why I quited civ4, along with SODs. IMO those who like these features do so largely because they know too well how to abuse these systems. I have never been one of the gamers that consider abuse fun and call it 'depth' and 'mastery'. Honestly I don't think this is how games are meant to be played. Maybe you spent too much time on a single game and now you cannot accept anything different and be mad at the removal of any of the old things even if they are replaced by better ones in the latest iteration of the series.

 

[Earthling]

Could I assume you are opposed to one-unit-per-tile in every way, shape, and form then? It is undoubtedly going to as abusable as the largest offender in civ4 is and possibly more, but somehow I'm not sure you would see it that way.

But your characterization is wrong, and I hope the same goes for others - I don't think people like these features to abuse them. Many, many players love how religion is used to incorporate and expand realism in various mods, historical Earth and more, as one good example, but the tech system also creates huge flexibility. So I'm not saying these features couldn't have been done better in civ5 - but removing them (almost) entirely leaves a lot less. You couldn't even play a silly game to convert and conquer all others to your religion, no worries about abuse or game balance, just making use of the system in a fun way.

For the record, I'm certainly not a huge fan of espionage, or every implementation of each of these other features in civ4, by the way. I would change how later religions spread, the AP is utter trash and I wouldn't have added that in BtS if it were up to me. I actually have some rather radical ideas I'd mod in tech trading but even in basic civ4 I'd change AI attitudes towards "whoring" and remove annoying things like WFYABTA. I would ask you not to characterize other civ4 players especially by such views, and for me I'll say that no, I'm not a fan of abuse, and that's not what makes those mechanics important either.

 

[Celevin]

This thread on the other hand is examining something as broad as the complexity of the game itself - something that in my mind seems impossible to judge given that not a single member of this forum (short of 2K reps :jealousy: ) has even played one minute of the game. (people under NDAs don't count)

Well, the idea of the thread was to consider the major changes between Civ4 and Civ5 as a whole, and to ask if there was more things to think about in a given turn or less. The complaints that Civ5 has been "dumbed down" along the lines of Civ Revolution made me wonder if that is actually the case. I'm using as much speculation as a person who complains the game is dumbed down is - ie both of us haven't played the actual thing. Despite radical changes, Civ5 is still a successor, and has enough in common to consider things like this.

Having said that, even without anything else the thread stirs up some interesting conversation!

As for civics, since I specifically mentioned related to diplomacy, the choice of civics for the sake of diplomacy is a strategic and interesting call. The social policy tree could be cool, I will give that credit, but if it doesn't affect diplomacy (city-states are good here too, I really hope they work out) that's another lacking area.

Me and you fundamentally disagree on diplomacy which I'm guessing is at the forefront of our argument. I'm not OK with large static bonuses like civics and religion, as I think they dominate all other choices (and you are for them, both of these are nothing more than preferences or opinions on how it should be). This is what creates our large divide on those two, as if you were to take diplomacy out of the equation, religion is rather empty, and the civics might as well just be completely blended into the tech tree and wonders. Most civics aren't equal, with obvious choices being the best for most playstyles.

Of course with the diplomacy changes, the system can be seen as deep, as it's a way to influence the coms to your advantage through smart choices. However, my point is without them, coms can be influenced with other methods, so I don't see an overall change in things to consider. It might just be a preference and nothing else on how exactly you want to influence the AI.

Technology trading is incredibly deep, again, arguing that it isn't balanced purposely doesn't mean it isn't "deep." It basically defines the entire use and structure of the technology tree. It defines warfare, relations between civs, and remains a major force in singleplayer and multiplayer games. It also makes exploration and trade an exciting and dynamic game - I'm not sure what, if anything, is even going to be possible in civ 5 that will make you care about civilizations on another continent, given loss of features like this in diplomacy.

You've got me there. I misspoke because I think the tech trading system is absurd and makes no sense, but the argument is about depth and complexity - and tech trading has those things. You're also right in that it makes exploring worthwhile, and that there probably needs to be more reason to explore now that it's gone.

I wouldn't argue the same for multiplayer, because as much as it's abused in singleplayer, I've seen much worse in the former. It's less deep, and more just... conspiring.

If I were designing the game, I would input a "bleed" of tech. That is, open borders also gives you say 2% of the civ's research towards the same tech they're researching (ie none if you already have it). It would act to help civs that are behind catch up, it would give benefit to exploring and finding new civs, and it would give a realistic benefit for open borders/trade.

Espionage can be abused, but by focusing on it the player can employ very novel and exciting playstyles, contributing immensely to warfare and trade, and victory conditions at the end of the game too (Space Race, for one)

I might have strayed away from my original argument here as well. You're right. The grievances I have with it are more concerned about balance and the annoying annoying fact that you're either 100% with it, or you hardly use it at all. It's not a well implemented mechanic. But that doesn't mean it doesn't lead to some interesting decisions if you use it correctly (and have tech trading enabled). What I don't like about it is it doesn't force any interactivity. Half the time I see a com smash an improvement or poison the water, I shrug my shoulders. I imagine a virtual shrug from the com as well whenever I do it. Its best use by far is hurting the space race.

I think espionage could be brought back if there was more interactivity with it. Don't have any espionage points, instead just have it as spies. Let spies be able to see other spies. Make all spy actions free, but require a certain fortify time. Finally, warn a person if a spy's in their culture border, but don't tell them where. Doing all this will keep the mechanic simple, powerful and interesting, and will make players interact with it. Some ideas for interesting abilities would include things like "Every turn this spy is fortified in an enemy city, the player loses 2% research progress on their current tech, and you gain the same amount". It would force the other player to look for the spy, and kick him out or kill him.


Based on your replies here and in other threads, Earthling, I imagine you looking down on some of the things I say since I'm just some random new forum-goer. I'm not a Noble player just jumping up and down, nor am I a war monger. I play (and win) on Immortal on a variety of settings, and have tried Deity a number of times. I've got a background in mathematics and game theory. I feel weird having to dignify myself like this.

 

[bjbrains]

Where I differ from Earthling and others about complexity is that I don't see having 'more units/civs' making a more complex and interesting game. To me, complexity is all about interesting decisions, especially decision trees. Having civics/religion affect diplomacy was quite possibly 'more complex' in the sense that there was more going on, but it really reduced the amount of interesting decisions related to diplomacy since the modifiers produced by them skewed everything. Social policies provide a much bigger decision tree than civics simply because there's a *far* bigger tradeoff. With civics, you're simply choosing which bonus out of (up to) 4 you want. You can switch with relatively little (or no) consequences. With Social policies, you're making permanent decisions about which bonuses you want in the short and long terms. Choosing just from the initial 3 will have great short term ramifications, and as the game progresses, you're literally shaping your civilization through these choices.
For example, you've just reached your first policy milestone. You have a choice from these three bonuses:
+3 food in the capital (thought to be the bonus from tradition)
+20% settler production (thought to be the bonus from liberty)
+20% strength versus barbarians, and a bonus (possibly extra population?) whenever you capture a barbarian camp.
Compare this to your civics choices for most of the game, where you have 1 or 2 choices per civic. That's a huge amount of decisions to make and is far more complex.

 

[Calouste]

A lot of people who think Civ5 is going to be dumbed down seem to confuse "micromanagement and having a lot of features and arcane strategies to beat the AI" with "depth" and "complexity". Games like chess, bridge and go have a fraction of the rules and possible interactions of Civilization yet are a lot harder to play well.

I hope that Civ5 has a real emphasis on "playing the game well" rather than rewarding exploitive strategies. I really hope they have done away with bonusses for being the first to research a tech. Being able to use the benefits that a tech gives before anyone else should be enough of a reward in itself.

 

[ShaqFu]

Technology trading is incredibly deep, again, arguing that it isn't balanced purposely doesn't mean it isn't "deep." It basically defines the entire use and structure of the technology tree. It defines warfare, relations between civs, and remains a major force in singleplayer and multiplayer games. It also makes exploration and trade an exciting and dynamic game - I'm not sure what, if anything, is even going to be possible in civ 5 that will make you care about civilizations on another continent, given loss of features like this in diplomacy.

And it completely obviated any number of strategies involving researching the hard way. Why build Universities when you can trade? Why run Scientists when you can trade? Really, why follow any research path when you can trade? Especially given the AI's huge tech advantage, tech trading becomes the only reasonable path to not ending up an age or two behind. That's not depth. Depth is having a number of paths to research and having to make decisions based on it (should I enter a research agreement? Should I delay building my army until I tech? Should I pull someone off a farm to work in a Library?), not calculating the best way to exploit the AI.

To use your own example, finding another civ on a distant continent is exciting, since you can enter a research agreement on military techs with them and not have to worry about imminent invasion. Consider the following scenario: On the world map, Washington wants to teach Montezuma a lesson about encroaching into Louisiana, but wants to do it before he grabs any more land. In Civ5, he would consider the best civ to enter a RA with for Steel, decide to go with Gandhi, and start their mutual research. Washington shuffles his empire around to emphasize tech, and few turns later, it finishes, with both getting Steel. Since they're both separated by oceans and continents, neither one is in any danger of invading the other soon, making the RA a prudent one for George. Washington then kicks Monty out of Louisiana with his newly-minted Longswordsmen.

In Civ4, Washington would look around, trade some non-military tech like Acoustics to anyone willing to swap Steel, and that would be that. No real need to go into a tech-heavy setup, no need to really even think long-term about getting Steel - just checking the list of who's willing to trade and the benefit of knowing what AI personalities are friendly.

 

[Auncien]

I don't know how it's going to work out. What I will say is along the lines of the point made by Calouste. What game designers work toward and what is the holy grail of game design is a system that, upon first inspection, seems very simple and easy to absorb that also manages, by the nature of its design, to become increasingly and often unpredictably complex as you go through more iterations (turns). In other words, you want a system that is really easy to pick up and learn but that will take you hundreds or thousands of hours to master. Emergent rather than constructed complexity. That is the defenition of an enjoyable, replayable game experience. That seems to be what they're working toward and 'selling.' I hope they can achieve it because if they do we may not even need a Civilization VI.

 

[tom2050]

Simple to one person could be complex to the next.

But we do know that Firaxis is heading more towards macromanagement and getting away from micromanagement because they have stated it themselves, more or less. It has been done for the most part, not in huge dramatic ways, but in a more subtle fashion, and 5 will probably continue with it. Some of the changes are probably good in this aspect IMO. Others were dopey changes.

Streamlining is one thing to ease monotonous burdens, but overdoing it can lead to what could be called 'dumbing down'. And micromanagement will still exist in 5, since there is technically no way to 'get rid of it all' without changing the foundation of the game itself.

 

[Disgustipated]

some of my fears have been lessened by this thread and the other thread. but I still like lots of units. I'm a unit whore. So that is still one thing that worries me. I really am hoping for the best on release.

 

[Celevin]

Simple to one person could be complex to the next.

But we do know that Firaxis is heading more towards macromanagement and getting away from micromanagement because they have stated it themselves, more or less. It has been done for the most part, not in huge dramatic ways, but in a more subtle fashion, and 5 will probably continue with it. Some of the changes are probably good in this aspect IMO. Others were dopey changes.

Streamlining is one thing to ease monotonous burdens, but overdoing it can lead to what could be called 'dumbing down'. And micromanagement will still exist in 5, since there is technically no way to 'get rid of it all' without changing the foundation of the game itself.

With the 1upt and 3 tile reach of cities, there will be a LOT more micromanagement than Civ5 despite what the developers have said they've intended, all other things considered equal. I don't need the demo to see that.

 

[Earthling]

Lots of folks seemed to want to respond to me. I really actually wanted to say something in response to Celevin, so I'll get to that, just thought I'd respond otherwise too.

Where I differ from Earthling and others about complexity is that I don't see having 'more units/civs' making a more complex and interesting game. To me, complexity is all about interesting decisions, especially decision trees.

I've never tried to give that impression, I don't want oodles of units and everything for the sake of realism or clutter, even though that can be popular in mods, it's just not me. As well, I've probably argued more against micromanagement than the vast majority of people here, ever. I've seen plenty of proposals complex ways of "trading food between cities" or "dozens of different specialists" and so on, I've never been in favor. I would be entirely for smart changes to things like worker control, to avoid a repeat of civ 4's forest disaster (though a large number/perhaps a majority of players seem to enjoy the effects of chop/whip micro, I do recognize it is extra micro). So no, lots of pointless stuff or extra micromanagement, is not what I'm after. And while I am rather familiar with it in civ4, I would have no problem removing all the micromanagement to the diplomacy system, as we're discussing. Not having to memorize or deal with different AI attitudes towards declaring war and hidden bonuses, or WFYABTA type trading - that's all okay, I'm not saying we have to exploit the AI either to play the game.

And it completely obviated any number of strategies involving researching the hard way. Why build Universities when you can trade? Why run Scientists when you can trade? Really, why follow any research path when you can trade? Especially given the AI's huge tech advantage, tech trading becomes the only reasonable path to not ending up an age or two behind. That's not depth. Depth is having a number of paths to research and having to make decisions based on it (should I enter a research agreement? Should I delay building my army until I tech? Should I pull someone off a farm to work in a Library?)

I don't see how you don't see these things existing in civ4, or that those suggestions are the actual "paths" taken by players. Everything you listed, actually does happen in civ4, so I'm sorry if you never experienced such gameplay, and I'll leave it at that. Some things could be improved upon, but everything you suggested was made non-existant, could actually be quite crucial and strategic in the game already.

Social policies provide a much bigger decision tree than civics simply because there's a *far* bigger tradeoff. With civics, you're simply choosing which bonus out of (up to) 4 you want. You can switch with relatively little (or no) consequences. With Social policies, you're making permanent decisions about which bonuses you want in the short and long terms.

Again, just to be clear, I am not saying the social policies are bad or don't offer choices, they actually seem like a fine replacement for civics on a domestic scale (I'm unsure about the changes in culture, but just as a comparison to civics, it's probably fine). I certainly can agree civ4 could use more or interesting civics, said so before and also see below. What I've said, is that they appear to have eliminated any relation social policies will have towards diplomacy, possibly excepting city states if city states are important enough for that to matter. Considering from even early civ versions players would even consider whether they wanted to be a "democracy" or "dictatorship" and how this affects foreign relations, if there is actually nothing at all in that department, I'd be disappointed.


So, Celevin - I wanted to say I really respect your point about static diplomacy modifiers versus a more dynamic system - I'm not opposed to added complexity here, if it works. The thing I liked about civ4, is that barring a few poor design calls (eg. hidden modifiers) in the end it actually was a simple system to understand diplomatic relations - as with analogies to games like chess, where a player can look at a board and know the situation, the same goes with clear and unambiguous categories like religions.

The biggest hurdle for other types of interaction, is that I just don't know how the AI would handle them. And while I'd probably figure things out with enough effort, for a lot of players, having a problem "you tried to expand your culture to tile X near city Y" just becomes too involved, too annoying to deal with. However introducing a few new things that can influence AI relations is still all right, and some things in civ4 certainly were not adding to the experience - but I still think we've lost a little bit too.

It's a really long story that I don't feel is justified here, but there are a huge amount of things I'd personally tinker with or mod in civ4, I'm not proclaiming things are perfect. But if anyone is still reading - there is one pipe-dream, if you will, that I'm guessing we still won't see in civ5, but it really, really colors my view of diplomacy across the boards - I would jump at seeing anything like this in the civ series, I've loved the idea elsewhere and in modding.

Namely, I know this has been proclaimed weird before/nobody else on the forums ever seems to agree, but I'd rather place some more significant limitations, via in-game mechanics, on foreign relations decisions. The short story is, I think, any attempts in previous civ games where a "democracy" would not want to go to war or something, angered players, so this was all removed from the game. But I'd really enjoy, to discuss in civ4 terms, a system where trade profits, happiness of your citizens, and so on would be actually influenced by relations with neighbors. As it is, nobody really ever cares if an AI is "Friendly" if you want to kill them or raze their cities or whatnot, and more importantly, as a human player, no such statuses even exist for you or your people. Anyway, static bonuses which persisted over larger amounts of time would work well with this - basically, if doable in civ4 maybe a new Propaganda civic category and few other changes could be close. But they only just barely touched on this idea with changing the UN/AP in civ4, and I doubt any such ideas will make a return - we'll be forever in the days of backstabbing "friendly" civs willy-nilly

(Interesting story, which I give credit to many involved, but on the entire other end of the spectrum, people have done a lot of work with civ4 AI's that want to "win the game." As in, just like a human, the AI will completely ignore any actual diplomacy like "pleased" or "friendly" and just attack to stop your space or cultural win or whatever. And for those who enjoy this, it's great they were able to do so, anyway I know I am in the small minority with any ideas to go the other way)

And lastly

Based on your replies here and in other threads, Earthling, I imagine you looking down on some of the things I say since I'm just some random new forum-goer.

I'm sorry for this impression, I really am, and I really try to welcome anyone anywhere on the forums, honestly. Here it's probably the worst, not necessarily because of the things or type of debate (it's really not as bad as OT still ) but the overall situation of the forum. Again, I just don't happen to know everybody here, which is expected with the very large amount of traffic - but there's maybe one or two posters who I could actually say I know and understand their viewpoints when I open up a thread. Everyone else I tend to get confused, I try to avoid threads on Steam and so on, but it's just frantic discussion on many things every day by dozens and dozens of different people. So I should try to avoid frustration at other things, and I really think the input of many folks is great. I think I tried to clarify in the other thread - it's after just seeing a lot of baffling comments, claims or proposals or whatever that are hard to understand, sometimes I'm not recognizing the good arguments and people who make clear what they are saying when I see them. But thanks again, and also don't let me personally worry you about the forums or whatever, I won't try to get into unnecessary arguments again.

 

[PieceOfMind]

And it completely obviated any number of strategies involving researching the hard way. Why build Universities when you can trade? Why run Scientists when you can trade? Really, why follow any research path when you can trade? Especially given the AI's huge tech advantage, tech trading becomes the only reasonable path to not ending up an age or two behind. That's not depth. Depth is having a number of paths to research and having to make decisions based on it (should I enter a research agreement? Should I delay building my army until I tech? Should I pull someone off a farm to work in a Library?), not calculating the best way to exploit the AI.

To use your own example, finding another civ on a distant continent is exciting, since you can enter a research agreement on military techs with them and not have to worry about imminent invasion. Consider the following scenario: On the world map, Washington wants to teach Montezuma a lesson about encroaching into Louisiana, but wants to do it before he grabs any more land. In Civ5, he would consider the best civ to enter a RA with for Steel, decide to go with Gandhi, and start their mutual research. Washington shuffles his empire around to emphasize tech, and few turns later, it finishes, with both getting Steel. Since they're both separated by oceans and continents, neither one is in any danger of invading the other soon, making the RA a prudent one for George. Washington then kicks Monty out of Louisiana with his newly-minted Longswordsmen.

In Civ4, Washington would look around, trade some non-military tech like Acoustics to anyone willing to swap Steel, and that would be that. No real need to go into a tech-heavy setup, no need to really even think long-term about getting Steel - just checking the list of who's willing to trade and the benefit of knowing what AI personalities are friendly.

I dare you to post this in the Civ4 Strategy and Tips forum.

I'm not sure but I think a similar thing happened with the transition from civ3 to civ4. People try and justify the newer version by arguing the previous game had less depth or was less strategically engaging for the player.

IMO you are making way too much of the tech trading in civ4. Yes it was important and especially so at higher levels but to suggest it dominated all other aspects and reduced the decision making in other parts of the game is ridiculous IMO. In fact it can easily be argued that Tech Trading made your choice of tech path even more important.

Besides, there was a No Tech Trading option. If you felt Tech Trading ruined the game so much, you had that option at the start of the game.

 

[Aramel]

The thing I didn't like about tech trading was that, instead of researching techs based on what bonuses I wanted, I ended up having to research them based on what the AI would want to trade for. And if a feature is a bad for the game, you shouldn't just be given the option to turn it off; it shouldn't be in the game at all.

 

[tom2050]

The thing I didn't like about tech trading was that, instead of researching techs based on what bonuses I wanted, I ended up having to research them based on what the AI would want to trade for. And if a feature is a bad for the game, you shouldn't just be given the option to turn it off; it shouldn't be in the game at all.

This is a false-gameplay hyped thing though. All they did was permanently turn tech trading off for Civ 5. You can do the same thing in Civ 3 and 4 as an option. They shouldn't even advertise this as a feature (tech trade is out IIRC).

This is another extension of the overarching belief of going too far in gameplay > realism. Because in reality countries can share technology. In fact, the sharing of technology is a very common practice since the beginning of time. And gameplay doesn't really gain anything from deleting tech trading. It just removes the number of options available to the player; thus streamlining the game into a more linear fashion.

The advantages are: it makes you think ahead about what to research. Well, with Tech trading, you thought ahead also, so nothing new.
Other advantage: makes game more linear, taking the occasional traded tech out. Yup, that's what it does.

Now, instead of having the option to research a different tech to try to get ahead through trading, you must research your own techs, with no diplomacy trading to fall back on. 1 tech at a time. Diplomacy was somewhat boring before, now you can't tech trade?

 

[Aramel]

This is a false-gameplay hyped thing though. All they did was permanently turn tech trading off for Civ 5. You can do the same thing in Civ 3 and 4 as an option. They shouldn't even advertise this as a feature (tech trade is out IIRC).

This is another extension of the overarching belief of going too far in gameplay > realism. Because in reality countries can share technology. In fact, the sharing of technology is a very common practice since the beginning of time. And gameplay doesn't really gain anything from deleting tech trading. It just removes the number of options available to the player; thus streamlining the game into a more linear fashion.

The advantages are: it makes you think ahead about what to research. Well, with Tech trading, you thought ahead also, so nothing new.
Other advantage: makes game more linear, taking the occasional traded tech out. Yup, that's what it does.

Now, instead of having the option to research a different tech to try to get ahead through trading, you must research your own techs, with no diplomacy trading to fall back on. 1 tech at a time. Diplomacy was somewhat boring before, now you can't tech trade?

Tech trading is not particularly realistic. Heads of government don't generally get together and decide "I will teach you how to make rifles if you teach me how to make railroads". That is not the point of diplomacy in the real world.

The problem with the option to turn off tech trading in Civ4 is that it was an afterthought, and the game isn't balanced around it. I think it's highly significant that they've decided to balance the game around not having tech trading, as it means they'll probably include some things to balance some of the limitations of no tech trading.

Finally, more options is not the same thing as better gameplay. The choices still have to be meaningful. If the game forces you to engage in excessive tech brokering in order to compete, that is not a meaningful choice. You either tech broker to the max, or you lose. It also removes all the strategy in choosing what to research, as instead of having to choose between a military tech or a civilian tech, you just research some third tech nobody else wants and then trade for both the others. So tech trading is a net negative in terms of meaningful choices.

 

[Commander Bello]

The problem with the option to turn off tech trading in Civ4 is that it was an afterthought, and the game isn't balanced around it. I think it's highly significant that they've decided to balance the game around not having tech trading, as it means they'll probably include some things to balance some of the limitations of no tech trading.

Finally, more options is not the same thing as better gameplay. The choices still have to be meaningful. If the game forces you to engage in excessive tech brokering in order to compete, that is not a meaningful choice. You either tech broker to the max, or you lose. It also removes all the strategy in choosing what to research, as instead of having to choose between a military tech or a civilian tech, you just research some third tech nobody else wants and then trade for both the others. So tech trading is a net negative in terms of meaningful choices.

Would you mind telling us in which regards switching off tech trading made the game unbalanced?

 

[Celevin]

But thanks again, and also don't let me personally worry you about the forums or whatever, I won't try to get into unnecessary arguments again.

But I want you to get into unnecessary arguments. This entire forum is unnecessary sans the Steam and AriochIV's threads. It's just about fun arguing about mechanics, and is more fun when smart people have other viewpoints. This topic wouldn't be nearly as interesting if I wasn't proven wrong about something. I don't expect anything out of it other than to change my views, and prove my main point in the original topic.

 

[Aramel]

Would you mind telling us in which regards switching off tech trading made the game unbalanced?

Well, the one nice thing about tech trading was that you didn't have to spend a lot of time backfilling a bunch of early techs later in the game. It'd be nice if, for instance, the game let you purchase widely known techs with gold, or something like that, but that's just speculation, and honestly it's beside the point. If the game is designed with tech trading in mind, any problems that the no-tech-trading option would impose, that might in fact be much easier to solve than the problems with tech trading, will nevertheless not be solved, because no one will be looking for them.

 

[Schuesseled]

Would you mind telling us in which regards switching off tech trading made the game unbalanced?

Well i can tell you.

Techs in civ because they had tech trading in mind, offer very little new stuff per tech. And with tech trading off you have to be extremely careful which techs you research in the beginning of the game, because you can't trade, you need to get economics techs so you don't die horribly, and later have to get military asap or you die, it dont work well.