Tech Exchange Rate

[LordRahl]

In MP games oftentime a need arises to trade techs that have different lightbulb value. I usually compensate using 1 gold per 1 lightbulb rate. For example let's say tech A is 1000 lightbulbs, and tech B is 1100 lightbulbs. If I have tech A, and want to trade for tech B, I would offer my tech A, and 100 lightbulbs it. Is it a fair assumption or am I missing something? (Note - we are not taking relative tech value into consideration, for example whether it's an important military tech, or a wonder tech etc...)

 

[generalawal]

I've been wondering about this, as well as general tech-trading strategies. As of now, I do what you do, and only trade for essential techs or freely among my allies (if I have any).

 

[Gooblah]

I've read Sisutil's ALCs (go see them, they are really good for advice). As far as I can tell, nvr trade military tchs (which grant special resources and units) or those that grant a UB or UU to any civ. Next, trade to the weakest Civs until they can take each other out. Then mop it all up. If an aggressive civ wants a tech as tribute or as a bad deal, refuse if you have the power to withstand war. If not, give in, build up a military, and strike back when they are weak.

 

[LordRahl]

I've read Sisutil's ALCs (go see them, they are really good for advice). As far as I can tell, nvr trade military tchs (which grant special resources and units) or those that grant a UB or UU to any civ. Next, trade to the weakest Civs until they can take each other out. Then mop it all up. If an aggressive civ wants a tech as tribute or as a bad deal, refuse if you have the power to withstand war. If not, give in, build up a military, and strike back when they are weak.

That's not the question I'm asking. I'm asking if in MP game trading 1bulb for 1gold when dealing with techs of different value is a fair exchange rate for both sides...

 

[Artosoft]

I've read Sisutil's ALCs (go see them, they are really good for advice). As far as I can tell, nvr trade military tchs (which grant special resources and units) or those that grant a UB or UU to any civ. Next, trade to the weakest Civs until they can take each other out. Then mop it all up. If an aggressive civ wants a tech as tribute or as a bad deal, refuse if you have the power to withstand war. If not, give in, build up a military, and strike back when they are weak.

Sound like a good advise. But what happen if they demand tech as tribute or as a bad deal and they have strong military to attack you?

Regards,
Arto.

 

[DrewBledsoe]

Sound like a good advise. But what happen if they demand tech as tribute or as a bad deal and they have strong military to attack you?

Regards,
Arto.

Then you did your heels in, and get ready to practice playing Defence...

 

[Gooblah]

Sry Artosoft.

Anyways, I believe that the AI is programmed to give you the worst deal possible. I'm probably wrong though. So to answer your question... I'd say 1 gold for every two bulbs. It changes by the leader though. Monty and Genghis will usually request more. If the tech is essential, do what they want. If not, do what you're doing.

 

[Bushface]

I don't play multiplayer, but when trading with AI civs I've known them willing to pay 4 gold per flask for a tech, but about 2 if they're offering another tech in part exchange - which I think is relevant to the original question. But if you can get away with 1 gold per flask then good luck to you.

 

[sabo]

I've been wondering about this, as well as general tech-trading strategies. As of now, I do what you do, and only trade for essential techs or freely among my allies (if I have any).

I have wondered about this, now if I trade high profile techs to my vassals or allies, is civ 4 like civ 3 was, where when you did this, all of a sudden EVERYONE has those techs because your vassal or ally gave them away to the people you didn't want to have them?

 

[El Koeno]

In MP games oftentime a need arises to trade techs that have different lightbulb value. I usually compensate using 1 gold per 1 lightbulb rate. For example let's say tech A is 1000 lightbulbs, and tech B is 1100 lightbulbs. If I have tech A, and want to trade for tech B, I would offer my tech A, and 100 lightbulbs it. Is it a fair assumption or am I missing something? (Note - we are not taking relative tech value into consideration, for example whether it's an important military tech, or a wonder tech etc...)

I never play multiplayer, so my advise might not be worth a whole lot, but... I think "fair price" is very, very situation dependent. So I don't think there's just one answer to this question. For example, as others have said: If people get a UU out of a tech, that tech is worth more to them (as they get more out of it than other civs), so they should pay more.

Disregarding that: I think everybody puts the tech slider higher than 50%, meaning that beakers are less scarce than gold. That should mean that gold is worth more. On the other hand, beakers are more useful...

Long story short: I don't know the answer to your question, and I don't think there is one single answer. Go with your gut-feeling!

 

[magicalsushi]

I have wondered about this, now if I trade high profile techs to my vassals or allies, is civ 4 like civ 3 was, where when you did this, all of a sudden EVERYONE has those techs because your vassal or ally gave them away to the people you didn't want to have them?

To an extent, yes. Civs won't trade away anything they consider to be a "monopoly tech" - important techs which few other civs have researched ("we don't want to start trading away this tech yet"). Of course, if you traded them the tech, you must have it yourself, so that's reducing the monopoly factor by at least 1. The monopoly factor varies from leader and to leader, and I think also from tech to tech. So, if you trade an important tech to a miserly leader, they'll probably withhold it from other civs until someone else gets it.

Another factor is dipomacy. Civs won't trade techs to people they don't like - again, depending on the leader, they might not want to trade with civs with whom they're furious, annoyed, or even cautious (for Tokugawa or Ragnar). Also, I don't think they'll ever agree to trade with their current worst enemy. So, the civ to whom you trade the tech will not trade it to people they don't like, but probably will trade it to everyone else. And the people to whom they traded it might be friends with the first civ's enemies, so next turn, they'll trade it to them. If you're playing with lots of civs, tech spreads very quickly. On the bright side, this does mean the AI occasionally get cross with each other for trading with each other's worst enemies.

I think all of that was right. I'm not 100% sure about the monopoly tech stuff, but hopefully someone else can correct me if I got it wrong.

Disregarding that: I think everybody puts the tech slider higher than 50%, meaning that beakers are less scarce than gold. That should mean that gold is worth more. On the other hand, beakers are more useful...

Not quite. In Warlords, at least, the tech slider itself doesn't really make gold or beakers more or less valuable than the other. You could set it to 80/20 one turn, then 20/80 the next turn, and the result would be the same as leaving it 50/50 for both turns. This isn't quite true in Vanilla, but it basically holds for Warlords. HOWEVER...city improvements change this. They change it drastically. If you have mostly science improvements, gold becomes worth much more than beakers. Each unit of gold can be turn into multiple units of beakers, due to the multipliers from libraries etc. Multipliers don't affect science or gold created from production (using Alphabet or Currency), so if you have mostly science improvements, you should build gold, not beakers, and set your science slider high. If you have mostly gold improvements (market, grocer, bank etc.), beakers are worth more than gold, and it's better to build beakers than to build gold.

Note that building beakers or gold directly with production (instead of getting them with commerce, the normal way) is usually a bad idea because it's inefficient. But it does illustrate the exchange rate between gold and beakers well.

If you stop building new multipler buildings, the silder rate doesn't matter (you get the 80/20 + 20/80 = 50/50 + 50/50 effect again). However, if you're about to complete a new library, set gold to 100% until it's finished, then set science to 100% for a while and feel smug for getting an extra 25% on all that science. Similarly, you might set science as high as possible shortly before getting a market, and *then* go back to building up gold.

Remember also that the AI probably doesn't think about anything I just said, and has its own strange way of deciding how much gold a tech is worth. I think it's partly to do with how many other civs have the tech and how much research you (or them) have put into the tech already.

 

[El Koeno]

Not quite. In Warlords, at least, the tech slider itself doesn't really make gold or beakers more or less valuable than the other. You could set it to 80/20 one turn, then 20/80 the next turn, and the result would be the same as leaving it 50/50 for both turns.

Yes that's a very valid point. But the main idea that the relative scarcities of the two (beakers and gold) should matter remains.

So too does of course the use of the two, for example: If a tech allows you to gain more gold later on (eg. COL for courthouses, or currency for marketplaces) this should be reflected in its price.

 

[Saluki]

I will usually accept much less than a 1 to 1 exchange rate for techs that have a benefit only to the first to discover it (i.e. any religious tech, liberalism, any tech that grants a great person). Also, the value of a tech is less if the Wonders associated with it have been built or are near completion.

 

[El Koeno]

The amount you might be willing to pay should also be higher if there is a third civ that you could sell it to.