Tech Trade

Should tech trade be allowed?

  • Tech Trade should be mandatory!

    Votes: 4 6.0%
  • Tech Trade should be optional

    Votes: 41 61.2%
  • Tech Trade shouldn't be allowed!

    Votes: 22 32.8%

  • Total voters
    67

Arent11

Emperor
Joined
Nov 18, 2016
Messages
1,230
I know this is hugely imbalanced but a major fun for our coop games has always been to trade tech with each other.

Your friend gets attacked? Trade him iron working. Another friend got ships? Hey, come find me on the map, we can trade!

I have no problem with people who want to switch that off, but please allow us somewhere an option that switches tech trade on in custom multiplayer games.
 
I fondly remember playing both sides with a friend who was at war with a big AI, in Civ4. I kept selling both him and the AI techs. His long face when I revealed why he struggled post me winnig was priceless!

That being said, tech trade was a nightmare for balance, so I get why it got cut.
 
Oh hell no please no tech trade, I hated that mechanic in old 4X games, civ5 introduction of indirect "science agreements" was much more pleasant approach.

Whenever tech trade appears in 4X games like this you are immediately under pressure to constantly (like every 5 turns) check all possible trading partners to see if they have any techs you don't have, and if you have techs they don't have, and what do they want for that etc. Just constant tedious work to optimise tech trading. It is also hard to balance, easy to exploit AI with, and bypassing normal research system and interesting strategic dilemmas. Also preventing some more ambitious reworks of said research system.

It also doesn't make much historical sense in many cases - how do you insta "trade" techs which are cultural practices, mastery of quantum physics, or techs which are "production methods we need to practice a lot before we can begin mass production" (covered by the research timer).
 
It’s impossible to balance. I don’t think it should return. The games have enough problems with teching too fast.
 
Hard no for reasons stated above. Playing both sides should be achieved via diplomacy/spies.
 
There should definitely be some osmosis for tech and civics between nearby Civs, but I think directly trading them is the wrong way to do it.
 
Civ4 techtrading works just fine. I don't know why people saying there was some balance or other gameplay problem with tech trading. That's demonstrably untrue.

I don't like it myself for the reason Krajzen mentioned. You have to constantly monitor the tech market. On the other hand, some people enjoy the way tech trading forces engagement with te other factions.
 
Civ4 techtrading works just fine. I don't know why people saying there was some balance or other gameplay problem with tech trading. That's demonstrably untrue.
Tech brokering in Civ 4 was completely busted IMO.

It ruins the vanilla pace of the game, railroads viable research paths, and inordinately benefited warmongering (you can just focus on military teching and get the rest of your techs from peace deals. Such a powerful strategy). All of those things upended the balance of the game. It also meant that having an isolated start basically doomed you to be behind in tech the entire game. And let’s not forget about the AI vassal snowball from being gifted free techs constantly by their master civ.

Broadly speaking, if you think about it logically, there’s no way to balance research costs effectively if tech brokering is a thing. How can you, when progress is uncoupled from generating science? The whole pace of the game goes out the window.
 
Last edited:
Hm, I thought about the editing or deleting my earlier post. It was worded too strongly. There are balance problems with tech trading. Nevertheless, the game does function fine with the mechanic (in singleplayer mode).
 
No one is giving any good arguments for not having tech trading in the game.

You know why?

Because no argument anyone here uses against it isn't solved by having an option to disable it. Like Civ 4 did.

If you really want to, you can even have it disabled by default and then instead have an option "allow tech trading".
 
No one is giving any good arguments for not having tech trading in the game.

You know why?

Because no argument anyone here uses against it isn't solved by having an option to disable it. Like Civ 4 did.

If you really want to, you can even have it disabled by default and then instead have an option "allow tech trading".
That's my entire point.
 
You need to program the AI to handle it which is somewhat tricky.
Solution Master of Orion 2 & Alpha Centauri, some ~30 years ago:

(1) Depending on difficulty levels, only do unfavorable trades with the player (Master of Orion 2)
(2) Depending on overall strength of the player, start banding together & declare war/refuse trades (Alpha Centauri)

I especially like the Alpha Centauri mechanics. So many cool game mechanics have been lost in time 😅
 
I fondly remember playing both sides with a friend who was at war with a big AI, in Civ4. I kept selling both him and the AI techs. His long face when I revealed why he struggled post me winnig was priceless!

That being said, tech trade was a nightmare for balance, so I get why it got cut.

Aww, you are evil. I hope your friend ate all your cookies 🙂

I fondly remember quickly researching ships to explore the world & "find" the other players. Some of my friends struggled desperately against multiple AI on the highest difficulty. And then I found them and gave them gold & tech. And later on troops. My friends liked me much more afterwards 😅
 
There should definitely be some osmosis for tech and civics between nearby Civs, but I think directly trading them is the wrong way to do it.
This. Tech Diffusion among Civs with contact should be normal in any game, but specific Tech Trading, as posted above, assumes that a new 'tech' is far too easily absorbed and adapted between potentially far too different cultures/civic/social policies, and existing Tech.

As a IRL Example, does anyone seriously think the Lakotah Souix could have traded for Iron Working, and then built the Mines, Bloomeries and Forges and Foundries required to actually make Iron Working work? Possibly, but not likely, and in any case not without considerable time between learning what to do and how to do it and being able to apply that - especially when virtually all the skills required are very different in a society that didn't have any kind of metal working 'technology' other than cold working of copper.

And that's just one example: the other contemporary example would be the Chinese, who sent people to schools in the United States, had one of them buy an entire machineshop, set it up in China and within a few years were building steam-powered gunboats as good as any being built in Britain.
BUT they started that process with a long history of metal/iron working and ship building and industrial organization.

Now try to include those two examples in a single Trade Tech mechanic with dozens of different Civs in different stages of Technology when they try to trade - and without forgetting City States, each with potentially their own technology level.

But Tech Diffusion has been normal since the beginning of History, and has accelerated since printing made spreading all information so much easier. As a prime example of how to implement this, note that the (Dreadnaught) Battleship as a technology spread to everyone who saw the HMS Dreadnaught launched - it was pretty obvious that it was a Big Ship with 10 or more Big Guns when all previous 'battleships' had no more than 4 Big Guns on a much smaller hull. BUT building 20,000 ton ships with big guns and high-powered steam machinery is not something you can do in any ol' machine shop - 10 years after the Dreadnaught launched, in 1916 there were still only 7 nations in the entire world that could build a dreadnaught Battleship: Great Britain, United States, Germany, France, Italy, Austria, Russia. Argentina, Turkey, Brazil, Chile, Japan all had to have their first battleships built for them in those countries - in 1917 Japan managed to build the hulls, but still had to buy the machinery and main guns from Britain and the USA.

And, I propose, that's how Tech Diffusion gets limited. You may 'get' the Technology from a neighbor or trading partner, but being able to Apply the technology would require, in some cases, a lot more effort and application of resources.

And if Civics/Social Policies are kept separate, they should also 'spread' to other Civs, with frequent consequences that are Not positive - like Religion, that new Social Policy might be hugely disruptive just when your Civ is not in any condition to easily handle Disruption. Too bad, think of it as a Policy Natural Disaster . . .
 
I don't think passive anything is a great game mechanic. The less the player directly has input, the worse a mechanic is.

Cultural and technology diffusion is already represented by trade in the game, generally. In Civ 6, it's only foreign trade routes that get Science, Culture, and Faith from districts, not domestic. That seems sufficient a representation to me.
 
I don't think passive anything is a great game mechanic. The less the player directly has input, the worse a mechanic is.

Cultural and technology diffusion is already represented by trade in the game, generally. In Civ 6, it's only foreign trade routes that get Science, Culture, and Faith from districts, not domestic. That seems sufficient a representation to me.

The issue is that it's nowhere near strong enough to represent real-life technological diffusion, even if you directly focus on it.

In Civ, it's possible for a nation to reach electricity and things like that while their neighbors are still fighting with spears and bow and arrow.

In the real world, that simply doesn't happen outside of advanced civilizations colonizing far-off lands.
 
This. Tech Diffusion among Civs with contact should be normal in any game, but specific Tech Trading, as posted above, assumes that a new 'tech' is far too easily absorbed and adapted between potentially far too different cultures/civic/social policies, and existing Tech.

As a IRL Example, does anyone seriously think the Lakotah Souix could have traded for Iron Working, and then built the Mines, Bloomeries and Forges and Foundries required to actually make Iron Working work? Possibly, but not likely, and in any case not without considerable time between learning what to do and how to do it and being able to apply that - especially when virtually all the skills required are very different in a society that didn't have any kind of metal working 'technology' other than cold working of copper.

And that's just one example: the other contemporary example would be the Chinese, who sent people to schools in the United States, had one of them buy an entire machineshop, set it up in China and within a few years were building steam-powered gunboats as good as any being built in Britain.

(1) You can mysteriously "steal" tech in civ 6 but not voluntarily trade blueprints/experts? 😅 Sorry, that's absurd.
(2) I liked the "prototype" mechanic in Alpha Centauri that mirrored the time/investment needed after researching the tech to actually implement it. Which of course applied to all civs, not just the one that got tech by trade. Could in fact be expanded to buildings.
 
I don't think passive anything is a great game mechanic. The less the player directly has input, the worse a mechanic is.

Cultural and technology diffusion is already represented by trade in the game, generally. In Civ 6, it's only foreign trade routes that get Science, Culture, and Faith from districts, not domestic. That seems sufficient a representation to me.
I think there have been modifiers to tech researched by several other civs in multiple civilization games. The "tech diffusion" has been around for decades.
 
Top Bottom