When to trad and when not to

[NickyH]

I remember a post by an experienced player (or perhaps I read it in a strategy article) saying something about people trading too often. You shouldn't trade unless you can make at least a two-for-one, or you really need the tech, or you have another really good reason to make the trade…

I personally think that a good reason to trade in the ancient age is to get a decent amount of gold, if the other civs have some to spare. Now I wonder; what is a good enough reason to make a trade?

I realize that it's hard to describe this in general terms, but I'm wondering if my way of trading is too generous towards the AI…

I'd happily give away a monopoly like writing, if I can trade it to two different civs and get maybe 80 gold and two different techs from them.

An example: I would trade Writing for Iron Working + 30 gold from one Civ, even if my tech is a monopoly, and IW is known to several civs. Then, on the same turn, I trade writing for Horse Back Riding and 40 gold. HBR might also be known to several civs.

My primary aim is to be able to continue spending 100% at science even, if I pay some gold for troops and buildings at this stage. With 100% research, I'll probably be able to get another monopoly tech.

In the case when writing is a monopoly, I'll usually wait until I can get Philosophy in less than maybe 6 or 7 turns, because I don't want to invite competition for philosophy.

Things may vary, depending on your map size and difficulty, but I'd still love to hear your thoughts on this. My main point is that it's often worth to do some less favorable trades, if it allows you to run deficit on research, and also disallows your opponents to do the same thing.

In my experience, this way of trading will often put you in the tech lead early, even at demi-god level, if you have a good start. At lower levels, its even easier to take the tech lead with this trading strategy.

Sorry for the long post…

 

[Spoonwood]

It varies quite a bit with VC and game condition. Don't trade away Literature if a ToA cascade will hit in a 20k game and such. In general though, trading sooner rather than later seems the better rule.

 

[NickyH]

Yes, there are some no-brainers. And there are cases when all civs make contacts quickly, so you should keep an eye on prices to see if someone is about to learn your tech in a few turns. (Value goes down.) Maybe I know enough about this already, and it's a thing you get a "feeling" for when you have some experience?

But I still have a feeling that I could learn more about this… Perhaps there are cases when you should avoid trading, accept from the obvious?

Or perhaps it all comes down to desired tech pace? I know most experienced players here favor a slow or moderate tech pace in order to dominate the world as early as possible. Perhaps that's the main reason to be careful with trades? Slow pace equals more gold for upgrades and slower tech advances for your enemy?

By the way, I value your comments, Spoonwood, since we booth seem to prefer prefer playing in ways that lean towards "builders" strategies.

 

[Elear]

While in some cases, a slow tech pace is desirable, actually, the quickest way to conquer the world is probably through a fast pace, as bizarre as that sounds. If the AI can help you research to Cavalry, it's usually over for them.

 

[Aabraxan]

To my mind, the easiest way to look at a trade is just to ask:

• Do I need it?
• Can I afford it?
• What does the AI get out of it?

Like you, I'll usually hang onto Writing to create that bottleneck while I try to grab the Philo slingshot. If someone else gets writing on their own, I'll go ahead and trade it. If anyone's going to profit by it, I want it to be me. I'd rather trade it for less than it's worth, rather than have the AI trade it and get something out of it. Once I get my Philo, I'll trade around until I've got just about everything out there. I say "just about" because I'll let some monopolies stand until another AI has bought them.

I find that, even up to Emperor, the AI usually doesn't have much gpt to trade, at least up to the late Middle Ages. If I start to see that one civ is threatening to be a tech runaway, I'll pass up flat sum gold payments, if I can get gpt instead. We may eventually go to war and the payments may stop, but my goal in those cases is to slow their tech pace down. I also watch carefully for workers for sale. I'll usually pass up a little gold if I can get a worker instead.

 

[NickyH]

Thanks for your answers, guys!

I'll feel more comfortable about my trades now. It seem like I've been making reasonable decisions.

By the way, monopoly on Philosophy seems to be one of those things that's almost unfair in favor of the human player. If you get it, you'll gain a free tech, and you'll also have the advantage of a monopoly to trade. They love to buy it, but they'll not gain much by having it. It's very similar to getting atomic theory and electronics when you build the Evolution wonder. But those two techs are worth holding on to, in order to keep the others behind.

 

[Spoonwood]

Move up high enough and you won't feel much "unfair" about a monopoly on Philosophy or evolving the Theory of Evilution, trust me. I think it comes down to have a "feeling" for trading after a while. Knowing opponent tendencies can help. Knowing what kind of tech pace you want also can help. I really think it hard to discuss this abstractly. A real-game example or three can help more.