19-03-2003 21:39									#1
	Naive thoughts about tech trade between humans. Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

Popular amongst the AI, the tech trade was quickly adopted by CIV3 players with great success. One can even wonder if it is not one of the most influential weaknesses of the AI.
It appears that between humans the tech trade is not only intensely undertaken but also extended to tech not yet discovered or available, over considerable periods of time. This post is based on the idea (possibly wrong) that long term consequences of tech trading are not anticipated.

Contrary to the trading of resources or luxuries which cannot be dangerous, since such trades are temporary and can be cancelled every 20 turns, the trading of techs is much more ambiguous. Providing a tech will help a competitor, and buying a tech will result in a competitor having more gold for speeding up his research at the same time that you have less for financing your own research.

One question is therefore: is tech trading self-defeating for civilization having a hedge in research?

Two traits are powerful as far as research is concerned: scientific of course and commercial. For a commercial civilization as Carthage, any tech trade with a scientific civ or another commercial civ should be cautiously envisioned, particularly if not clearly made necessary by the circumstances; otherwise they should be prohibited unless extremely beneficial. But trading with civilizations having other traits raises the problem of those civilizations transmitting a tech acquired from us to a scientific or commercial civilization. It seems that resale of acquired tech should be totally forbidden; this would nevertheless let open the case of techs being given by peace treaty.

Assuming that the peace treaty loophole could be accepted (although it would probably open a new casus belli for civilizations excluded from all tech deals), what would be the conditions for trading with non-sci and non-com civilizations? We can think only of two (which in fact are one double condition):
- not being in our immediate sphere of influence
- AND being a pain (or a potential one) for our rivals

The next question is: Can one civilization implement such a policy if all others are actively trading techs? A commercial civ can thanks to its gold which make possible a quick research pace and the buying of tech to civilizations in need of cash.

And the last question is: How would react all others civilizations? Union against the selfish civilization or imitation or tech embargo? If you consider that the coalition against the selfish would result in its destruction, that is no research at all, a safe bet is imitation. Embargo would be a reasonable attempt, but gold help a lot in breaking embargoes!

What do you think?

	19-03-2003 23:42									#2
	Got spare money?

At this point in the game, trading techs is clearly a win-win.

It will remain so until somebody has such a huge lead that they can research all paths faster than the next best player can reserach along a single path.

	20-03-2003 08:50									#3
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Interesting points Davout.

One observation I have on the ptwdg - the very active tech trading between teams has meant that we are progressing thorugh the era's much faster than I thought we would.

In response to your post - the problem with trying to be an isolationist in tech trading is that it only takes two other civs to co-operate, and you will soon be left behind. Three or more and it is even worse.

I don't think having the hedge changes that. It may help in your trading - as you should have techs before your neighbours - and, more critically, you may be able to parlay that into a window of military advantage that you can capitalize on.

That being said - I agree that you would prefer to trade with civs that are the least threatening to you. That is usually a function of geography, but could involve a lot of other factors. The problem in the early game, is that your only option is with close neighbours, who by definition, are also your early threats. Later in the game - when contact is made with other civs, you have more choice in who you can trade with.

I think it would be interesting to see tech trading somehow curtailed in human vs human games. Something has been lost IMO when we have blasted through an entire era, still expanding as fast as possible, no major wars except one, and civilizations in general still quite small. Referring to the ptwdg here.

	20-03-2003 21:21									#4
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

When you play chess, there are two circumstances where you want to exchange your pieces with your opponent :
- when your have the same number and quality of pieces, but you think that your position is weak, and you expect that reducing the potential of both will help you to get a draw;
- when you have more pieces than your opponent, because reducing the potential of both will leave you in the end with an easy win.

I compare the tech trade with the exchange of pieces in chess, and I see that we are neither so weak that we would be already happy with a draw, nor so strong that we have only to maintain an advantage untill we win.

In other worlds, in a competition, the win-win theory is an easy way to desappointment. All our moves must reinforce our position, without reinforcing the others in the same proportion.

	20-03-2003 21:48									#5
	Increase the size of your Attachments

DAVOUT, you're forgetting that we're not playing against a single opponent as in chess, but against many. Therefore gaining small advantages over one civ will not necessarily win the game, since other teams can just cooperate and be further ahead, regardless of our own local progress.


Dominae

	21-03-2003 04:51									#6
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

Amongst the other players, some have not a clear interest in accelerating the research, particularly those with an early UU. I think that if such players would not sell their discoveries but only buy tech, it would significantly slow the speed of the overall research.

	22-03-2003 00:59									#7
	Browse Apolyton AD-FREE

quote: Originally posted by DAVOUT When you play chess, there are two circumstances where you want to exchange your pieces with your opponent :

Even if we get the worse part of a deal, we are better off than the teams that had no part in it. The strategy of a multiplayer game are different than a 2 player game.

	22-03-2003 19:50									#8
	Suffering from ads?

quote: Originally posted by realpolitic The strategy of a multiplayer game are different than a 2 player game.

IMHO, this is not demonstrated; from a strategical point of view, the sum of all other players is equivalent, though more complex, to one player.

What I find interesting, it that the tech trade denial strategy works quite well for a com civ against the AI (standard map 8 civ).

	23-03-2003 00:59									#9
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

My trade strategy against the AI is to trade techs until I can go to 0% tax for 10-30 turns(I do use the luxury slider sometimes), then sell to backward civs to keep myself in the lead. It works great!

In the intrasite game, friendship is very worthwhile, GoW is often discussing who can be trusted, and who we are better off being friends with. We want to keep the other teams happier with us than they are with each other, until there are just a few teams left.

	23-03-2003 12:39									#10
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Your trade strategy against the AI works great, but that is not the beginning of a proof that it is optimal against humans.

Being friends and trusted does not imply the necessity of trading techs. The example of GoW is interesting; they have much more than RP interest in speeding up the overall research.