I totally don't agree with you.

It's my game. I want to be able to play it as I like. I hated the fact Civ IV restricted how I could play the game. I agree the AI should be more careful but so far from what I've seein in 1.0X they've taken care of this.

I support having an OPTION to eliminate tech trading. But I don't support crippling it like they did in Civ IV.

The 1.0X patch does a little bit better at the AI tech trade, but they still trade way to much.

Hearts of Iron 2 has the best tech trading model. An alliance is required and you only get blueprints (for those that do not know HOI2, blueprints basically 1/2 the time of your research). If tech trading is going to happen, that is the have to go. The USA would not sell advanced weapon tech to the old USSR, or even the old Poland since the old Poland would have no problem handing it over to the USSR. You don't trade the means of your destruction to someone that will trade it to your enemy.

I still think Civ4 did an awesome job with the no tech trading option. Forces you to do your own research and you don't have to worry about feeling that you are researching against the combined pool of AI players.

The current system works fine in the sandbox with only a few races, but I like to play against everyone in a big map. If they have all the same tech, it is almost pointless to have 8 other races.

Hey guys great dicussion; this is my first post here.

I think the problem here really is the way the AI seems to overvalue the techs traded. Because of the single-player nature of the game, the player has the ability to get full monopoly value for a tech in one round of trading. When instead, they probably should be getting proportionally less money after each consecutive trade.

Let me give an example. Lets say you are the first to develop Warp Drive. OK, thats a nice tech, and the lets say the first AI will pay 200bc for it. Now, the second, third, fouth, etc, AI will also offer you roughly 200bc in that same round (varying by relations and diplomacy). Because you are the player, you take advantage of this simultaneous round of trading to sell your tech at top dollar around the galaxy...before the AI's get their turn to do some trading of their own...and hence deny you customers.

It seems to me the value of Warp Drive should drop IMMEDIATELY after a the first trade, and after each subsequent trade as well. A supply and demand sort of effect; more potential tech sources = lower prices.

Basically, if 2 powers have a tech, the average going price should immediately drop to 1/2 (in our example, roughly 100bc). If you try to sell your Warp Drive to a third AI (that same round, or at any time subsequent), the going rate gets third'ed (to 60bc or so). And then after that, quartered, etc. See where I'm going with this? Vastly diminishing returns after each sale and hence spread of the tech...to reflect potential "competing bids" out there undercutting you on the tech selling market.

This common-sense solution keeps tech trading alive, but it should tone down the potential cash you can make to more realistic and balanced levels.

I still think the freighter being sent for the trade adds alot ...it could get intercepted on either leg of the journey and you would have to have establised a tech trade agreement....they are missing some of the finer diplomacy options anyway... trade agreements, tech agreements, non aggression agreements. It would enhance that portion of the game anyway. Might make you want to arm a freighter that you send for a tech. The freighter also adds the non instantanious procurement of techs. Might make pirates a real threat.

Dipupcake, thats a good point. But you know, I have noticed from time to time the AI's will simply stop trading their military tech...you get this message in the diplomacy screen that their advisors advise them not to trade it because it's just too important to send away...so no dice. All the AIs seem to march in lockstep when implementing this trade policy.

But then they rescind this policy (again, in lockstep) maybe a few turns later. Its kinda strange; I don't know what triggers this policy on or off. But as you say, maybe this no-military-trade policy needs to be triggered "on" more often for better gameplay.

I REALLY, REALLY like the "you must have researched a tech to trade it" idea. Best tech-trade related idea i've heard so far. I can't imagine it would be that hard to work into the AI either...but then what do I know?

Cheers

h

Another vote for only being able to trade techs you researched. Nice idea.

This night i tried to play my first metaverse to test 1.0x.10 and see if AI fixes implemented in last build had finally found a solution to TECH TRADING. Well i can say that while the AI is a bit smarter than before, the tech trading problem is worsened.From what i have seen it is a lot harder to get technologies from other races but other races continued to tech whoring between them, so it is now a lot harder not to lag behind in technology.
So my suggestion is that there are a lot of nice idea in this forum that if implemented would enhance a lot the gameplay but needs also to modify game mechanics and would need simply a lot of time to be implemented.For who is interested in a solution of the tech trading problem i suggest to ask and push for the early implementation of the famous "NO TECH TRADE" option because really it's very hard now to compete in technology.I can add that tech race now is a lot harder for evil than good civs. After my last matches i really hope that this option will be implemented as soon as because for now i can only play scenarios or campaign no sandbox game

The rampant tech trading is really just simulating (albeit a bit abstractly) how things work with technology between nations in real life. Technology moves around alot in the real world. It might seem like America has a huge tech advantage over say a country like iran but if you were to view this through the context of say the Civilization games the tech difference would only number a few techs (the US's advantage would come primarly through its superior infastructure). India or China would also work well for this example. Now did any of these countries develope most of their modern technology on their own? No, alot of it was developed in the US in fact and they got it through a number of channels which in a game like civ or galciv2 are simulated through government tech trading. Given that this device keeps world tech levels roughly even I see it as a good thing.

Now it can certainly be said that countries should and do in real life try to hold onto a precious few techs that give them an edge. The modern US does this with stealth technology and tries to with nuclear tech.

So in summary maybe some tweaking could be done (and maybe it's already been done in this latest patch) to keep the ai from trading tech which gives it a major obvious advantage (like military tech) but any device which keeps galactic tech levels fairly even across the board (even between big prosperous countries and small poor) only inhances the games realism for me which I regard as a good thing.

Of course it wouldnt hurt to give people the option to turn tech trading all the way off though. I just don't think tech trading in the game should be tampered with too much outside of giving a player that option.

Here's what I'd like:

* No tech trading

* lower tech costs based both on how many civs know it and your level of trade with civs that know it

* espionage to steal techs

* ability to give techs away

i have no idea how everyone does this i keep trying and i can never get anouther civ to trade all their tech or if they have the most advanced form of lasers they wont trade it even if i offer all my tech, money, influence, and planets(ships come free) they dont give it to me what is the deal with that.

While i agree with you that today tech trading is a lot widespread, the game system seems a bit different, if we should compare gc2 system to real life it would function in this way: -USA share f-22 techs with UK, UK shares his tech with Italy,France,Spain and at an higher price at China.So China pays a bit more than Italy but get USA last technology.It's totally unrealistic USA would never share their best tech to China or allow UK to do it. I don't agree also with people which say only that it's realistic or rationale that all races trade their techs because they can get new technologies. In a struggle for survival like all 4x strategy games the rationale is that every race should see other race as a potential competitor so they should maximize their profit but also try to hamper development of other races not fostering it.Tech whoring is not rationale

Just to add to what Marioflag said....

It basically comes down to two major "real world points".

For military technology, any USA defense company that wants to sell products internationally can do it, but the tech level has to be 1 or 2 levels behind current. And this is not just a "few" technologies that give us the edge, it is everything. They are very serious about keeping that edge. I used to design thermal weapon sights for a defense contractor and we sold a few here and there, but they were junk compared to what we use ourselves.

As for non-military stuff, when is the last time you heard someone like Bayer sell their formulas for their brand new drugs a few weeks after they come up with them?

If the Japanese came and handed us the technology to build giant robots, does anyone think it would take one week before we could start building them? It would take time to convert the plans, test it making it with our components, etc etc etc. And that is coming from the other side of the globe...how long would it take to do all that when dealing with and alien race, that doesn't process information like us, doesn't build things like we do, etc etc etc.

And on to Pnakotus

Wait - its a problem because you exploit it? Sure, the tech trades don't seem to be linked to relationship enough - ie you can get new techs off people who don't really like you - but of course the AI wants to buy tech it doesn't have. It's just an area players are better than the AI. Turning tech trading off just because you can't stop yourself ruining the game for yourself seems absurd. How about, I don't know, NOT doing it?

Actually, it is a problem because the AI is constantly doing it. And I would love to, Not do it as you put it, but the problem is the AI does it, alot. I don't like constantly feeling that I am trying to research against all the computer players.

Still would like to see the option of turning off ala Civ4. I wouldn't mind it if you needed an alliance with someone and then you only got a blueprint, that would make it a bit more realistic, but at the same time it would slow the tech spread down. Having the option to do either would definately be preferable.

FYI Stardock, y'all made an excellent game, except for this little issue (and a crash here and there, but they don't seem to be big issues). 1.0X is much better than 1.0D, but something needs to be done to keep this game enjoyable for the 9player sandbox people that don't really want to be playing against 8 of the exact same race (which is what you get when every AI has the exact same tech level). Okay, that and my GalCiv2 Darlocks are not as cool as they could be, but the expansion sounds like it opens up the spying a little more.

THE AI SHOULD BE RESISTANT TO SELLING TO THE PLAYER UNTILL THEY SELL THE TECH TO EVERYONE ELSE FIRST.

Uh, no. One of the biggest selling points about this game is it's strong AI. And one of the fundamentals of that is that the AI doesn't treat the player different from any other rival empire.