Do the AI factions trade techs with each other? In the second half of my games, after I have a high influence points income, I start trading lots of techs with other factions (especially the one's who aren't in first or second place). At this point, my number of researched techs really jumps.



If the AI can't trade tech with anyone except me, then I think it would be only fair to disable tech trading; or at least limit it in some new fashion.



Thanks in advance.

Hi JetJaguar,

JetJaguar wrote:
Do the AI factions trade techs with each other?

The AI does make propositions to other AI empires, and tries to balance its propositions so that they are fair - technology is one way of doing so. What it doesn't do though is to go out of its way specifically to trade technology.

I tend to feel that trading technology is overpowered in many games of this style because most trades are zero-sum (resources move around, but no new resources are created) but trading technology is positive-sum (we both end up with more than we started with). Strategically, an "equal trade" of technology is a huge win for both parties (relative to third parties), and so a calculating player should be making trades like that very aggressively with (almost) anyone they can. (Even though you're helping one opponent, if you make similar trades with 3 different players--and they don't make similar trades with each other--then you should end up far ahead of all 3 of them.) You might avoid trading with your top rival, but unless the player in question is already clearly ahead of your other opponents, trading science with them is probably a very good idea.



(In Endless Legend specifically, there are some techs you might not want to trade for, because gaining a tech that you don't need can actually be a bad thing. But you should at least aggressively trade for any techs that you were planning to research anyway, and in many games--including Endless Space--that caveat does not apply.)



But (in my experience) the AI games like this is usually extremely reluctant to make "even" tech trades, often demanding 2 or 3 times the value they give (and it doesn't appear to be limited to situations where I'm the clear leader in global score). I think this is because the designers don't actually like the dynamics of aggressive tech trading so they make it so the AI simply won't let you do it in a single-player game (but apparently don't dislike it enough to rebalance it or outright ban it?), though it's also possible that in some cases it's because they're using an extremely naive algorithm that doesn't distinguish between "I'm losing this by giving it to you" and "you're gaining this but I'm keeping a copy".



I actually like the idea that you can have some positive-sum interactions with the other players, but simple tech trades really feel like too much, because with good cooperation you could plausibly double or triple your effective science output (if 3 players all research 3 separate techs, and then all swap with each other, you can all leap into the next era while everyone else is working on their fourth tech). That strikes me as pretty outrageous.



In the 4X of my daydreams, I'm currently thinking that trading a tech to someone else would mean something like: you pay science equal to 20% of the tech's cost (because your scientists are busy teaching them instead of doing new research), and the recipient pays science equal to 50% of the tech's cost (they get it in half the time with your help, but they still need to put in a lot of the work). That's still positive-sum (if we swap techs, we effectively each get a 30% discount), but it's not quite so outrageously efficient, and you have to dedicate some time to carrying out the deal.



(Civ 5 got rid of direct tech-trading and instead added "research agreements" where both sides pay some money, and then both get some science points after a delay if they haven't gone to war with each other in the mean time. That's OK I guess, but it doesn't give me the same feeling as trading technology. Also, it has complex and opaque rules that make it hard to evaluate when it is a good move.)

Antistone wrote:
I tend to feel that trading technology is overpowered in many games of this style because most trades are zero-sum (resources move around, but no new resources are created) but trading technology is positive-sum (we both end up with more than we started with). Strategically, an "equal trade" of technology is a huge win for both parties (relative to third parties), and so a calculating player should be making trades like that very aggressively with (almost) anyone they can. (Even though you're helping one opponent, if you make similar trades with 3 different players--and they don't make similar trades with each other--then you should end up far ahead of all 3 of them.) You might avoid trading with your top rival, but unless the player in question is already clearly ahead of your other opponents, trading science with them is probably a very good idea.



(In Endless Legend specifically, there are some techs you might not want to trade for, because gaining a tech that you don't need can actually be a bad thing. But you should at least aggressively trade for any techs that you were planning to research anyway, and in many games--including Endless Space--that caveat does not apply.)



But (in my experience) the AI games like this is usually extremely reluctant to make "even" tech trades, often demanding 2 or 3 times the value they give (and it doesn't appear to be limited to situations where I'm the clear leader in global score). I think this is because the designers don't actually like the dynamics of aggressive tech trading so they make it so the AI simply won't let you do it in a single-player game (but apparently don't dislike it enough to rebalance it or outright ban it?), though it's also possible that in some cases it's because they're using an extremely naive algorithm that doesn't distinguish between "I'm losing this by giving it to you" and "you're gaining this but I'm keeping a copy".



I actually like the idea that you can have some positive-sum interactions with the other players, but simple tech trades really feel like too much, because with good cooperation you could plausibly double or triple your effective science output (if 3 players all research 3 separate techs, and then all swap with each other, you can all leap into the next era while everyone else is working on their fourth tech). That strikes me as pretty outrageous.



In the 4X of my daydreams, I'm currently thinking that trading a tech to someone else would mean something like: you pay science equal to 20% of the tech's cost (because your scientists are busy teaching them instead of doing new research), and the recipient pays science equal to 50% of the tech's cost (they get it in half the time with your help, but they still need to put in a lot of the work). That's still positive-sum (if we swap techs, we effectively each get a 30% discount), but it's not quite so outrageously efficient, and you have to dedicate some time to carrying out the deal.



(Civ 5 got rid of direct tech-trading and instead added "research agreements" where both sides pay some money, and then both get some science points after a delay if they haven't gone to war with each other in the mean time. That's OK I guess, but it doesn't give me the same feeling as trading technology. Also, it has complex and opaque rules that make it hard to evaluate when it is a good move.)

Maybe research agreements which increase tech research rate by a low percentage per trading partner would be good for EL (as a replacement for trading techs). I think it's something the AI could do as well as the player (unlike trading techs).

I'm definitely wary of tech trading-- GalCiv was a game were tech trading was straight up broken-- but I feel like in EL, it works. A big part of that is the influence cost of proposals, which adds just enough cost to the trade to keep it beneficial for everyone, but without being a no-brainer. Another part of it is the technology required for proposals. Tech trading in MP games is relatively mild, even considering the benefits, for those reasons. Strategy regarding tech trading is more complicated than is at first apparent, and as a rule of thumb, you're better off looking at what people actually do than to try to figure it out from theory.



Not that there aren't some bad situations. Truce proposals to defeated AI, for instance, can lead to ridiculous amounts of tech. And for factions rushing a diplomatic victory, there's no marginal tech cost, and the influence changes from a drawback into progress toward your victory.

The game could do with a tech brokering option.It's a pretty powerful tool for the human at present.

Ashbery76 wrote:
The game could do with a tech brokering option.It's a pretty powerful tool for the human at present.

That would be good. Is it possible to mod something like this in? Thanks in advance.

Simplest way would be to up further the influence cost.

Won with the Cultists wonder victory on impossible, and tech trading is straight up broken with them. The influence is no barrier for them, and from a weak position I got easy 6-5 tech just for mere luxury resources or stockpiles(Which I had a lot as the Cultist)!