Tech Trading - Suggested Improvements

from GalCiv3 Forums

These restrictions should be implemented on tech trading between the player and the AI.  They close most of the exploits available to the player, will make the AI more competitive, and are also realistic.

 

1) Specialization Techs: Neither the player nor the AI can trade for a "specialization" tech when they already possess a different option for that specialization.

2) Prerequisites: Both the player and the AI can only trade for a tech that is available for them to research. They cannot trade for a tech for which they do not have the prerequisites. For example, if the research chain is A>B>C and the player possesses only A, the player can trade for B but not C.

3) Relations: Negative relations discourage the AI from trading techs with the player. Two options below:

  a ) The AI will NOT trade technology away to the player unless the AI has a positive (+ or greater) of the player. (The AI will, however, accept tech as part of a trade from the player regardless of relation.)

  b ) The price required by the AI for tech trading is dependent upon the AI opinion of the player. Neutral opinion (0) = baseline prices. -1 opinion = 125% price, -2 = 150%, and so on. +1 opinion = 95%, +2 = 90%, +3 or greater = 85%.

4) Restrictions on Military Tech: If the player and the AI share a border and do not have a non-aggression pact or alliance, the AI will not trade military technology to the player.

5) Cooldown for Techs Received Through Trade: Techs received by the player through trade cannot be re-traded to other AI factions for X number of turns.  (e.g. 5 turns)

6) Resource Trading: (This is general improvement to all trading.)  The trade value that the AI places on resources is dependent upon the AI's supply/demand of that resource. The AI will seek to maintain a minimum surplus of each resource and will only trade for that resource up to its target surplus (S). The target surplus (S) is dependent on the current usage of that resource by the AI (including buildings and ships but excluding trade):

  a ) If the AI is using less than 6 units of the resource, S = 3

  b ) If the AI is using more than 20 units of the resource, S = 10

  c ) Otherwise, S = half of the number of resource units currently being used by the AI.

  Example: The AI has 19x durantium and is using 14x durantium, leaving 5x durantium as surplus.  The target surplus (S) = 7 = 14 * 50%.  Thus, the AI will only trade for 2 additional durantium.  

  Note: A more elegant way to do this is to have the trade value of the resource slowly decrease as the quantity increases.  But having a hard cut-off at S works well too.

 

 

6,184 views 4 replies
Reply #1 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

Well put the only change I would insist on is if sharing a border and allied, all military techs are back on the table. In the larger games it helps to ally with the local races on one or two fronts and collectively fight an enemy who is also local.

Reply #2 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

some very good ideas up above.  However, refusing to trade military for empires on shared borders isn't strong enough IMO.  Technology is POWER (a power ranking which the AI pathetically underestimates IMO).  

 

I think that one would not want to trade ANYTHING with anyone on a border, when that faction is more powerful than them.  The trivial exchange of food tech to a stronger faction, will simply make that faction even stronger, and give them more military industrial complex ability through the additional population.

 

I would propose that weaker factions would put a MUCH higher value on their technology, and a stronger faction would put less value on on their technology.  Hence, a trade between a strong and weak faction would always benefit the weaker faction.   This would help bring factions to a closer balance, if they choose to trade.  It would help reduce the concept of tech trade spam with dozens of weak factions.  

Star Control: Origins
Reply #3 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

1.) Disagree wholeheartedly. 

2.) Agree. 

3.) Agree. 

4.) Disagree. This makes no sense. Just because you share a border shouldn't mean you can't trade military techs. What if you and the AI are best of friends and it has a tech that you need (because, say, you're at war with another AI)?

5.) Disagree. 

6.) Agree. 

Reply #4 from GalCiv3 Forums Top

I also do have to point out that specialization techs are what tech trading should be based around.  On the one hand, a race's unique grasp of a technology should be what they are willing to sell you rather than the advanced tech that they hold over your head (why sell unique new engines if you can sell engine efficiency techniques?); also, I usually like tech trading for the exact reason of getting past these little gaps.

The second and really important thing: a lot of technologies, particularly invasion methods and diplomatic treaties, should never have had specialization options (at least in the manner that they do now) in the first place; they actually take away choice rather than offering it because there are so few options that each tech gives.  New treaty options and new invasion methods should not mean picking one or two each game.  Being able to get these unique techs seems extremely-important from my perspective.

Otherwise the list is decent.