Longturn Forum

We basically have two options.

1) no tech trading and the tech costs would be 50% - 66% of what they are on LT43.

2) tech trading enabled inside the team and the tech costs would be 200-300% (depending on the number of players) of what they are on LT43.

In LT43 the full tech tree costs 500 000 bulbs. In LT41 the cost is 66 000 bulbs. Gonpowder in LT43 costs about 200% compared to LT41 and the 1st level techs about 70%. The techs become ore and more expensive in the end.

With 1) it's more competitive but with 2) it might be more interesting for those players who have less experience in playing. I'm recommending option 2) but we can also do 1) even while my guess is that it will result with more idlers in the end.

We could also use a small chance for stealing techs from the other team. Something like 5%. It needs to be a small % because there can be lots of attempts with this many players in one team.

Just to clarify this is not shared tech pool, each nation researches his own tech tree, right?

I highly prefer no tech trading. I like higher tech costs than LT41, as by the end you get to research a tech every turn. So I like option 1) with high later tech cost.

Yes, last two team game we did end up with some idlers, but easy to have other players on the team pick up for the idler, so no big deal.

My problem with less advanced players is that they are dead weight if you don't allow tech trading. Completely useless. And the main problem is: they know it. Not much incentive to continue with the game. And we want people to continue playing, don't we?

They you can either help your teammate out, or have them spam phalanxes, fanantics or diplos. Tech loss allows for them to catch up a little bit. I think it works fine. If they start idling shame on them and someone on the team picks up their nation.

Another option is to go back to pooled team research, but that has less strategy and teamwork, but sounds like what you would like, Corbeau? (Of course someone will accidentally change the research and research something else midturn, which stinks.)

No, I agreed that pooled research is too much prone to errors and that free tech exchange would be better. As long as there is no tax.

So you want the game to be where one person researches a tech, and then gives it to all his teammates? I'm sorry but I don't understand why you prefer game like that. Seems silly to have to give every tech given to every teammate every time a tech was researched. It just results in a game of diplomacy dialogs and waiting for someone to come online to give you a tech.

In last team game had embassies with everyone on your team to start, so at least in your game you don't have to create diplos and send them to everyone. Or is that what you were thinking?

Tech loss is good enough to help lesser nations, in my opinion.

cgalik wrote:So you want the game to be where one person researches a tech, and then gives it to all his teammates? I'm sorry but I don't understand why you prefer game like that. Seems silly to have to give every tech given to every teammate every time a tech was researched. It just results in a game of diplomacy dialogs and waiting for someone to come online to give you a tech.

What exactly is the problem here?

So it is just pooled research with dialogs. We've moved away from that. And then players on the front line just max tax and receive techs from others? You would have free gold transfer too? Could just have lesser nations give to 1 mega nation.

But yeah I am always against tech trade, I think LT is better without it.

At least with two team game you can enable tech stealing and partisans.

I'd prefer tech leakage to tech trading. I agree trading is very much like pooled research. Wish it was possible to set higher leakage rate for tech researched by teammates as opposed to enemy team. Also it feels that later techs should be more expensive - in LT41 it was fine getting to gunpowder by T50, but after that things went a little too fast I think.

The proposed tech trading would be similar to pooled research but with few big differences. I'll try to list what I had in mind when this was proposed.

1) With pooled research the tech cost is multiplied with the number of the players playing the game. With individual researching and trading techs inside the team we could use the same multiplier.

2) It's maybe better to think it as a way to distribute the techs and not as tech trading even while the tech trading mechanism is used to implement it. Inside the team all the techs can be given to teammates without cost and without bulb cost for the receiver or for the party giving the tech.

3) Higher tech costs means one player can't research everything for everyone. In the last 1/3 of the tech tree it may take one good player 8-10 turns to research a tech that took one turn to get in LT41. That pretty much forces the team to decide who is going to research a particular tech.

4) While most players need to research, some players can focus on war and units. This will allow more roles even while it may make lots of sense to have a generalized players who do all of it. Sci, eco, and units.

5) With stealing enabled the team can and need to plan how to protect the techs. It may make sense to give some tech to only those players the enemy can't steal from. It may also create a need for the enemy to make plans about how to steal from the players who are further away.

6) All the players in the team can have up to date techs and even those without more than just few cities can play an active role. They can also take back cities with modern units.

7) The risk of some players just focusing on war and improvements and letting the others to do researching is a real one. Then again at least until mid game all players benefit from researching themselves. If someone wants knights and the others are not doing the tech, they can do it. The same goes for stuff like theology.

8) Tech leakage would still be there and here is the interesting part: the teams would need to decide if a new tech should be given to everyone or not. Giving it would lower the cost also for the enemy.

9) Sharing the techs might help the web players to feel more comfortable and learn how to play with the lt.org rulesets. These players are used to tech trading and there seems to be lots of them now. It also reduces the risk of less experienced players going idle.

Then again having individual researching is also a very nice way to do it. Please keep the comments coming.

I'll check if it's easy to turn back partisans. Might make sense on a two team game.

wieder wrote:7) The risk of some players just focusing on war and improvements and letting the others to do researching is a real one.

This has been repeated over and over again, but I still didn't get the answer to my question: Why is this a problem?

I think it is more interesting and strategic to know when to focus on military and when to research. It is more boring to just do one or the other the entire game. Could have whole game where front line nation just builds units and gets handened every tech.

Corbeau, in your mind, would you do free gold transfer as well?

I think we are trying to fix something that isn't broken, but fine I am willing to give it a try.

Well, if I was a front line nation, I'd want to build military units and someone else to supply me with techs. And if I was in the rear, I'd prefer not having to spend too much resources on military (except 1-2 units per city because it makes sense).

And I said it all already, yes, I'd do free gold transfers, too. If it's a team, it's a team.

But I'm not the only one playing and I'd prefer to hear what others think. Poll, anyone?

A problem with no tech trading may be that we will (probably) be playing with the Experimental tech model that has later techs much more expensive than the early ones for a total of, I forgot, but maybe 5 times more bulbs in total. LT43 has this model AND tech exchange enabled, but Gunpowder came slightly later than it comes in regular LT games. Switch tech exchange off and you will have a much, much longer game. Reduce sci box and you get early tech much sooner than it would make sense. On the other hand, none of those two things needn't be a disaster, and it's a game anyway so, hell, let's experiment.

I would advise against doing free gold transfer. In old LT games this was abused. Front line nations that had risk of losing cities, would immediately transfer gold to safe nation, who would hold the gold for them and then give it back right before TC for them to use.

Also nations vulnerable to having cities incited to revolt, would hold everyone's gold to drive up the price of their cities and then transfer it right before TC.

I think we should keep a minimum gold transfer to learn from our history and not repeat the same mistakes of the past.

I think even a small 10% fee will keep this abuse from happening. If really needed, it will still be sent.

Plus a 10% "administrative overhead" or "exchange rate" or "corrupt bankers" could be real world examples of this.

Fun happens when a nation vulnerable to having cities incited to revolt, and thus holding other nations' money, loses a city due to conquest.