been doing the same. keeps the game fresh.

there's no shortage ways to cheese the game. techtrading 'on' can be cheesed too. ie; selling longsince-proliferated technologies to minor civilizations for high profit. if the AI were capable of doing it too then it wouldn't be cheese. doesn't matter what settings are, if someone wants to cheese the game, its not that difficult to find a way.

but i like tech'off' cause it makes it a whole different ballgame. with tech'on' and very fast settings, techadvances happen too quickly. you can advance through an entire generation of technology before you ever use it. with tech'off' and very slow tech speed, it takes awhile to move through the tree, so when you're at war and you grind your way to that 2nd tier of weapon/defense technology + the next miniaturization^ + the next logistics^ + the next hull^, it feels like your civilization has reached a major milestone.

also you earn a tech for every planet you conquer from a civ that has techs you don't have (its realistic, as you usurp the opposing empire you gain all their knowledge and culture). with techtrade 'on' the feature is downgraded to insignificant. espionage is another feature that gets downgraded.

don't worry about. just buy the damn game. It is worth it if they charged $50 for it, easy.

Just because someone plays on a higher difficulty doesn't mean you can't comment on strategy. Don't feel like your opinion doesn't count just because you are still learning.

For what it is worth, on larger maps I also have the experience of trade not being worth it. The most I ever got from one route on a large map was 240/turn... and that route was 8 sectors long and was up for 6 years straight. At the same time, I had close to 50k in income from population and taxes, so the extra 2k I was getting from trade did little more than fund my spies.

Trade is still useful as a diplomatic tool, especially as you try to add up factors to get a race to "close" so you can get an alliance. May only be a few extra diplomacy points, but I find it matters.

On smaller maps trade is absolutely vital to your economy, and to overcoming the early game "crash" many people experience. Add in that from the tech you get extra diplomacy, the econ capital, AND can buff relations - and it becomes a vital part of overall strategy. On smaller maps.

I think the problem could be fixed if the distance of the route had a much greater effect on the value of the route. (For math nerds:) Currently, it appears to be a linear progression that is quite low. Make it an exponential progression, or a cumulative linear progression - and I think trade could become an important part of income on larger maps, assuming that on those larger maps you sent your traders very far away.

An interesting discussion though.

Honestly, yeah. If you don't play huge and gigantic maps (I sure don't -- ridiculously boring and labor intensive), trade is extremely useful.

I really don't know but I think it would be more. Naw, it would deffently be more.

Bear in mind that (in Dark Avatar at least) there's a United Planets resolution which, if passed, dramatically increases trade revenue. Then there's random events which depress tax revenue but improve trade (or tourism).

Now *that* is a good tip.

I don't know about anyone else; but I sure have a dificualt time reading (without highlighting first) any quotes that are green on the gray quote box

From the Desk of Sugien CSK
_____/}
@###{ ]::::::Cyber Striker Knight::::::>
`````\}

Why does this thread keep getting resurrected? It's been bumped about three times.