I appreciate the long message, and read every word. I completely concede that many here, including you and NIcov and Stark know more than I do about this game overall. But answer me this: have you done any calculations on this? Ie, why do you trade? Why did you trade the first time you did? The first time I traded, I did it because others told me to. I want to know the why, and I want to back it up with some data on how impactful my investment will be. I have traded. I am not making any money on this. As much as you and others might think me biased, I genuinely want more than anyone in this thread to drill down to the real answer here. I've been wrong in my life many times, but the data in this instance is not giving me the vibes in that direction.I didn't think I'd say anything in this topic (and this is probably the only one since I'd rather not get involved), but the example in the first paragraph that I italicized is really something I never would've expected coming.
You never would've made an example like this if you had a good grasp of simplicity and complexity in aoc, with its practical ties.
The game at the very start is so simple that everyone can see how to optimize, and always to the same effect. Things like standing up shepherds/hunters for 50f, sheep scouting, 1 vill per tree around an lc, and then luring boars -- no complexity there and should about always be the same.
The issue is that when the games goes on it gets more complex, because you have to take into account the other person you're playing vs in addition to some other factors. What they're doing/how well they're doing it will affect you a little or greatly. You can still evaluate things very well, as long you're trying to consider as many things as possible just everywhere.
Now:
It is silly and this whole discussion you're holding onto is from your point, because personally, I have done this kind of thing in the past when I was playing Mongols with a few friends in 2v2 Arabia vs some high rated players (when they joined at least). Selling resources for gold over trading when you should, to clarify. Honestly, it just doesn't really work well vs good players. Sometimes it does, but it usually doesn't. Stark (who is around 2400 voobly if you don't know), said this some pages ago if I wasn't hallucinating.
One other thing that bothers me is:
This really raises a huge alarm to me as far as aoc understanding goes (everyone else is calling you out on it too). Maybe I'm not that good in aoc as I used to be, but I can see more than a few variables affecting a selling vs trading situation just generally, even in a 4v4 BF. Been many years since I played BF, but something like the amount of tiles of an area you can break through will play one of the largest roles. You get into a compact situation, I guarantee this selling vs trading won't ever work against someone who is good with defense -- with decent civs from both where none have a serious advantage over other team. Others will trade and then you'll run out of gold soon enough. You'll have to trade then which its probably too late as your army numbers have dwindled, or constantly ask allies for gold which they'll probably be annoyed soon after.
I think generally BF is one of the worst maps to try this on as well because of the constriction (its easier to defend as long as no serious civ advantage). If you tried it on something like Arabia, you'd probably have more success because things like past damage can be a huge factor in slowing down someone on their way to Imperial, and then selling may gain you some advantage for a short time (you'll still have to trade at some point).
You can correct me if I'm wrong here, but I believe one of your arguments for selling over trading is the amount of time before trade kicks in, and that's why you're so steadfast in believing you're right. You get x amount of gold instantly from selling huge amounts of food, wood, or stone. What I will say about that is this.
First, I don't believe you've played vs someone who has some good defense/plays good in general. Then you'd rethink what you've said up to this point. Playing against strong opposition is the only way to really know things don't have any serious holes, as good players will show you what's wrong with what you're doing.
Second, there's a reason why in countless expert TGs across more than one map, that they usually begin trade before they hit Imperial Age (shortly after may be more realistic, due to not controlling corners so quickly). I have forgotten certain details surrounding gold expiring, but a key thing is that usually around minute 35-38 your whole main gold pile is gone, and something like around minute 47-50 all of your gold piles are gone. Every good player is aware of this stuff somewhere, and that's why if its a typical 33-36 minute Imperial TG in RM, you trade before you run out of everything. There's going to be a lot of skeletons in the ground as long as you haven't been sitting around, so you're going to be going through gold quickly. If the flank defends and attacks well, you'll run out of gold if you haven't been trading, then you and your pocket will lose hold of your ground vs gold units, and finally you'll lose your base and the game.
That's really about all I can add here. Everyone else in this topic pretty much sees eye to eye with this. Ultimately, I'm not looking to convert you (as Modri said) as I don't think its going to happen.
You had Christ (one of the first posts in this topic) talking about it rather bluntly, and he was a 2300-2400 DMer; his words hold enough ground, if you were unaware of his skill. Then you had Stark (https://www.aoezone.net/threads/market-trading-vs-selling-an-analysis.145584/post-625611) who is pretty much 2400 mentioning how this won't really work for long. Now you have me, who is an old 2200 1v1 Arabia player also saying that this just won't work often against good players. I saw Nicov lurking around here (2500 player incase you don't know), maybe that men can add to this too.
My last words would be, do you think all 3 of us have no clue what we're doing in aoc?
At one point in our history, someone said the world was flat and everyone laughed at them. They told that person that men much smarter than them knew better. But then they TESTED it. So, here is what I am asking: run the scenario with trading and without, and note your resources at say 35, 40 minutes. When I run it both ways: with trading and without, I end up with a boatload more ability to make a powerful army for 15-20 minutes after I started trading. To me, and I understand there's been plenty of arguing about whether that amount of time matters, but again to me that's a huge amount of time and my experience (and the experience of 2 test games vs TheHand) is that games end long before trade pays off. I've posted several games from players better than me and probably everyone on Earth (Viper), and the Suomi TG's from a 2017 tourney where they used BF as a home map: not turning a trade profit. Here is what I want to convince you of: I am not a troll. I am not here to watch the world burn. I just want to know the answer, supported by math, as to how long the breakeven is when a player, me, PHilos or you choose to trade vs just make vils and market sell their excess.
I've updated my scenario to now avoid the tributed resources issue, the allies building buildings in your trade route (thanks icefields), and with the help of "* 100" I haven't been getting any resignations either. Just note I've made the carts ENEMY carts, so build your castles to the south and be careful not to build TC's too close to their market or you'll shoot it/carts whenever you garrison.
Link to google doc where I'm aggregating data. So far Philos ran it with trading but hasn't run it without to give us an accurate comp.
Trader vs Non trader budgeted spend
trader budget w guilds,0.17 no guilds,0.14 COMPARISON As Celts,Non-Trading (125v, 4TCs, 4 Castles, conscription, S.E., University and Siege shop, 1 Rax, houses to 180 pop (1 castle takes to 200), mill farm queued full, built 4 total castles, 37Farmers, bought Guilds t since trade,Gm Time,Non Trader
docs.google.com
Attachments
Last edited: