Market Trading Vs Selling: An Analysis

[Bergui]

There is something that i don't understand here : in your challenge, does the other player receive gold regularly for his trade, or he just gives you resources and don't get them back after some time ?
because in the second case, it is obviously a huge disadvantage for your opponent, and he has no advantage to compensate, but in the first case, if he earns resources every minute, like with trade then it's a fair situation.
I don't think that someone with equal skills can accept the unfair second scenario.
It is ,i think, not a good experience to prove a theory , but a pretty biased one.

Whatever, it doesn't seem doable in 1v1, or you would need a scenario with a third player , with only a unit in a corner and unlimited resource , to receive a tribute from the trader when he begins the trade, and then pay him back every x minutes ( x * the amount of gold earn every minutes with the given amount of carts ).
it would be closer to the reality of a "1v1 trade"

But i think that a 4v4 is the best choice to prove your strategy (because it applies in 4v4 )

I just made this question because i don't understand your challenge, and would like to clarify it, i'm not here to criticize or support your theory, because there are people far more qualified for that (like Melkor)

(i'm very noob by the way, I watch a lot of strams and tournaments, and almost never play, but from my hours of viewing, it seems to me that the trade really help to win games and is a must have when it is possible (for all the reasons stated before))

Thank you in advance for your answer

 

[bMyers]

"Noobs like you" is bashing. Saying you can win without a TC is bashing. Both are also wrong. Im 1860 HD. At least give me the dignity of calling me an intermediate. Besides, its all moot as long as your plan is to talk trash and just shy away from anything remotely close to backing it up. Id rather be a noob than a chicken.

Noob is just a term for unskilled player like yourself. Not an insult. Simply a fact.

 

[bMyers]

You are being a chicken by not responding to any of my valid points....Let me here your argument on how the TG trade meta has evolved since the start of this game in 99. Believe me at one point in time experts did not even trade. Looking forward to your response.

 

[RicoJay13]

That's the core of the problem. Market trading is inherently a team game thing (unless you want to disrespecc your 1v1 opponent by trading with his market), so it makes no sense to put it into an evironment where it literally never happens (like a 1v1). I dont see what your proposed test would prove, apart from the fact that getting more resources is good.

Also, as you said yourself, there are too many variables in a single game (even 1v1) to be isolated. For example, what IS the amount a player of certain skill would invest into early trade? It probably will be different for each player and even each game. There are too many variables even outside the game (like players having a bad day), so a single game really doesn't mean very much. Ideally you should play and analyze thousands of games. Yes, it will take a lot of time; no I'm not saying you have to do it, but if you're going to make grand claims like "Market trading is a trap", then you really should.

There is something that i don't understand here : in your challenge, does the other player receive gold regularly for his trade, or he just gives you resources and don't get them back after some time ?
because in the second case, it is obviously a huge disadvantage for your opponent, and he has no advantage to compensate, but in the first case, if he earns resources every minute, like with trade then it's a fair situation.
I don't think that someone with equal skills can accept the unfair second scenario.
It is ,i think, not a good experience to prove a theory , but a pretty biased one.

Whatever, it doesn't seem doable in 1v1, or you would need a scenario with a third player , with only a unit in a corner and unlimited resource , to receive a tribute from the trader when he begins the trade, and then pay him back every x minutes ( x * the amount of gold earn every minutes with the given amount of carts ).
it would be closer to the reality of a "1v1 trade"

But i think that a 4v4 is the best choice to prove your strategy (because it applies in 4v4 )

I just made this question because i don't understand your challenge, and would like to clarify it, i'm not here to criticize or support your theory, because there are people far more qualified for that (like Melkor)

(i'm very noob by the way, I watch a lot of strams and tournaments, and almost never play, but from my hours of viewing, it seems to me that the trade really help to win games and is a must have when it is possible (for all the reasons stated before))

Thank you in advance for your answer

The summary of the edge is that the seller, ie me in this challenge gets approximately half the 3k gold to simulate the large investment the trader makes before seeing a single cart return which is roughly 7 minutes after trade starts. Thats t=7. Then at t=14 the rez are breakeven between the seller and trader. Then at t=18.5 the trader has a 3k edge over the seller so as I said in the attached pic I would then tribute back that half 3k to the trader. Past that theres obviously a steady and increasing edge to the trader which we could simulate with more tributes from seller to trader. But the science comes down to whether an equal player can give a 3k edge to another player at 35 minutes of booming, then survive for 11.5 minutes of game time. I felt that Tatoh boom vid showed it very well: he had very few extra rez after making 55 paladins, so the test would require he sell back a few and give those rez to an opponent with an equal 55 paladins. So the opponent, ie the seller would have 55 paladins vs say 40, plus the ability to queue up that difference say 15 more Paladins. I think the "seller Tatoh" overruns the "trader Tatoh", raids like crazy and 11.5 minutes later hes tributing to a player who is dead.

 

[RicoJay13]

You are being a chicken by not responding to any of my valid points....Let me here your argument on how the TG trade meta has evolved since the start of this game in 99. Believe me at one point in time experts did not even trade. Looking forward to your response.

All I heer is another post with insults and unwillingness to accept my challenge.

 

[JT_CZ]

The summary of the edge is that the seller, ie me in this challenge gets approximately half the 3k gold to simulate the large investment the trader makes before seeing a single cart return which is roughly 7 minutes after trade starts.

You still didn't adress this issue IMO:

For example, what IS the amount a player of certain skill would invest into early trade?

You keep dropping this 3k gold figure as if a bunch of markets suddenly popped into existence and started producing carts nonstop when a player decides to start trade. A market is 175 w, a cart is 100 w 50 g, so there has to be an awful lot of carts to reach that number. In a game, players usually dont build theirs markets and queue up 15 carts in each, but rather make sure there is a single cart being produced in each market, which leaves most of the total investment in their bank, so they can divert production into military if necessary. Besides, having 40+ carts is a lategame thing.

Right now I feel like you're:
1) Underestimating the decision making of players who might cut carts production altogether if they are seriously threatened, and acting like they have some sort of button in their head that makes them drop 4 markets and queue up 40 carts immediately.

2) Trying to insert a lategame premise of having 40 or more tradecarts into a midgame situation of deciding whether to trade and dig in for the long run or try to finish the game in late castle/ early imp.

 

[bMyers]

All I heer is another post with insults and unwillingness to accept my challenge.

Im not looking to accept a challenge. Your words "20 years after this games release no one has answered my question" I have basically witnessed the evolution of trade, from when it was basically non existent until now, I am trying to answer your question, but you are not being realistic.
Your point=low level hd u can win without trade, but everyone knows this already so what is your point?

 

[bMyers]

Your not going to reinvent the wheel, These tactics these build orders have evolved for 20 years to what they are today. Its kind of like anything really. People know what they are doing. The market sale is not anything new.

 

[_Melkor]

Your challenge is irrelevant. The vast majority of BF games involve a lot of fortified walls. 3000 extra res as a percentage of your net income with a 130 vil economy is pretty much irrelevant.

As I said, I can see why 3000 res and a do or die push would be useful in a 18+ HD tg, but if you play any decent level of BF, by the time you manage to take a fight your opponent will have full trade economy and army with 200 pop.

There are obvious exceptions like when the map is open, or if you play maps like ara. Many players including myself sometimes will of course forgoe trade if there is an opening for killing someone quickly.
But everyone knows this so its irrelevant to this argument.

The other thing you are assuming is that no one except you will be burning the market. In many many BF games I will burn the market a little while setting up trade!!! Or what if 2 ppl opt for the same strategy of buring market. This is inherently risky. Also its simply not true that the market will be untouched by anyone but you. Everyone is short a few hudred gold from time to time on the way to researching their imp army.

Your argument boils down to, is it more efficient mathematically to not trade and burn market assuming A B C and D happen.

A) you are only person burning the market
B)It is open map
C)You are a civ that can push fast
D) You are untouched on the way to imperial age, and ally on same as you side is equal or greater skill to that of your enemies ally.

If ALL these happen, then SURE it can work; but EVERYONE knows this.

Most important of these by far is B, but this strategy can equally fail for other combinations.

If you have ABD but not C then everything can fail because due to the slow push you do the other side has plenty of time to make trade worth it.

If you have ABC but not D, you take a little damage on way to imperial age, by the time you manage to start pushing while burning market, again, enemies have had enough time to recover their trade boom.

These are just quick examples to make a point of how fragile your assumptions are for this to work.

I like mathematics as much as anyone else ( I'm doing physics in college) but you are making a grave mistake in assuming that mathematics can help in aoc as a no fail game plan. Aoc is too fluid and complex. Everything can change in an instant depending on the influence of all 8 players. Any mathematical model you make requires assumptions, and unfortunately they will almost always break down in a decent game of BF. What can mathematics help with in aoc? Optimal build orders for boom?
Yes and no. You can definitely use mathematics to get an optimal build order for boom, but there are already some problems for somethign this simple. It entirely depends on the assumption that you will be under 0 pressure. Everything can also change if for example you realise after 10 minutes that your ally will be in trouble if you don;t act. Switching from optimal boom build to help ally build is not an optimal build. A more optimal build would exist if you knew prior that you would be going to help your ally.

In summary; there is no optimal build for the vast majority of decent level age of empires gameplay.
The game is too complex, and everything changes depending on the numerous variables that shape the game.

So why is trade build better than market selling build if there is no optimal build? Because after many many years of aoc gameplay, the complex game has been brought closer to an optimal build by brute force experience. Possibly this has not yet converged to an optimal approach to the game, but it certainly has converged closer to the right approach than that of market selling which was the case many years ago.

In addition, in the examples I just gave, the point was to do the best build that suffers the least from unexpected changes in teh game. A trade boom has its risky, for example if your ally on one side suddenly gets cut off and the trade route is lost. So the question is; which is more risky?, trade boom or market selling boom?
The answer is simple. In reasonable level of BF games, most games will have the map fortified walled very early, and there is almost 0 chance someone will have their trade cut off. Therefore it is almost 0 risk in doing a trrade boom. Whereas there are many many risks in doing a market selling approach. (no open map, cant psh fast, allies less skillfull, civs are slow, enemies do very well at delay tactics etcetcetcetc)

In summary, yes in some scenarios under the cases you have assumed, your mathematics is correct. However all your calculations are done under a variety of assumptions since aoc is too complex to solve mathematically. The assumptions you made are valid very very rarely, and ultimately the safest/most effective combo in a BF game is to trade boom.
Btw Viper games in Bf are irrelevant because either A) he will be trolling. B) he has no idea how to play the map since he doenst care

 

[RicoJay13]

You still didn't adress this issue IMO:



You keep dropping this 3k gold figure as if a bunch of markets suddenly popped into existence and started producing carts nonstop when a player decides to start trade. A market is 175 w, a cart is 100 w 50 g, so there has to be an awful lot of carts to reach that number. In a game, players usually dont build theirs markets and queue up 15 carts in each, but rather make sure there is a single cart being produced in each market, which leaves most of the total investment in their bank, so they can divert production into military if necessary. Besides, having 40+ carts is a lategame thing.

Right now I feel like you're:
1) Underestimating the decision making of players who might cut carts production altogether if they are seriously threatened, and acting like they have some sort of button in their head that makes them drop 4 markets and queue up 40 carts immediately.

2) Trying to insert a lategame premise of having 40 or more tradecarts into a midgame situation of deciding whether to trade and dig in for the long run or try to finish the game in late castle/ early imp.

This has been beaten like a dead horse. The FASTEST return on investment the trader can achieve is with full production. Thats why I used 40 in my video and Trirem used 70 in his calcs. Making less is obviously cheaper, but the return on investment is much longer. Plus you have higher fixed costs vs variable costs as you still pay the same for your market(s) and Caravan whether you make 1 or 70 carts.

 

[iViktorius]

Just wanted to point out that 18xxHD is NOT intermediate. That tier starts above 2k HD aka ~1700 voobly.

 

[RicoJay13]

Im not looking to accept a challenge. Your words "20 years after this games release no one has answered my question" I have basically witnessed the evolution of trade, from when it was basically non existent until now, I am trying to answer your question, but you are not being realistic.
Your point=low level hd u can win without trade, but everyone knows this already so what is your point?

My point is that while its more powerful to forgo trade and capitalize on your extra rez from not trading at lower levels, its still a mathematical 14 minute window where a non trader can punish an opponent at higher levels with a very underrated and substantial economic edge. This applies to mid or late game. I would hope after all this time not looking at my video, math, or trirems math youd all know my argument by now ha!

 

[RicoJay13]

Just wanted to point out that 18xxHD is NOT intermediate. That tier starts above 2k HD aka ~1700 voobly.

The insults department is a little busy right now with all the chickens standing around the area.

 

[iViktorius]

IT"S NOT AN INSULT YOU ***** (that one actually is)

just accept that you're below intermediate (once again that's not an insult, we all start somewhere, even viper was an intermediate at some point)

 

[bMyers]

My point is that while its more powerful to forgo trade and capitalize on your extra rez from not trading at lower levels, its still a mathematical 14 minute window where a non trader can punish an opponent at higher levels with a very underrated and substantial economic edge. This applies to mid or late game. I would hope after all this time not looking at my video, math, or trirems math youd all know my argument by now ha!

So u think i give u a 14 min window where i make trade and you dont, you could finish the game?? is that your challenge??

 

[bMyers]

I dont think you are factoring in the competetion in your mathmatic equation.

 

[bMyers]

I dont think you are factoring in the competetion in your mathmatic equation.

Now call me Professor

 

[Skittle]

ever thought about building trash units instead of selling 100 food/wood for 14gold? i am quite sure that would be even stronger in your spreadsheet, so much more units on the field and a good window while you lose 80%+ of your ress to gaia.

 

[RicoJay13]

Your challenge is irrelevant. The vast majority of BF games involve a lot of fortified walls. 3000 extra res as a percentage of your net income with a 130 vil economy is pretty much irrelevant.

As I said, I can see why 3000 res and a do or die push would be useful in a 18+ HD tg, but if you play any decent level of BF, by the time you manage to take a fight your opponent will have full trade economy and army with 200 pop.

There are obvious exceptions like when the map is open, or if you play maps like ara. Many players including myself sometimes will of course forgoe trade if there is an opening for killing someone quickly.
But everyone knows this so its irrelevant to this argument.

The other thing you are assuming is that no one except you will be burning the market. In many many BF games I will burn the market a little while setting up trade!!! Or what if 2 ppl opt for the same strategy of buring market. This is inherently risky. Also its simply not true that the market will be untouched by anyone but you. Everyone is short a few hudred gold from time to time on the way to researching their imp army.

Your argument boils down to, is it more efficient mathematically to not trade and burn market assuming A B C and D happen.

A) you are only person burning the market
B)It is open map
C)You are a civ that can push fast
D) You are untouched on the way to imperial age, and ally on same as you side is equal or greater skill to that of your enemies ally.

If ALL these happen, then SURE it can work; but EVERYONE knows this.

Most important of these by far is B, but this strategy can equally fail for other combinations.

If you have ABD but not C then everything can fail because due to the slow push you do the other side has plenty of time to make trade worth it.

If you have ABC but not D, you take a little damage on way to imperial age, by the time you manage to start pushing while burning market, again, enemies have had enough time to recover their trade boom.

These are just quick examples to make a point of how fragile your assumptions are for this to work.

I like mathematics as much as anyone else ( I'm doing physics in college) but you are making a grave mistake in assuming that mathematics can help in aoc as a no fail game plan. Aoc is too fluid and complex. Everything can change in an instant depending on the influence of all 8 players. Any mathematical model you make requires assumptions, and unfortunately they will almost always break down in a decent game of BF. What can mathematics help with in aoc? Optimal build orders for boom?
Yes and no. You can definitely use mathematics to get an optimal build order for boom, but there are already some problems for somethign this simple. It entirely depends on the assumption that you will be under 0 pressure. Everything can also change if for example you realise after 10 minutes that your ally will be in trouble if you don;t act. Switching from optimal boom build to help ally build is not an optimal build. A more optimal build would exist if you knew prior that you would be going to help your ally.

In summary; there is no optimal build for the vast majority of decent level age of empires gameplay.
The game is too complex, and everything changes depending on the numerous variables that shape the game.

So why is trade build better than market selling build if there is no optimal build? Because after many many years of aoc gameplay, the complex game has been brought closer to an optimal build by brute force experience. Possibly this has not yet converged to an optimal approach to the game, but it certainly has converged closer to the right approach than that of market selling which was the case many years ago.

In addition, in the examples I just gave, the point was to do the best build that suffers the least from unexpected changes in teh game. A trade boom has its risky, for example if your ally on one side suddenly gets cut off and the trade route is lost. So the question is; which is more risky?, trade boom or market selling boom?
The answer is simple. In reasonable level of BF games, most games will have the map fortified walled very early, and there is almost 0 chance someone will have their trade cut off. Therefore it is almost 0 risk in doing a trrade boom. Whereas there are many many risks in doing a market selling approach. (no open map, cant psh fast, allies less skillfull, civs are slow, enemies do very well at delay tactics etcetcetcetc)

In summary, yes in some scenarios under the cases you have assumed, your mathematics is correct. However all your calculations are done under a variety of assumptions since aoc is too complex to solve mathematically. The assumptions you made are valid very very rarely, and ultimately the safest/most effective combo in a BF game is to trade boom.
Btw Viper games in Bf are irrelevant because either A) he will be trolling. B) he has no idea how to play the map since he doenst care

Great post, but I dont see a single screengrab of an expert BF where the market is burned. Even if as you say Viper is trolling, the other 7 high ELO BF players dont seem to be. Apparently I got lucky to find 3 examples where none of the 24 players crashed the market on food and wood. Do you have any exhibits to add to prove your assumptions?

Again, I respect the effort you put into your long post, but good points dont replace actual data to me.

Even on my lower level of 1800hd BF, everybody onagers around walls. This isnt the tardfest that sends rams up to fatslobs fortified walls as if they havent heard of the Onager. My point is nobody is safe for the 14 minutes after they start ramping into trade from being pounded by someone who has 3k more rez than them. The Onager and Condo build is in your base at like 26 minutes. There is no mathematical way your trade has paid off by then.

I will watch any yt BF TG you link with an open mind.

 

[bMyers]

And just like skittle said, as i mentioned before, that is the purpose of trash units. To be honest I havent ever won too many games selling resource for gold units, its just too expensive. I mean the best you can do is with mayans, the gold last 20% longer and you can sell food, that is if you get the market sale for yourself which requires many other things that is too long for me to mention. But best case scenario you could possibly spam plum until around 1:20 hr mins. But pala for example, if you didnt make trade, you will peak out very quickly, and then get over run by halbs 100%.

 

[Shed_]

Great post, but I dont see a single screengrab of an expert BF where the market is burned. Even if as you say Viper is trolling, the other 7 high ELO BF players dont seem to be. Apparently I got lucky to find 3 examples where none of the 24 players crashed the market on food and wood. Is that you

Again, I respect the effort you put into your long post, but good points dont replace actual data to me.

Even on my lower level of 1800hd BF, everybody onagers around walls. This isnt the tardfest that sends rams up to fatslobs fortified walls as if they havent heard of the Onager. My point is nobody is safe for the 14 minutes after they start ramping into trade from being pounded by someone who has 3k more rez than them. The Onager and Condo build is in your base at like 26 minutes. There is no mathematical way your trade has paid off by then.

I will watch any yt BF TG you link with an open mind.

Seriously man this is insane. Why would nobody be safe for 14 minutes when they start making trade, if you are boomed and are making army you make markets and make trade whilst still queueing army and managing your eco, as all the natural gold runs out on the map you delete these villagers and they are replaced by trade carts and you begin to slowly shift your economy composition in to the unit you are making. For example to constantly stream out paladin you want to aim for around 50-60 farmers with around 60 carts to make 60-70 paladin.

Your math seems to forget that this is indeed a 4v4 so you have team mates that like yourself have an eco, have an army and are making trade so they able to help against this mythical 26 min onager condo raid on base. This game has too much going on especially in post imperial for you to claim your excel spreadsheet is some new gospel that everyone must abide by. Unfortunately for you, you are 1800 on HD which pretty much means you suck at this game and so whatever you think works for your games probably doesn't work in a game where people actually have some skill at the game.

It is really bizarre why you keep trying to prove your point when it is categorically wrong. I would love for you to really improve at this game and comeback in a years time to look at this thread and realise how so very wrong you are.

 

[Tarsiz]

At my 16-17xx level on Voobly (which is still noob btw), everyone knows how to sell res at the market when you are getting to the imperial age to get that extra gold when you are floating food & wood. If you were really honest with your simulation you would consider the following scenario:

- All 8 players are equally boomed with equal numbers of villagers when they hit imp
- All 8 players sell wood & food for gold until both prices get down to 14 - let's assume everyone gets as much gold
- One team does not set up trade and instead sell their wood to get gold
- One team sets up trade

Then only with that in mind you could try to see what the numbers tell.
I think you are however hopeless as I don't see anything that Melkor hasn't addressed in his post and you barely acknowledge him as you can't seem to admit you are wrong.

 

[_Melkor]

Great post, but I dont see a single screengrab of an expert BF where the market is burned. Even if as you say Viper is trolling, the other 7 high ELO BF players dont seem to be. Apparently I got lucky to find 3 examples where none of the 24 players crashed the market on food and wood. Is that you

Again, I respect the effort you put into your long post, but good points dont replace actual data to me.

Even on my lower level of 1800hd BF, everybody onagers around walls. This isnt the tardfest that sends rams up to fatslobs fortified walls as if they havent heard of the Onager. My point is nobody is safe for the 14 minutes after they start ramping into trade from being pounded by someone who has 3k more rez than them. The Onager and Condo build is in your base at like 26 minutes. There is no mathematical way your trade has paid off by then.

I will watch any yt BF TG you link with an open mind.

1)
At decent level BF games, the market is pretty much burned by min 38. This is done by a combination of all the players as a means to get trade up faster. This point alone is enough to make your build worthless for decent level BF tg.
2)
At decent level BF games, people know how to delay pushes for a long long time using fortified walls/bbt/onager defense/call otehr side for help. Again, this point alone is enough to make your point worthless

You put too much faith into the "magic" of data and mathematics. I don't know whether you actually do mathematics or physics as part of your job, but its fairly well known in the field that most things are far too complex to solve perfectly and assumptions must usually be made to simplify things for specific scenarios. Your proposed build is an optimal solution to a specific scenario which does not occur very often!!!! Even a pure boom build order isn't something you get to do very often. How much less is a build that assumes no one else will interfere with your market burn, and that you will win your side very quickly and that your "not particularly large resource advantage" will magically make you win even if you are a worse civ.

Also I dont know what version of BF you play, but most people dont like standard onager cut. In order to research SO that takes about 3000 resources. Just in order to even be able to attack you need that 3000 resource advantage to be used up. So if the enemy defends well (with equal resources), all you have achieved with your investment is an equal fight with 0 ability to sustain it.

You say you respect data. What about the data that says every single BF player that is higher level than you claims you are wrong 11. Your mathematical calculations I will asume are correct, but are completely irrelevant for a specific scenario that rarely happens (unless you are low level player).
If you want to discuss proper application of mathematical models I'm happy to because Im getting the strong impression you don't know the limitations of mathematics for applied use.

If all you are arguing is that in that specific scenario; your way is more effecient, then great; we all agree. If you are arguing that your specific scenario shows up in the majority of games, then you are just completely wrong (market prices in just about every BF game ive ever played are burnt out min 38/fighting almost always lasts a long time unless its very fast rush game etcetcetc)
Out of your experience in BF, fair enough; people arent good enough so the scenario fits. In my experience in good level games, what you are suggesting would work 1% of the time.
Im actually confused how you have not been convinced yet, when every player is saying you are wrong; 10 years of experience says you are wrong/ your mathematics assumpions are too specific and therefore irrelevant for application.

Anyway, if you are still not convinced, then the only way you will ever change our minds is if you can prove that its a valid strategy at 2000+ voobly BF gameplay. I am highly skeptical that you will achieve this with an incredibly risky strategy as the backbone of your games.

 

[RicoJay13]

ever thought about building trash units instead of selling 100 food/wood for 14gold? i am quite sure that would be even stronger in your spreadsheet, so much more units on the field and a good window while you lose 80%+ of your ress to gaia.

Yes of course. The seller is only selling the excess wood for gold. Absolutely trash units are a wonderful addition to most armies. Just like Spanish, Indians or Italians will be better as trading civs, certain civs are better in a "seller" scenario where they have great trash, guilds (not that it is required), and final wood upgrade (again not a dealbreaker). Japs, Goths, Persians, Magyars, Malay, and Ethiopians come to mind. And while nobody would say the Celts have great trash with Hussars and Skirms that are putrid, they work great for this due to their wood rate (I get 31.6w/m in simulation), Halbs, option to go for guilds, and bang for the buck siege.

 

[RicoJay13]

And just like skittle said, as i mentioned before, that is the purpose of trash units. To be honest I havent ever won too many games selling resource for gold units, its just too expensive. I mean the best you can do is with mayans, the gold last 20% longer and you can sell food, that is if you get the market sale for yourself which requires many other things that is too long for me to mention. But best case scenario you could possibly spam plum until around 1:20 hr mins. But pala for example, if you didnt make trade, you will peak out very quickly, and then get over run by halbs 100%.

When people dont chicken out and I actually play them, that isnt my experience. You glossed right past the 14 minutes where the seller has lots more wood (trash costs wood except hussar), lots more gold. So more trash units, more gold units, 14 minutes. I like it.