One thing that nobody else really addressed so far is that either you need to invest into trade later anyway, because selling wood for gold just takes too much population, so you need to invest the resources into trade anyway, so why not do at when you still have gold left that you're mining? So unless you can finish off a game with the investments saved by not building trade, it's worth it to make trade anyway, or you will lose a lot of resources later in the game.
If by nobody has addressed it you mean my video clearly addressed the pop cap issue by devoting the exact same population to wood choppers as the trader devotes to trade carts, then yeah. If you play 300 pop games and can devote more pop to wood choppers than the trader can devote/afford to trade carts, then the payoff goes well past the 14 minutes Ive calculated.Exactly - its the same as saying that you shouldn't upgrade to Hussar unless you have over 90 Hussar, except you only have 200 pop to play with so 40 light cav are always worse than 40 hussar, because pop is your limiting resource.
Thanks for doing the math. I appreciate it, and would love to look at the spreadsheet. Calculating the waves of trade carts was a real challenge and I respect anyone who can do so and get a similar payoff time of 15 minutes. Id be curious to use equal pop as I did and see what your calculations land on.OK you complain about people not doing the math ? Here you go I did the math :
First, let's setup the experiment :
4v4 BF map, with a messy trade line and a bunch ob buildings in the way. Each player has 4 markets in the corner and will pump out 70 trade carts. It's pretty unrealistic but let's assume you are all going for paladin or something. Let's focus on player 1.
Let's assume P1 has 70 lumberjack, and he deletes them as trade carts are created. These villagers have perfect efficiency with no bumping, so a gather rate of 37 wood/min. Again, pretty unrealistic but let's be generous. The player will sell all its surplus of wood, and can compare the difference between replacing these 70 villagers with trade carts and with just keeping selling.
Also, the player starts with 2.3k gold in the bank, and wood is irrelevant.
As you would expect, when you setup trade your bank starts to go down, until the first cart comes back from his first trip. It took about 6:40s for the trade cart to do this. At this point, gold was down to 656. After that, trade starts paying for itself. We are still below what we could have had if we didn't invest into it, but it doesn't need additional investment.
It took 15:00 to catch up with the player just selling wood with 70 villagers. Now you must be saying : see ! 15 minutes, and you had to invest 3500g and you only just caught up with just selling. Except no, as there are two things you forget :
1) The initial investment is only of 1644g. It's the gold you invest without seeing a single return. Past that, trade itself generates the gold you need for trading + benefits.
2) The gold differential between trader and seller is of 2.5k at 6:40, which means that at this exact moment, the seller can spend 2.5k gold more in military, that's about 35 mangudai if you factor in the wood cost (wood that you couldn't sell). But first the seller doesn't have extra pop space since he needs to sell, and that gold only makes a difference if both players are spending all their gold. If the trader is not struggling for gold despite setting up trade, then just selling is worthless, you're just stockpiling gold that you don't need.
In conclusion, with all these generous estimations in favor of the seller (extremely messy trade route, high trade cart goal, ideal lumberjacks, gold already in the bank to spend it), not setting up trade gives you about 2.5k gold to spend over 6 minutes to gain an advantage, past this point the trader will have a higher gold income than the seller and be able to replenish forces more easily.
If you want I can provide the recorded game as well as the spread sheet with all the calculations.
For reference this is the type of trade we are dealing with :
View attachment 165781
I think you extremely overestimate the value of 35 mangudais, specially since the seller doesn't have more pop space than the trader. You have to create these units, and making 35 mangudais from 4 castles would take almost 5 minutes, so it's more a steady stream of a couple more units than a big mass you have available really.Thanks for doing the math. I appreciate it, and would love to look at the spreadsheet. Calculating the waves of trade carts was a real challenge and I respect anyone who can do so and get a similar payoff time of 15 minutes. Id be curious to use equal pop as I did and see what your calculations land on.
Even the most anti-wood calculation should allot it 14 cents of market sale.
Given equal skill, 35 Mangudai is closer to being a game ender than it is to being a meh. In fact Id argue that you'd be hard pressed to set up a game scenario where, all things equal, 35 Mangudai dont end it. 6 minutes or 14 minutes is an eternity. The traders advantage only works out if he can protect his trade line, which he has to do with less gold for that breakeven period.
Ultimately this comes down to whether you want to delay your advantage by a few critical minutes, around 14 minutes give or take. I respect you if your take is to agree with the established meta that you should trade because the initial advantage of NOT trading isnt enough in your opinion. My entire point was that its worth considering. Theres obviously always a million factors to decisions in this great game, but I stand by the decision to trade not being an always and a no brainer one. If you have a lousy looking trade route and a great trash civ, pushing an early edge vs trading could easily win you a game.
I just made up 35-40 Mangudai because its a powerful unit. You can insert Cavaliers, Onagers, Elephants, Arbalests or any other gold unit here. Some are more pop efficient, easier to mass since no castles needed, etc. I might set up a scenario where I test equal pop of the same units vs each other, where one group of units has upgrades equal to this initial gold advantage that the wood chopper has. Something like 50 knights vs 50 Paladins. I both realize everyone will respond that this isnt something that happens in their games, but its still the mathematical reality. When I boom and forgo trade, I walk into many peoples bases and find less well upgraded and fewer units. Games end then and there. Perhaps because everybody except me trades every time, logically youve all never experienced the power of an additional 3k gold power spike. In a world where everyone trades, nobody sees anyone with that early edge. Try it once. I promise I have tried trading more often than you have tried not trading ha!I think you extremely overestimate the value of 35 mangudais, specially since the seller doesn't have more pop space than the trader. You have to create these units, and making 35 mangudais from 4 castles would take almost 5 minutes, so it's more a steady stream of a couple more units than a big mass you have available really.
But of course trade is an investment, you will be more vulnerable while waiting for the benefits. But for a fully boomed player the vulnerability should not be too big of a deal, since the eco can absorb the gold deficit for a few minutes.
Fatslob?gl walking in my base with 20 pala when I triple fortified walled it. Then 10 min later when you've finally broken through I'll be waiting with 40 halbs 20 SO and some trebs to kill you and push straight into your base.
1700 HD players are too inefficient for any of this to be relevant. At this level any strategy is viable because nothing is optimized, from build order to unit control or overall macro. Anecdotal evidence is always worthless, even more so at lower levels.
If you are actually 1700 on HD and you boom vs Trirem for 35 minutes I think you'd be dead by 37 minutes no matter what he chooses to sell :DAgreed, thats why I only include it as icing on the math cake. Was your offer to share your google doc with me rhetorical? Would you be up for a challenge BF match 1v1 where we boom for say 35 minutes each and then you tribute 1/2 the gold and wood advantage the wood chopper has to me and see who wins? I used half because that would simulate the gold and wood advantage that the wood chopper has.
If by nobody has addressed it you mean my video clearly addressed the pop cap issue by devoting the exact same population to wood choppers as the trader devotes to trade carts, then yeah. If you play 300 pop games and can devote more pop to wood choppers than the trader can devote/afford to trade carts, then the payoff goes well past the 14 minutes Ive calculated.
My offer was very much serious, I can link it when I get home.Agreed, thats why I only include it as icing on the math cake. Was your offer to share your google doc with me rhetorical? Would you be up for a challenge BF match 1v1 where we boom for say 35 minutes each and then you tribute 1/2 the gold and wood advantage the wood chopper has to me and see who wins? I used half because that would simulate the gold and wood advantage that the wood chopper has.
Absolutely. My video states that my analysis is for maps where wood is a non issue, such as BF. Thats also the scenario that Trirem used above. Also the meta is that people ALL trade on even maps like BF. Its almost as though people couldnt care less whether wood is in short or heavy supply: they just trade ALWAYS. My point is its not a no brainer, and the trader takes awhile (14 minutes) to recoup that substantial wood and gold investment.no what i was saying that you missed the big picture - wood is a finite resource but gold from trade is infinite. eventually its like 600ish wood for 100 gold and then poof you're out of wood and can't build farms and then your're buying food and then you're gg.
Im just a lowly HD player, but I am siege onager ready by 38 minutes when I have say pocket in BF and boom unbothered. If you have a game screen where you can see your trade income at minute 38, I would bet that trading hasnt paid off by that point. That would require, according to my math, starting full uninterrupted trade cart production from 4 markets by 24 minutes of game time. Another easy way to verify it would be: do you have 40+ trade carts by minute 38 if you stated by minute 24.In BF, everyone should be fully walled long before you can take advantage of the market burn. So even if you get a small advantage from this, rather than trading, you shouldn't be able to push before researching SO. By the time SO is researched, trade has most likely payed off over a market burn.
The thing clearly not being taken into account is that against good players you simply can't boom and push fast in BF without SO. Only exception is when everyone is rushing in some way, and map is very open. Its basically a do or die, to not get trade in BF for the majority of civs.
If the game has even skill between the two sides, its unlikely the game will finish immediately at the min 38 mark in your referenced scenario. Not to mention, that when I trade boom I'm pretty sure I have 40 carts by min 38. Regardless; even if you have lets say 20 carts by min 38, that means if the game lasts even another 5 minutes you are in a better position. To risk the game being over that fast is only worth it if you are very inferior civs and its a do or die move.Im just a lowly HD player, but I am siege onager ready by 38 minutes when I have say pocket in BF and boom unbothered. If you have a game screen where you can see your trade income at minute 38, I would bet that trading hasnt paid off by that point. That would require, according to my math, starting full uninterrupted trade cart production from 4 markets by 24 minutes of game time. Another easy way to verify it would be: do you have 40+ trade carts by minute 38 if you stated by minute 24.
I guess we will never know...If you are actually 1700 on HD and you boom vs Trirem for 35 minutes I think you'd be dead by 37 minutes no matter what he chooses to sell :D
Completely possible and I agree that once trade reaches the point where it pays off, that investment is very much paid off for that player and their position is favorable. But games are often won earlier rather than later in my worthless HD experience.for more open maps (arabia as example) this might be more viable, since in certain scenarios it might easier to keep pushing by selling resources for gold, rather than adding trade (which is not very safe).
However in those scenarios you would prefer taking the neutral golds, or even better your enemy golds instead of selling for gold. Also if you (on your flank) dont deal enough damage, and can't push through to their trade you'll find yourself in a late-game scenario where you don't have trade setup, and can't afford to build new tradecarts without lowering military presence. At this moment you'll likely get pushed back by an enemy who sees the return of their trade investment, you will be losing your forward gold miners, losing your offensive position, and you will be forced back off to your own side of the map where you heavily deforested the woodlines to keep up with your selling tactic. Basically you're dead.
It doesnt have to be over by 5 more minutes, the pushing civ just has to be in the trade corner. Or have destroyed production buildings.If the game has even skill between the two sides, its unlikely the game will finish immediately at the min 38 mark in your referenced scenario. Not to mention, that when I trade boom I'm pretty sure I have 40 carts by min 38. Regardless; even if you have lets say 20 carts by min 38, that means if the game lasts even another 5 minutes you are in a better position. To risk the game being over that fast is only worth it if you are very inferior civs and its a do or die move.