I would like to see the ability to trade in UNITS!!!!!

That is so cool !

And I would like to see the hard code on resources lifted!!

And I would like to have the spy unit back!!

And I would like to be able to add cultures!!

Thank u :)

I *only* like to see unit trading and for the others... ;)

Yes, I think units should be able to be traded. Although I wonder if the AI would be smart enough to handle this.

And what do you mean by the hard code on resources and adding cultures?

I'll gladly pay you two infantry on Tuesday for one tank today!

Unit trading would be nice.

yeah, they had unit trading in civ2, right? it could work

Would you be able to give that another civ units that they don't have a resource for or don't have the tech yet?

of course, you wouldn't actually trade the soliders themselves, just their equipment. (history has proven that slave warriors is a very stupid idea)
________
JEEP CHEROKEE SPECIFICATIONS (http://www.dodge-wiki.com/wiki/Jeep_Cherokee)

MarineCorps wrote :

Would you be able to give that another civ units that they don't have a resource for or don't have the tech yet?


Well, I would want the answer to this question to be yes, but with certain conditions. If you buy a unit for which you dont have the tech or resource or both, you are free to use the unit in any way you like. But if that unit gets injured and you still dont have the tech or resources, the only to way to heal it is to pay a certain fixed amount of money to the original seller. In this way, it would be pretty useless to use the unit against the seller itself. And it also gives the seller a steady income source. After all, that is the way things work in the real world. This will of course add new strategies to the game. But the real problem will be to design the AI to use it. If that's possible, this feature could be a real boon to civ fans.

Happy CIVing!!!

2 ways to deal with it:

If you dont have the tech, you cant trade for those units.

- Or -

If you trade for that unit, it gives you the tech. That's how it worked in Civ2. For example, if you gave a musket to another civ that didnt have gunpowder tech yet, they aquired the tech automaticaly.

I think this is more realistic. Like the Russians copying the B-29 or the US taking German rocket technology after WWII.

An idea: how about making them mercenaries?

You can "rent" units from a civ for 20 turns. While the deal lasts you can use them however you want, but with the additional twist that when the mercenary unit reaches 1hp in a battle it has had enough and quits, and goes back home (teleports to their capital, or nearest city, or nearest owned square).

After the deal ends all units that haven't already done so are teleported back home. I think, too, that the original civ ought to be the one paying the support costs. Of course, the support cost can simply be carried over to the rent, so this would only matter in cases where units get disbanded due to not having enough gold to pay their upkeep. Would make real world sense, too: the owning civ equips the troops (support cost) and the hiring civ pays a packet price.

A war against their own country would automatically cancel a mercenary deal with the declaring civ getting the blame for a broken trade deal.

This way you could also give military support to a weaker civ without going to war against his enemy:

"I wish to offer you a gift."
=> 30 mechs

...lean back and enjoy the show! :)

Here's what I'd like to see, which combines some of joespaniel's, bippukt's, and Pembroke's ideas:

You can trade units with other civs. If that civ doesn't have the required tech, all techs needed to make that unit are given to that civ, and the value of the techs is therefore added to the base value of the unit. (You don't necessarily have to sell it for that value, though.) You can also trade units even if the civ doesn't have the required resource(s). If you do so, the troops won't heal unless the buyer gives some money to the giver (representing buying a little bit of the resources). In this case, the unit has a normal value, because a) it can't heal (without extra cost) combined with b) the civ can't build that unit themselves, so you're the only source. ALSO, you can lend units for 20 turns. (Ideally, you could set the number of turns, but I think 20 might somehow be hardcoded into the game.) In this case, it's the same as completely selling them (except that they cost less, of course), with all the tech/resource stuff applied. If a civ uses its bought units against the supplier, they suffer a rep hit. This rep hit makes it impossible for them to buy units again (except with the human, of course.) It also affects other "trust" issues (ROPs, alliances, etc.), but only a little. If a civ uses its borrowed units against the supplier, they don't have to give them back, and they suffer a major rep hit.

I'm not sure if the AI would be able to handle this, though.

Nice ideas, Pembroke. I'd only like to mention that it'd be good if the mercenary was never able to attack its mother country. Perhaps they should also be prevented from attacking civilizations that their mother country is at peace with -- but maybe that would be too tight a restriction.

One possible (multiplayer) abuse occurred to me: Civ A rents for free all its units to civ B and vice versa. Presto: they now have a combined army where every unit teleports home when it has dropped to 1hp. Such units would then be healed with barracks and given to the other civ again...

A possible counter: whenever a merc drops to 1hp it surrenders, and the owning civ pays ransom (10g? 20g? A+D+M in gold? proportional to shield cost?) to the capturing civ if it has the money and only then the unit is teleported back home. If the civ can't pay the unit is disbanded. This "ransom-risk" would, of course, be included in the rent, but this would effectively make the "pseudo-renting exploit" not attractive.

I would like to keep the "surrender at 1hp" feature, because it would make mercs less powerful than ordinary units (essentially a -1hp penalty) and it somehow feels "right" in the context of mercs.

It would be nice to trade units to other (weaker, more backward) civs for gold. I don't think that a tech advance should be required, or a tech breakthrough possible from this. (It wasn't necessary for Saudi Arabia or Iran to build advanced aircraft in order for us to sell units to them.) One thing that would be nice to see is unit ethnicity, though. This would have to work in conjunction with units costing a pop point. If you rush a unit in a newly conquered city it will have the ethnicity of the civ you're at war with, and would have a chance of turning against you if used in open combat against its mother civ, or civs they were friendly with. This would perhaps necessitate rotating such units back to the homeland for garrison duty and bringing your own people forward to do the fighting - this has real parallels in world history. If you trade a unit for gold, though, it costs the recipient civ a pop point, as they are only buying hardware from you. This would be a fun way to manipulate world affairs from behind the scenes.

The ability to trade units would diffenitly give the game more depth. You could support and/or get rich from nations in foreign wars.
Help nations that act as a buffer zone between you and a larger civ with out actually going to war.

U all understand what I mean!

I WANT UNIT-TRADING!

I'd only like to mention that it'd be good if the mercenary was never able to attack its mother country. Perhaps they should also be prevented from attacking civilizations that their mother country is at peace with -- but maybe that would be too tight a restriction.
This is a good point. Technically, mercs attack whoever their employer tells them to, but if it is their home country...it really depends on the merc's level of patriotism. Civ3's rules are so simple that having things like defecting units seems out of the game's range. But for gaming purposes, keeping it simple seems the way to go.

Try the following for the 'mercenary' effect:

Units can be rented to other civs for period of (20) turns, as Pembroke said.
In order to prevents mix-ups, there's a catch: in order for unit "renting" to take place the two civs must already be in an Alliance; if the Alliance is broken, the "rent" deal ends (i.e. the rented units "teleport" back to their capital --under their own colors).

A simple way to have both mercenaries AND weapons trade being represented by 'unit trading' is to have unit trade work JUST like any other resource, tech or gold trade!!
eg. you could give a lump-sum gold, tech, or some resource/luxury for a given unit(s)-which would be the equivalent of a weapons sale in the real world. Alternatively, you could give them gold/turn for the unit(s)-which you could see as a mercenary arrangement!
I don't think that you should be able to give a unit to a civ which does not have the required tech-in the same way as resources are limited by tech in trades. I don't think that you should need the resource in order to recieve a unit in trade, though!!!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

The ethnicity Idea for Units would be really nice, but they maybe shouldn't cost a pop point, even though it would make the game more realistic, but it would just be better to make a limit like for example not more then 2 or 3 Units for pop. point of the CIV, meaning a CIV with 50 pop in its cities could not have more then 150 Units, The actual systems is not taking the manpower needed for a military unit.
About trading Units, it would be great, but 2 things:
1/ How are you supposed to get you bought/rented planes and tanks going without oil.... the CIV should have the ressource...
2/ Something nobody said, and which I thought absolutely unrealistic in CIV2 WHERE do you get the units, you should have to go and pick them up on the sellers Continent, or having him deliver them, but making them appear in one of your cities like in CIV2 was absolutely unrealistic...

I don't think that you should be able to give a unit to a civ which does not have the required tech-in the same way as resources are limited by tech in trades.
Trading Strategic Resources in Civ3 requires that the reciever have the required tech because it can't build the unit without the resource. It couldn't be any other way.
The reciever in a unit-trade deal requiring the tech is not quite as logical. Technically the giver civ has already built the unit so there is nothing stopping the reciever from using it. For instance, the US supplies the Isreal with F-15s. It doesn't mean that Isreal can't recieve them because it doesn't have the tech (i.e. facilities, ect.) that allows them to build more F-15s. From the game-play point of view having the reciever require tech would just get in the way because then it would imply that the reciever MUST possess advanced tech in order to use advanced units. This would require a poor civ that is given/sold/whatever a unit by a rich to also require the tech for that unit; i.e that the poor civ be at the same/similar level of technological development than the rich civ, which would be unfair. You could argue that the reciever civ must have the tech in order to repair damaged units and maintain them, but that would complicate unit-trading unecessarily. Civ3 is not that specific. Giving units high maintenace cost might change the situation a bit; i.e. in reality, poor countries that recieve weapons from rich countries cannot build their own not because they don't know how but rather because they cannot afford the expense (i.e. the facilities to build the weapon(s), the labour cost, the building materials, the maintenance, ect. They would go bankrupt. Another reason is that doing so would be a breach of contract with the company producing the weapon(s), but in Civ3 terms it just means you can't build the unit.

Giving units individual maintencance costs, initial build costs (in gold) and requiring certain city improvements in order to be built would reproduce this real-life effect. Unit-trading would play a huge role in Civ3 if this were the case.
[I created a thread on this (IUMC/Units Require Imp.) in the "C3C Requests" forum if you're interested.]

How are you supposed to get you bought/rented planes and tanks going without oil.... the CIV should have the ressource...
If a civ loses control of the required Strategic Resource, it can no longer build more of a unit, but that doesn't mean that the already existing units disband. So why should it be any different with unit trading?

But this does bring up the question: why don't units in Civ3 have fuel requirements? Why shouldn't a civ's units disband (or simply stop, when in a city) once control of the units' required "fuel" resource has been lost? This would also apply to unit-trading (i.e. a civ can recieve units, but if it does not have access to the required resources, it can't use the units; or just not be able to recieve the units to begin with).
[I also created a thread about this ("Unit Supply") in the "C3C Requests" forum.]

...you should have to go and pick them up on the sellers Continent, or having him deliver them, but making them appear in
one of your cities like in CIV2 was absolutely unrealistic...
Good point but CIV's interface is just too simple for that, but I guess the unit could always just change color or appear outside the city it was in...(?)

Unit-trading is definitely something that would improve CIv3's gameplay (i.e. make it more involving) and would probably be quite easy to implement.
Nice thread, alireza1354.:goodjob:

I think you should be able to sell your unit to any backwards civ. They should not receive the tech automatically, it should just help them a little in the research process. So that you can continue to sell the same unit to them and make money until they themselves aquired that tech.
And once that civ have bought that advanced unit from you, it should just function exactly in the norma wayl for simplicity's sake. Let's assume that the initial cost of the unit also includes the repair cost(repairs done by you).
Units should not be rented. It rarely happens in history. (yes in WWII), but renting military unit to another civ is simply stupid idea, and too complicated. Not good for game play.

Remember CIV2, giving a CIV a unit it couldn't build gave it a chance to receive new technology through the trade... wasn't so bad...

Units should not be rented. It rarely happens in history. (yes in WWII), but renting military unit to another civ is simply stupid idea, and too complicated. Not good for game play.
"Renting" also means Mercenary units. This has played a significant role in the past (particularly in Europe) and will probably play a big role in the future (high tech mercenary armies are already close to becoming a threat in various hot zones throughout the world).

wasn't so bad...
Wasn't bad but wasn't good either. It meant that by giving an ally one advanced unit, you gave that civ a free tech as well. If you went to war with this ally later on, this seemingly insignificant friendly move would bite you in the ass.

Wasn't bad but wasn't good either. It meant that by giving an ally one advanced unit, you gave that civ a free tech as well. If you went to war with this ally later on, this seemingly insignificant friendly move would bite you in the ass.

Now this is certainly realistic. If you think about the U.S. and who some of their friends were decades ago, who are now their enemies.

well, I guess since you know it, it's up to to you wether to take the chnace or not

Now this is certainly realistic. If you think about the U.S. and who some of their friends were decades ago, who are
now their enemies.
When the U.S. gives Isreal F-15s, it doesn't mean Isreal will start building F-15s --part of the reason is that it would be illegal. USSR sending weapons to N. Vietnam does not mean that Vietnam can suddenly produce AKs ad eternum --it lacks the infrastructure to do so. CIV is too simple to include these economic factors, so we just assume that it's not an available option. If CIV was more dependent on infrastructure (e.g. Carriers require expensive Ship Yard improvements to build), then it would not be such a problem. As things stand, there would be too much of a downside to giving away 1 unit if unit trading were like Civ2; i.e. the moment you give the unit, they get the tech and start building that unit for themselves. So, not getting a free tech with the unit is as realistic as CIV can be as it is.

In 1940-41, we had the "Lend-Lease" deal in which we loaned England a bunch of destroyers in exchange for some small islands in the Caribbean that they didn't need anyway. This helped England protect the shipping convoys from the German U-Boats and allowed them to survive. Before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, most Americans were against U.S. involvement in the "European" war, so this was Roosevelt's way of getting us into the war without actually getting us into the war.

Trading units would allow you to prop up a smaller civ that is getting pounded on by a larger civ. This is a great idea!

I would love to be able to sell a dozen tanks to Germany in exchange for 1000 gold. That would be sweet!

I don't see no reason not to allow it, with only a chance of receiving a missing tech.... When the Chinese got the US Spy plane a couple of years ago and got to dismantle it, they most certainly got technology out of it, therefor the same chance would only be realistic in the game...
the part of helping a civ against another one without going to war would also be great...

Well, that would be an example of a unit being destroyed and the attacker possibly getting the tech --that sounds like a good idea but it would make 'fluke' wins all the more tragic; as if losing an expensive, advanced unit (which can happen far more easily in Civ than it does in reality) weren't bad enough, the enemy gets a free tech too! Also keep in mind what I said above how Civ3 doesn't take infrastructure into account (i.e. in reality, you need advanced labs, ect. to build adavnced weapons --in Civ3, the lack of this would mean that even the poorest player could start building Stealth Bombers the moment they shoot one down).

As far as unit TRADING is concerned, Civ3 isn't that specific; i.e. complicating it with added realism (that's minus the reasons for not doing so that I mentioned above) seems unecessary. If you want to give a unit AND tech, then you do should do just that --tech should not be automatically be included with the unit. That is to say that you should have the option of giving one or both.

Of course, first thing's first: UNIT TRADING has to be on Firaxis' list of things to add...is it? Should be. It would just mean including all units into the already existing (sell) 'Worker' option during negotiation, and not limiting it to only units in the giver/seller's capital city. That doesn't sound too difficult.

I wasn't saying one should get techs from destroying a unit, just saying that maybe getting tech by being sold isn't all too unrealistic.
Yoshi, you are definitevely right, one shouldn't only need ressources to build units, but also city Improvements...
One last thing I wish to recapitulate, a unit shouldn't be, as are the workers, transported by miracle to the buyers capital... THAT is absolutely unrealistic...

...a unit shouldn't be, as are the workers, transported by miracle to the buyers capital... THAT is absolutely unrealistic...
I shall elaborate a little on the solution I presented earlier:
Assuming you would have to be allied with the reciever/giver civ, and Alliances imply Right of Passage, the unit in question would just change owners on the spot --without losing experience, or regaining health; i.e. only ownership and nothing else changes. As for units in cities, they would 'teleport' to the nearest available square to that city (this is case the city is on just a single land square --island, thus the unit will go to the nearest friendly land tile).
With this in mind, there would have to be a comprehensive way of determining, during negotiation, which units you have available to sell/give and their locations.

Although, you shouldn't be surprised if Unit Trading gets incoperated into Civ3 but uses the Civ2 teleporting system. My solution would require siginificantely more changes to be made to the program than just tweaking the already existing Worker option. So, considering how restricted Civ3 designers are budget-wise, it's unlikely that they would go that far. In other words, count your stars if they even put in the effort to inlcude Unit Trading.

Trading units is also more realistic as compared to real life.
There are two ways to trade.:
1. The weapons are given and training on their use is given (ex: Israel and India)
2. The weapons are given and the technology to produce more is also given ( ex: USSR/Russia and India)
Another possible option is the mercenary whose destroyed before the 20 turn contract, leads to the borrower paying the lender civ half the cost of the mercenary in gold.