Arms/Unit Trade

S

sk065

Chieftain
Joined
Jun 30, 2005
Messages
48
Hi, Im new to this board but have been playing civ since Civ 1 appeard many moons ago. I tried searching for this but couldnt find anything.
Anyway, my suggestion would be that Civ 4 has some kind option to set up units as tradable commodities. Perhaps even a lend/lease option so that you could for instance lend an army to your ally for gold or a resourse etc.
It would give the game an extra dynamic IMO. What do you think?
 
You were right to search however I don't know how could could have missed this topic in your search. Look at this: http://www.google.com/custom?q=unit...GIMP:#800000;AWFID:655166cfdba57af8;&x=19&y=8

Actually, there arent any recent threads on the topic. Lets keep this one going. Its a very popular idea here. Someone should put out a poll on the topic.

I feel that it would add a lot more strategy to the game. It would keep a real option in the game to be a commercial civ-Anytime you get a war you can buy or less units (Hopefully someone will trade with you) and sell them at the end.
 
I think renting might be better. There's lots of historical precedent for that kind of mercenary behavior. Or you could just demand the use of some other civ's military, which could be like feudalism or a vassal relationship. It certainly would make coordinating military attacks, like how all forces assigned to NATO are under a single chain of command.
 
I like the idea. Sell your units, like in the cold war, with the US and Russia selling their jets to people, or like the Spanish dictator in WWII, aiding Germany until defeat was certain, etc.
 
i agree with this..it would allow smaller nations to still be military powerhouses.(isreal). the game now suggest that if you dont have the city base..your military suffers..i dont think thats true. by the way..welcome :D
 
Thanks for the welcome :) Just to extend this idea further, I think i higher maintinance cost or restricition on movement/attacking/defending should be implemented for civs that do not have the necessary technology for the related given unit.
 
apatheist said:
I think renting might be better. There's lots of historical precedent for that kind of mercenary behavior. Or you could just demand the use of some other civ's military, which could be like feudalism or a vassal relationship. It certainly would make coordinating military attacks, like how all forces assigned to NATO are under a single chain of command.
Click to expand...

I think that should be included but should not be the only way.

The arms industry industry is an way of obtaining real world advanatage. Here are some Stats:

Exports (In Billions)
US-4.5
China 3.1
France 1.3
UK 1.1
India 1.1

Imports
China 3.1
UK 1.3
India 1.1
Greece .9
Pakistan .8


It would also make for great game and even more elaborate diplomacy.
 
That's just the hardware, not the soldiers/sailors/airmen. As far as I know, there are no plans in civ4 to separate the hardware from the human component in military units (like, say, Colonization). As a result, that would be more complicated to model. Would you supply some half-built unit? Or would you separate a unit into two parts? The former is weird, and the latter is a substantial change.

Also, that's the modern world. Things were different in previous parts of history. A lot of Renaissance-era fighting in Italy was by mercenary companies. French and German troops fought in the American Revolution. Rome, Persia, Russia, Byzantium, and just about every other empire demanded troops from their vassals to use for their own purposes. It was the essence of feudalism as well.
 
That's just the hardware, not the soldiers/sailors/airmen.
Click to expand...
Details, details. The practice has enough benefits to be included. If this is a major hang up, have there be a one turn delay for the units to "recruit" men to run the machines.
 
yeah..when isreal bought f-15s from the us...they didnt have us pilots..rather they had there own...maybe not all units(infintry rifleman etc..) but boats planes artillary tanks etc...i think its a wonderfull idea. its a standard in the world...the world (for the most part) uses US or Russian weapons,or some variant of them
 
searcheagle said:
Details, details. The practice has enough benefits to be included. If this is a major hang up, have there be a one turn delay for the units to "recruit" men to run the machines.
Click to expand...

Fair enough. Sounds like you could do both unit rental or sale in the game without much fuss.
 
I am firmly in support of this idea. I think it could be expanded upon in such a way as to increase the realism and need for good diplomatic skills. This idea could be combined with the concept that a nation which needs to purchase or rent thier military might not have the capacity to support that military logistically. They would then need to purchase the ammunition and other supplies needed for the upkeep of this new field army. Where would they go? Easy, they would establish a trade with the country that sold them the weapons in the first place to purchase the needed supplies. This adds a new resource which is created by large manufacturing potential in your country, ammunition/military supplies. This could add even further depth as the nation selling the weapons could pressure the fighting nation to come to terms and end the war or to continue fighting. This would in turn see the creation of diplomatic blocs similar to what we saw in the cold war with client states and superpowers vieing for domination.
 
very well stated texan general. as a large civ it could become very lucrative to sit back and pump out machinary of war. this could also be done as contract.(lets say 10 units at 125 gold a unit) or at bulk(we would like to pay you a fee of 1300 gold for the use of 10 of your tanks that are un used) allowing time to still manage cities or to help a liked neighbor in a war with a nation you do not wish to directly combat with. this could also create a unique enviroment were a little non millitaristic, commercial nation could stand up to there larger agressive neighbors, something that usually means sure doom in civ terms
 
what that allows is for 4 new types of civs:

1. Commercial-They can buy/rent units to fight opponents.
2.Productive-They can produce and sell/rent units them making money.
3. Militaristic-They steal others work
4. Brokers-They buy and sell and rent units opportunistically.

And diplomatics situations would change they way civs dealt with each other.
 
Superkrest said:
very well stated texan general. as a large civ it could become very lucrative to sit back and pump out machinary of war. this could also be done as contract.(lets say 10 units at 125 gold a unit) or at bulk(we would like to pay you a fee of 1300 gold for the use of 10 of your tanks that are un used) allowing time to still manage cities or to help a liked neighbor in a war with a nation you do not wish to directly combat with. this could also create a unique enviroment were a little non millitaristic, commercial nation could stand up to there larger agressive neighbors, something that usually means sure doom in civ terms
Click to expand...

Or you could be an arms dealer to both sides. Course you could also be sign an exculsive agreement, for a premium of course.
 
Ok, so let's suppose I'm the United States and I don't want to get involved in this ugly war between Britain and Germany. I do have my favorite, though, so I sell Britain lots of artillery shells for cheap. That's going to make Germany mad, because, even though I'm not directly fighting the war, I'm helping their enemy. Having that kind of depth in civ would be excellent.
 
No body welcomed you, sk065, so Welcome to CFC [party]
I agree with unit trading. It would have helped me in my last game.
 
Though I would love to see a differentiation between Mercenaries and Arms sales, I think it would just be a heck of a lot easier to have just a single Unit Trade (which, BTW, we at least know is available for Multiplayer games).
What must be done first, though, is that the AI must be taught to properly value units that a player tries to sell him/her. If the unit is clearly obsolete, or if the player asks for far more than the unit is truly worth, then the AI should quite happily turn down the offer-and even get angry if they feel like they are being cheated.
Once this is achieved, then I genuinely feel that Unit trades can add a huge amount to the game-especially now that we know that you can actually send two nations to war ;)!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.
 
Aussie_Lurker said:
Though I would love to see a differentiation between Mercenaries and Arms sales, I think it would just be a heck of a lot easier to have just a single Unit Trade (which, BTW, we at least know is available for Multiplayer games).
Click to expand...

The game already allows you to borrow money (though I've never used that). If you have that and selling units, borrowing units seems like a logical and simple addition.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Lord Lakely
Filling in the gaps - Charting the optimal Civ Switches
7 8 9
Replies
163
Views
5K
Lord Lakely
Lord Lakely
T
Better way to implement AI difficulty bonuses
Replies
1
Views
579
Krikkit1
K
Lazy sweeper
Things that should get done before launch that can benefit gameplay.
Replies
1
Views
491
Lazy sweeper
Lazy sweeper
P
My assessment for the developers (hopefully they see this)
Replies
3
Views
774
Pontifex7
P
evonannoredars
Scythians - Semi-Nomadic Antiquity Age Civ Concept
Replies
4
Views
757
evonannoredars
evonannoredars
Back
Top Bottom