Trading military units

I think it would be great if you could buy and sell military units, like you can with workers.

Mercenaries have been common in human history and this would allow for a rich civilization with poor strategic resources to buy military units they can't build for themselves.
(And of course just build ordinary units instead of building them...)

This would also open up for interesting co-operations between countries, where you could support one side of a conflict with cheap military units without involving yourself in the actual war.

I'd love to give my horsemen to get cavalries. Yes!
Welcome to CFC, Pirog

Selling or gifting military units to other nations would definitely be an interesting addition to the game.
I think that 'bought' units would probably start out at a lower level of experience than a built unit, due to unfamiliarity with the routines of the nation that bought the unit.
I also think that there should be the possibility of other nations learning of this sale, but only if they had a spy or something established with one of the nations involved.

Denarr>

Yes, like with foreign workers the mercenaries native country should be shown.

You could send units to another Civ in Civ2.

I'd love to see this.

It would pose an interesting dilemma, though: how to handle civs whose UU is currently a mercenary, i.e., Netherlands and Carthage. It would be kind of silly is the Netherlands sold me a Swiss Mercenary, and then my unit was called "Swiss Mercenary (Dutch)".

Swiss Mercs and Numidian Mercs are meant to represent the fact that large portions of the Dutch and Carthaginian armies were comprised of foreign mercenaries. If you can buy and sell military units in the game, then armies comprised of mercenaries can be the result of a game mechanic, and so don't need to be artificially imposed by "mercenary" UUs. In other words, if Carthage wants to have a large mercenary army, they have to buy them from some existing civ, not get them magically from the Numidians, who don't even exist in the game.

Its a very minor point, I admit, but IMHO, if unit-trading gets added to the game, then the Carthaginian and Dutch UUs should be replaced by something uniquely Carthaginian and Dutch (naval vessels might be appropriate for both of these civs...).

I don't know how C3C handles captured units, but I would think that most nations would make their rentals wear the uniforms of the nation they're working with.
UUs would still be buildable by only one nation, but they could be bought, sold, bribed, to work for anyone.
Having them retain the coloration of the nation that built them, might be interesting, but would ultimately be extremely confusing when manuevering through a nation that had them, especially if they had turned against you.

Swiss Mercenary (Dutch)...just rename them. Besides, maybe the Swiss Mercenaries were a family of mercenaries that descended from Bob and Wilma Swiss. ...or not.

As Pounder wrote..."You could send units to another Civ in Civ2."
I never understood the reasoning behind removing that feature. It was a common historical practice. Sure, in modern times, different nations retained control of their troops, but there were still joint missions, in which the troops became mixed together...

How ironic would it be to buy a bunch of units from one civ and then use them to destroy their former masters. Of course one would have to have the tech required to purchase that particular unit from a civ. Also, maybe the AI would be more willing to trade/sell/buy units from another if they were currently in a MPP or military alliance with that civ.

thebrose said:

How ironic would it be to buy a bunch of units from one civ and then use them to destroy their former masters. Of course one would have to have the tech required to purchase that particular unit from a civ. Also, maybe the AI would be more willing to trade/sell/buy units from another if they were currently in a MPP or military alliance with that civ.

Click to expand...

I dont think the buyer of the arms should need to have the technology needed to build them himself! The indians never made rifles themselves, but bought them (or stole them) from the white man! And today the reason nations buy arms, often is that they can't build them theirselves! It must be possible to arm a backward civ with modern arms, if that is what you want to do!

I can understand the reasons behind mercenaries, but make them really expensive in maintenance! They're mercenaries and should not dominate the game ! And indeed, let them start for the other civ with standard three hit points instead as a veteran.

Would it be a bad suggestion to let both civs pay for the mercenaries? What I mean: 1. The civ buying them pays an amount to the first civ as part of the trade, and keeps on paying maintenance (1 gpt, their "salary");
2. The civ producing them evidently has put effort in their production (shields + gpt), but apart from that this civ also keeps on paying maintenance for them (reflecting in a sense, that the mercenaries still do maintainence on their equipment got from that other civ). I would suggest this second rule to avoid too much mercenaries running around the globe, or for too long.

And after for example Nationalism, they should become even more expensive.

What do other people think?

Regards,
Jaca

I completely agree with the idea of trading units. In this way you can make profit on other civ without having to enhance them bby giving a whole tech. However there should be some limitations, for example it wouldn't be cool to see a backward civ still in the ancient era going to war with tanks.
Overall, I like the idea of selling everything which can be produced. In this way the game will become even more diplomatic, which is one of the main features that separates Civilization from the ordinary strategies.

We see backward nations using units bought from other countries, all the time. Tanks, missile launchers, aircraft.... Why should Civ be any different.

As for having the country that sells them paying maintenance on the units, that's just silly, the country that bought them is the one that maintains the units. That is part of the cost.
Even if the seller did pay for maintenance, the cost would come out of the fees payed by the buying country, so maintenance cost for the seller would only exist on paper.
My landlord payed me wages to work for him, I payed him rent. Who's money went into the homeowner's bank account? Who's money went into repairing my busted water pipes? I rented me to him...part of my rent went to maintenance, but he was the one who payed for it, not me.

Would be great if we make a black market

This could be cool, but before allowing the AIs to trade military units, teach them to handle worker trades sensibly.

Civs should be able to sell units to other civs and buy them, likewise.

Sell Cavalrymen to a civ that doesn't have horses or saltpeter. Or give those units for free to your favorite civ without going to war directly.

I would also like to see some civs, like the Zulus and Iroquois, lose their ability to build modern units, as is the case in real life. This way it would be advantageous for them to be able to buy units from others.

I totally agree with you on the units trading, arms dealing is one of the alltime greatest industries (sadly) and should be an important factor, but i think making the Zulus unable to produce hitech would be unfair, what about the US?... they start at the same time as all others, but to my re-collection they're only a couple of hundred years old

Ps. Hi all...... this is my first post

Beloyar said:

Civs should be able to sell units to other civs and buy them, likewise.

Sell Cavalrymen to a civ that doesn't have horses or saltpeter. Or give those units for free to your favorite civ without going to war directly.

I would also like to see some civs, like the Zulus and Iroquois, lose their ability to build modern units, as is the case in real life. This way it would be advantageous for them to be able to buy units from others.

Click to expand...

I agree with reintroducing the Civ II ability to buy/sell/trade units.
There is a discussion about that in the topic Trading military units.

The only reason the Zulus and Iroquois don't have the ability to build modern units in the real world, is because they never gained the technology to build them.

Civ is a game of alternate history that allows all the nations the same chances that they would normally have had. In the real world, the Zulus and the Iroquois were conquered before they reached that level of technology.
If you were to defeat or suppress them early in the game, you would have duplicated what had happened in the real world.

"some civs, like the Zulus and Iroquois, lose their ability to build modern units, as is the case in real life."

Bit of a hornets nest this.

Romans, Greeks ancient in the game), Aztecs, Iroquois, Mongols, Celts, Carthaginians, Sumerians, Byzantines, Mayans, Egyptians (ancient in the game), Babylonians, Persians, Zulus, Ottomans, Arabians (ancient in the game), Hittites, Incas all banned from modern techs. Wow! your slip is showing somewhat. Some of these have not existed as a political or cultural entity for thousands of years.

Perhaps to redress the balance the Americans can sit on the sidelines until the eighteenth century and then make their bid for what's left of the world; Germany can start in the mid-nineteenth century when unification took place; etc. etc. etc.

I've heard of mercenaries, and alliances in which armies were put under control of foreign states, oh yes in Catch 22 didn't the US Airforce bomb allied sites because the Germans hired them?

Seriously, in the game the units are extensions of the research results and that is all they are. You can already sell technologies (somewhat easily compared with the real world, but that is game life for you) so what can such an idea do but undermine one of the major premises of the game?

Pondlife>

There is a big difference in selling a tech to a nation and support them with military units. I don't see why one thing should effect the other negatively.

It would simply open up for a lot of interesting strategies, where you could help wage war against a nation without formally declaring war...or keep a weak nation alive by selling or giving them surplus units you make.

Mercs have been used in almost every conflict during human history and are used extensively even today, even if they are not so often refered to as mercenaries for political reasons.