Arms/Unit Trade

[Texan General]

Perhaps there should also be an option for a client state to declare thier debts for units null and void similar to what Europe did after both WW1 and WW2 to the US. This could come with a reputation hit or, depending on the level of complexity we find in the game, sactions by a world organization (or just the cheated nation). This would also add another diplomatic consideration - credit - one of the defining characteristics of government budgeting policy and bank loans.

 

[Urederra]

And what happens if a rented unit gets killed in the war? You cannot return it... so, what?

 

[Texan General]

I would suggest you would have to pay full price as if you had bought it. This would bear resemblance to the real life treaties that have been signed. Mercenaries might need to be simulated separately though through a worldwide mercenary market or something like that. I'm not sure how to address that last issue. Any help?

 

[apatheist]

I would suggest you would have to pay full price as if you had bought it. This would bear resemblance to the real life treaties that have been signed. Mercenaries might need to be simulated separately though through a worldwide mercenary market or something like that. I'm not sure how to address that last issue. Any help?

It may be simpler to just avoid private mercenaries. My answer (since they're all connected) is that this can be solved with the incorporation of barbarians as minor civs, and minor civs as just small, otherwise ordinary civs. Then you would have 15 civs to deal with, not 5, increasing the supply (and demand ;-) of mercenaries.

 

[Sickman]

I'm not too excited about the idea of loaning troops from other civs.
I think with new promotions system which probably play big part now mixes this whole issue into a mess.

Personally I would rather see different kind of alliance options were example you could ask your ally to attack specific city of your common enemy while you attack some other city.
I just don't like the idea asking troops from someone and then giving them back after they have done their share. How many of you would be prepared to give your troops to someone to get killed? Remember that is likely that troops now will be harder to get than before.
Like Aussie_Lurker said AI would have to be taught to understand the value of those troops and that isn't simple issue.

As said I would rather see first more options considering alliances and also I would like to see selling of units like it's done with resources now.
Also you could put your cities to produce desired units to your ally and ask your ally do the same thing if needed.

 

[apatheist]

Personally I would rather see different kind of alliance options were example you could ask your ally to attack specific city of your common enemy while you attack some other city.

I think coordinating that would be an even bigger mess. You'd have to communicate some pretty complicated plans, and the AI would have to be able to understand them and reason meaningfully about them.

I just don't like the idea asking troops from someone and then giving them back after they have done their share. How many of you would be prepared to give your troops to someone to get killed? Remember that is likely that troops now will be harder to get than before.

I think Texan General's suggestion of making them pay full price ("replacement cost," as the insurance companies say) if they die is a good one. That makes the AIs unlikely to throw them away, and even if they do, you won't care. As far as giving them back, it wouldn't be a voluntary thing. You either give them back and they disappear or you declare war. But even if you declare war on the real owner, their ownership reverts and they're already in your territory.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I say KISS (i.e. Keep It Simple Stupid No offense intended) is the best approach. Either you sell the other Civ the unit(s)-which is worth more to the seller, is permanent, and represents the trade in armaments-or you trade the unit to another civ-usually for a resource or GPT agreements over a set no. of turns-with the understanding that you get the Unit(s) back at the end of the trade duration, and essentially represents mercenaries. As you said Apatheist, if the unit(s) in the second option get killed, then the civ that lost it owes you whatever the unit(s) cost to build.
So, what are the key differences between selling and trading, aside from those mentioned above? Well, the former option is better for giving away large numbers of 'bog-standard' units to some Minnow that you simply want to curry favour with, wheras the latter option is good for handing over a highly specialised group of elite units to protect a valuable ally that is on the brink of losing control of a valuable city/resource.
The second difference is that the former requires nothing more than an Open Border agreement, wheras the latter requires at least an MPP or-better yet-an alliance with the other nation.
I don't think it will over-complicate the game, and simply requires a 'Sell Unit' and 'Trade Unit' option in the diplomacy screen.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Sickman]

I think coordinating that would be an even bigger mess. You'd have to communicate some pretty complicated plans, and the AI would have to be able to understand them and reason meaningfully about them.
.

Should have seen it coming.
I guess you are right that it would need maybe too much from AI.

I'm ready to accept the idea of loaning units, for me that just sounds little bit awkward. Personally I could see "mercenaries" more like group of soldiers that aren't part of any civ but instead you could buy them for cheaper (with maintenance cost and would leave after certain amount of turns)and they would join you but not from any civ as they are private soldiers.

But I think in overall all these options should be available as long as AI understands them and also that the concept is clear.

 

[apatheist]

Should have seen it coming.
I'm ready to accept the idea of loaning units, for me that just sounds little bit awkward.

Maybe a more specific description would make it sound less awkward. You're in the diplomacy view just like normal. An list of units appears on both sides. Each one has a "buy" and a "rent" associated with it. You line up what you want on your side and haggle over the terms. When the deal is settled, the units that are bought and rented disappear from where they are and appear in your capital*. You then use them as normal. Each rented unit has some way of indicating who the original owner is; perhaps they have a border around the main color that corresponds to the original owner. This is visible to other civs as well; they know where the unit comes from. In addition, the unit has in its status display an indicator of how much longer you have that unit. When time is up, the unit disappears and appears in the owner's capital (or the reverse of the procedure described below). You can also negotiate to keep them longer. You don't get the option of keeping them; they just disappear.

You want loaning units because it's a lot cheaper than buying them, and a lot cheaper and a lot faster than building them. If you figure the average unit's lifespan is 70 turns, then renting the same unit from someone else should cost substantially more over 70 turns, but substantially less over 20 turns. It provides both parties with some benefit, while deterring stupid aggression, because a weak civ is no longer limited to its own resources, but also not reliant on fickle and stupid allies.

* They may take one or more turns to get there, as well. Or they could get reflagged where they are and put under your control immediately, but that requires RoP, and causes problems with overseas transport. Or they don't get reflagged but get moved to the closest part of your territory, or, if none, the closest neutral ground between you, but again, there are problems with overseas transport.

Personally I could see "mercenaries" more like group of soldiers that aren't part of any civ but instead you could buy them for cheaper (with maintenance cost and would leave after certain amount of turns)and they would join you but not from any civ as they are private soldiers.

The idea of some magic pool of soldiers that you can dip into at any time is kind of strange. How do you price them? How do you make this supply finite, without introducing arbitrary caps or weird formulas? Why would you have anything more than a basic standing army if you can always rent mercenaries on demand?

 

[Sickman]

Maybe a more specific description would make it sound less awkward.

Thanks for accurate description.
It just feels weird to me but probably after some time playing it feels alright.
As said I'm not against the idea if someone makes it work properly.

BTW what happens if I declare war to those whom I loaned these units from?

The idea of some magic pool of soldiers that you can dip into at any time is kind of strange. How do you price them? How do you make this supply finite, without introducing arbitrary caps or weird formulas?

Ahem, the same way we price those soldiers taken from another civ?
Supply can be finite as it's with other civs.
Just create "Trader civ" that has these mercs for sale.

Why would you have anything more than a basic standing army if you can always rent mercenaries on demand?

The fact that you don't get to keep the mercs?
because of new promotion system maybe?

 

[Superkrest]

i dont find the selling or buying of millitary hardware akward at all..its a standard of the world..and in the game it could add a great aspect of the game...were now you find that smaller little neighbor of yours able to build massive armies...at a price of course. its a real world make it or break it idea..butter or guns...the US supplied many of the tools of war to the allies and even japan(pre 1938). Even today..the us is fighting many of its own weapons and soviet weapons that were given or sold to other nations. i dont however agree with selling units of people(ie infintry ) but hardware would be exellent...such as tanks and ships..if they do decide to allow all units..then any person unit is disbanded upon declaring war on its home

 

[searcheagle]

BTW what happens if I declare war to those whom I loaned these units from?

I guess that would depend on whether the enemy wanted to use the potentially unreliable soldiers or turn them into slaves that would work the ground until peace was decided. Needless to say, Rent would not be paid for the period of time.

 

[apatheist]

I guess that would depend on whether the enemy wanted to use the potentially unreliable soldiers or turn them into slaves that would work the ground until peace was decided. Needless to say, Rent would not be paid for the period of time.

That's an interesting point. Another option (not better, just different and simpler) would be for them to disappear. After all, no agreement lasts through a declaration of war, right? So if the other civ declares war, their agreement to serve ends, and they go home. Or, even worse, they return to their original civ's control, but remain in their previous positions. I think disbanding a unit without paying its "blood price" is a valid casus belli, to close that potential loophole.

Ahem, the same way we price those soldiers taken from another civ?
Supply can be finite as it's with other civs.
Just create "Trader civ" that has these mercs for sale.

There's a difference between an AI civ pricing its units for rent and some arbitrary game component doing it. After all, the AI civ can factor in its current cash position, its techs, its size, whether it likes or dislikes the civ you're going to fight with those units, whether it sees you as a threat, etc. And you can shop around for better deals also, based on those factors, how much you're willing to give up, whether you'll pay extra for Cossacks over regular Cavalry, etc. It gives you (and them) a lot more options. Military support is a complicated problem, and I think having a magic merc pool simplifies it to the point that it does as much harm as good.

A "trader civ" is a very strange idea to me. It's unrealistic, it's artificial, and it's much less flexible. Seems like that would cause more complexity and confusion than just adding another ability to standard diplomacy.

The fact that you don't get to keep the mercs?
because of new promotion system maybe?

That would have to be some powerful promotion system to make it worth it. Having an independent merc system makes for some really cheap insurance. Being able to rent units from another civilization is also insurance, but its costs are more in proportion with its benefits.

 

[Superkrest]

mercs...wouldnt be practical..its far easier and more realistic to be able to loan or sell units..it would also make negotiations deeper..."we wont go to war for you ..but i can offer you 3 battle ships at a bargain price to beat them down with". i feel that this idea would be the easiest and best suited to implement in this game ive seen on this forum soo far

 

[Sickman]

A "trader civ" is a very strange idea to me. It's unrealistic, it's artificial, and it's much less flexible. Seems like that would cause more complexity and confusion than just adding another ability to standard diplomacy.

If you consider it such then fine.

Let's use whatever system that works which AI can handle without significant loopholes.

 

[Texan General]

I like the way Aussie put it. Keep it simple stupid. Unfortunately I have observed several facets of this issue which would require slight complications and I hope I have addressed them adequately. To sum it all up so far I submit the following:

1. Selling units is the most simple option available. This method would allow you to purchase units of any type at a cost agreed upon by the nation(s) involved in the agreement. These units would stay flagged as foreign units however and in the event of war with the parent country would have a chance of 1. Disbanding 2. Declaring thier allegiance to thier parent country where they stand 3. Staying in the possession of the purchasing country. (The first two aforementioned options would have a relatively small chance of happening.) These units would have a set number of turns which they would survive before being automatically disbanded to simulate the lifespans of the troops.

2. Renting units haveing the larger number of complications and issues involved are somewhat more complex. Units may be rented for a number of turns no greater than the unit lifespan. Deals may consist of any form of payment including payment upon return of the units. Units which may be lost during the term of the rent will be considered purchased and the option to pay for the unit at a fair market value (which is determined during the initial negotiations) will be given. In the event the value of the unit is not paid or forgiven the parent country will have the option to declare war. A third option will be given to the various parties to simply continue payment of the rent of the rented unit in the event both parties should agree. In the event of war between the two participating parties the deal is considered null and void. Units will have (I assign percents here only as a rough idea) a 50% chance of coming back under the control of the parent country where they stand, a 25% chance of remaining in the control of the renting country, and a 25% chance of disbanding. Upon conclusion of the renting period all rented units will return to the parent nation's capital.

*Lifespans are based on the average lifespan of the populace of the parent country.
**An Embassy with the parent country is required to purchase or rent units from a country.
***In both deals the purchased/rented units would be transported to the purchasing/renting nation's capital upon completion of the player/computer's turn.

 

[GeorgeOP]

Units will have (I assign percents here only as a rough idea) a 50% chance of coming back under the control of the parent country where they stand, a 25% chance of remaining in the control of the renting country, and a 25% chance of disbanding.

So I agree to pay France 100gpt for a large chunck of it's military. I move the troops to a killing field, and declare war on France. For 100g*#turns to move, 1/4 of the group disbands, and 1/4 goes under my control. The other 1/2 are placed exactly where I want them. Even without being a good player, I can find a way to scam the AI.

I say no to renting, but yes to selling. You are buying the actual gears of warfare, not the troops themselves. No limit on how long they last. England buys some fighters and destoyers from America, they stay English until England agrees to sell them back.

 

[Superkrest]

mabye renting would work better if a nation only agrees to let you use there troops under your nations banner..only to attack a certain nation..when peace is declared...the troops(whats left of them) are returned home. and the deal ends

 

[apatheist]

I say no to renting, but yes to selling. You are buying the actual gears of warfare, not the troops themselves. No limit on how long they last. England buys some fighters and destoyers from America, they stay English until England agrees to sell them back.

Lending your army has a long and illustrious history behind it. It's only slightly more complicated than selling outright, so why omit it?

Texan, I don't understand why you introduced those additional complexities. Just say that purchased units stay bought and rented units automatically revert to original owner. Introducing the idea of some units rebelling randomly or switching loyalties would just be annoying and add nothing. I also don't understand this lifespan thing. Units don't have a built-in lifespan, and the agreement will have a duration as it is. Why add another variable? This is how I would KISS:

You can negotiate to rent or buy units in the diplomacy screen. If you buy a unit, it is indistinguishable from a unit you built yourself. If you rent a unit, iyou control it for a set period (20 turns). Units you acquire are transported to your capital the next turn. When the agreement expires, or if you declare war on the original civ, the troops disappear and reappear in the other civ's capital. You can negotiate an extension to the agreement just like with negotiating anything else. You can enter into these agreements with any civ with whom you are at peace and where there is a path from one capital to the other. If a rented unit gets destroyed while in your employ, you must pay its full construction cost to the owner; if you refuse, it is a casus belli. Leaders generated by rented units belong to the renter.

Issues of how to price them, which units to trade, how long you can keep them, etc. are part of the fun; the AI has its ideas and you have yours. Making those formal rules introduces tedium and micromanagement without much benefit.

 

[Texan General]

Honestly, most of my added complexities are for the benefits of realism. I'm certain you can reason out the basis for them given those grounds so I won't bother with the details. If this were a simpler subject I would agree that the implementation needs to stay very basic but I can already see the storm clouds of controversy on the horizon if realism isn't seriously considered here. Finally, one of the important things to consider here is that I'm assuming you are selling or renting not only the materiel of a unit but also the men. The idea of only selling hardware opens its own can of worms which I chose not to address in the interests of keeping it relatively simple. If you would like I could draw up a plan for hardware purchase or renting as well.