Arms/Unit Trade

[Aussie_Lurker]

Mind if I chime in again? One of the major complexities regarding the lease-rather than sale-of units is in regards to the question 'but what if I end up at war with that civ?'
Well, if you look at my previous post, you will see the answer. You simply would not be able to loan a unit to another civ unless you had an MPP, Protectorate/Vassalage or Alliance with them. This is not only fairly realistic, but is good for gameplay too. Why? Because all of the above agreements need to be Formally Ended prior to that civ going to war with you. i.e. a civ cannot-whilst in an alliance with you-suddenly declare war. They must formally revoke the alliance first-at which point all loaned troops get immediately returned to your territory.
Selling units, OTOH, is a terminal agreement-where once sold they no longer belong to their original civ. Such 'arms trades' require little more than an Open Border agreement-the minimum required to conduct trade relations.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[apatheist]

If you consider it such then fine.

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

If they can't program the AI to properly assess the value of its units, why do you think they could program this "trader civ" to do it correctly? I think valuing units is simpler than you think and they'll be able to pull it off easily. If I'm wrong, it's going to be wrong whether it's Russia doing it or some murky, imaginary condottiere civ.

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.

The problem with making it realistic is that in reality, these units had their own commanders who bickered and argued with their commanders about what to do. They refused to be cannon fodder. They threatened to surrender, to leave the field of battle, or to switch sides if they didn't get their way. They debated strategy and tactics. They were in constant communication with their own leaders keeping them apprised of the situation. In order to effectively model reality, you would need to be able to negotiate very finely with the AI. You'd have to coordinate bombardments, who attacks in what order, who takes what city, whether to attack Marseilles or Lyon first, etc. That's a big PITA, so I say ignore it. In the real world, mixing operations that closely didn't generally work out that well. It was easier to just put one guy in charge. I mean, the core concept of renting units is realistic; it's the details that get bogged down. So ignore the details and just make it dirt simple.

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.

Hardware is important, but it's not the most important. More important are training and sheer numbers. Battle discipline, maintaining formation, preparing and firing a musket, knowing how to ride a horse, etc. are of much greater significance in terms of investment than a sword or a saddle or a rifle. Those things are necessary, but the biggest effort has always been toward getting more, better soldiers. I imagine that the production cost of a unit is mostly about recruiting and training, and only a little bit about providing the actual hardware.

One of the major complexities regarding the lease-rather than sale-of units is in regards to the question 'but what if I end up at war with that civ?'
Well, if you look at my previous post, you will see the answer. You simply would not be able to loan a unit to another civ unless you had an MPP, Protectorate/Vassalage or Alliance with them. This is not only fairly realistic, but is good for gameplay too. Why? Because all of the above agreements need to be Formally Ended prior to that civ going to war with you. i.e. a civ cannot-whilst in an alliance with you-suddenly declare war. They must formally revoke the alliance first-at which point all loaned troops get immediately returned to your territory.

I agree with you in general, but I don't see how ending an alliance is different from ending a peace agreement. What is special about an MPP or alliance? In my example, declaring war makes the units disappear immediately. You can't even use them to attack the owning civ. After all, the game makes declarations of war happen before attacks, even if you use the attack to initiate the war. Yours is not a bad idea; it's just redundant. I don't see this as a major complexity at all. If you declare war on your lender, you lose what you borrowed.

 

[searcheagle]

Introducing the idea of some units rebelling randomly or switching loyalties would just be annoying and add nothing.

Agreed in times of peace with the selling unit. Although the Texan Gentleman was referring to only in the event of war and the units are being leased, and I agree with him then.

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?

Agreed. Units would be staffed by their home county if the units were sold. If the units were leased, they would be staffed by the leasing county and they cycled as long as the lease lasted.

If you buy a unit, it is indistinguishable from a unit you built yourself.

Agreed. This would be common sense unless the combat bonuses applied to all units, in which case, these should come with the new units.

If you rent a unit, iyou control it for a set period (20 turns).

This was one of of the dumb things in Civ 3. It was either aggregating or harmful. It should not be repeated in Civ 4. THe per turn length shoudl be variable.

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.

Doing it this way will cause the exploits that got Unit trading banned in the first place. The units should move as fast as they do if the player were moving them from Point A to B. They move there when the trade begins and back when they are completed. When the units are in transit, they are good to noone, unless the trade is extented.

When war begins, then some will stay (defect) and others will convert back to their orginial, and others will be converted into POWs.

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.[/quoted]

The sides should have a set fee for lost units, however, if they fail to pay it, it will result in a rep hit, not a state of war.

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.

Depends on the rules: If the rules decrease exploits and increase strategy, they are good.

 

[apatheist]

Agreed in times of peace with the selling unit. Although the Texan Gentleman was referring to only in the event of war and the units are being leased, and I agree with him then.

I don't understand what that adds. This is going to be a relatively infrequent situation. It's not often that you'll declare war on a civ that is renting you units. Adding that complexity to a rarely-used feature seems more trouble than it's worth. It would lead to either never declaring war on a nation that was renting you units or stationing your own units right next to them right before you do so that you could take out the ones that turned. If you want to prevent declarations of war like that, then make it a rule. For the latter, I don't see how that would add any enjoyment to the game. It could easily be exploited as well. I could rent many units from you and then drop them off on some continent. Then I declare war on you. All of your units may return to your control or just a few of them, but either way, I don't have to worry about them.

This was one of of the dumb things in Civ 3. It was either aggregating or harmful. It should not be repeated in Civ 4. THe per turn length shoudl be variable.

How variable? I think a treaty that lasts 17 turns would be pretty silly. There's not a big difference between 16 and 17, or 17 and 18. If it was variable, but limited to multiples of 5, that might be better.

Doing it this way will cause the exploits that got Unit trading banned in the first place. The units should move as fast as they do if the player were moving them from Point A to B. They move there when the trade begins and back when they are completed. When the units are in transit, they are good to noone, unless the trade is extented.

What sorts of exploits do you mean? I can imagine a way for the mechanism you suggest to be exploited. Let's say I want to attack you. I enter a treaty to rent a big part of your army. Let's say it takes them 9 turns to get to me. On turn 8, I declare war on you. Now I have half your army out of commission and unusable for 8 turns, at little cost to me. That is an exploit.

The sides should have a set fee for lost units, however, if they fail to pay it, it will result in a rep hit, not a state of war.

Non-payment of other debts is a casus belli; why should this debt be different?

Here's a separate question. If I'm renting units to you, should I be able to see what they see? I'm leaning toward yes, but I can be convinced either way.

Here's another question: can I sub-lease units? If I'm renting knights from the French, can I then rent those same knights over to the Germans? I'm leaning toward no on this one.

 

[searcheagle]

I don't understand what that adds. This is going to be a relatively infrequent situation.

Regardless, it still happens and there will have to be a system to deal with it.
What it adds the element of risk into unit leasings.

It's not often that you'll declare war on a civ that is renting you units.

Again, it still happens so there would have to be a way to deal with it. It would most likely happen as a result of an MPP agreement.

It would lead to either never declaring war on a nation that was renting you units or stationing your own units right next to them right before you do so that you could take out the ones that turned.

You should be doing these anyway.

If you want to prevent declarations of war like that, then make it a rule.

I dont know what you mean. I want to have system in the game to discourage this kind of war not institute rules.

It could easily be exploited as well. I could rent many units from you and then drop them off on some continent. Then I declare war on you. All of your units may return to your control or just a few of them, but either way, I don't have to worry about them.

Then why would you be renting them? Also, war has negative consquences, ESPECIALLY, if you caused, like in this case.

How variable? I think a treaty that lasts 17 turns would be pretty silly. There's not a big difference between 16 and 17, or 17 and 18. If it was variable, but limited to multiples of 5, that might be better.

There is no reason to limit it just to increments of 5 either. That is the idiocy of the 20 turn system. Reasons for more or less:

ROP-Only need it for 3 turns and you want to limit your exposure to ROP rape.
Trade- YOu want to have a resources for a long time and therefore lock into it.
Resources-You have a resource coming on line in 10 turns and dont want to be without for those 10 but dont want to pay for it the other 10 turns either.

etc., etc. Just give us the freedom and ability to decide.

What sorts of exploits do you mean?

It was used to teleport units. I have 10 swordmen on a far off continent, I sell them to you. I then buy them and they show up in my capital, saying dozens of turns. I think that was used in Civ2.

I can imagine a way for the mechanism you suggest to be exploited. Let's say I want to attack you. I enter a treaty to rent a big part of your army. Let's say it takes them 9 turns to get to me. On turn 8, I declare war on you. Now I have half your army out of commission and unusable for 8 turns, at little cost to me. That is an exploit.

How? It was your strategy to lease your units. It was even dumber to rent ALL of your units. You get what you pay for. No exploit. A risk to unit trading. So, on turn 8, the army goes back to you because the lease never began because they never reached you.

Non-payment of other debts is a casus belli; why should this debt be different?

I want to discourage the player from going to war. He already wants too.

Here's a separate question. If I'm renting units to you, should I be able to see what they see? I'm leaning toward yes, but I can be convinced either way.

I would say that depends.

Here's another question: can I sub-lease units? If I'm renting knights from the French, can I then rent those same knights over to the Germans? I'm leaning toward no on this one.

As long as you are able to fulfill your duty to return the units.

You lease the units from the French for 20 turns and lease them to the Germans for 19. As long as you get them back on time, it doesnt matter. Although you could make a dipl agreement where you vow not to do that.

 

[apatheist]

Regardless, it still happens and there will have to be a system to deal with it.

Right. I suggested a system because it could still happen. But because it was rare, I made it the simplest thing that could possibly work, because there was no benefit to making it more complicated.

What it adds the element of risk into unit leasings.

Why do you need additional risk? The lender is risking something by loaning out an army it might need. The borrower is risking something by paying to borrow something it might not need. Heck, why do you want to introduce risk into this in the first place? Why introduce a capability and then discourage players from using it?

Again, it still happens so there would have to be a way to deal with it. It would most likely happen as a result of an MPP agreement.

Again, I did suggest a way.

You should be doing these anyway.

You're saying that rented units should always have a shepherd? No matter what? What's the point of doing it then?

I dont know what you mean. I want to have system in the game to discourage this kind of war not institute rules.

The system is already there: reputation. If you stab them in the back, you take a hit in reputation. It operates at the diplomatic level, not at the unit level. Making renting units into a ticking bomb will just make people frustrated and ignore the capability.

Then why would you be renting them?

Because you want to strand their units. Let's say you rent half of their army and send them off into limbo. That makes your conquest a lot easier, not to mention you get back a big chunk of the money you gave them.

It was used to teleport units. I have 10 swordmen on a far off continent, I sell them to you. I then buy them and they show up in my capital, saying dozens of turns. I think that was used in Civ2.

That exploit is better solved by making the AI more intelligent. I mean, if I sell you some units, presumably you want them. If I ask to buy them back the next turn, it would be pretty dumb of you to sell them back, especially if you did so at the same price.

You can nail it down even more. You can restrict transactions to units in a city. If and when the deal expires, the units go back wherever they started. If I rent you the Spearman in Thebes, it magically goes to whatever city you choose. When you're done with it, it reappears in Thebes. There are several different ways of doing it that avoid the exploit without introducing random rebellions and all that.

How? It was your strategy to lease your units. It was even dumber to rent ALL of your units. You get what you pay for. No exploit. A risk to unit trading. So, on turn 8, the army goes back to you because the lease never began because they never reached you.

Er... ok. That avoids the exact scenario that I described, but it does nothing for a slightly different one. Ok, so I wait the exact number of turns till the units are mine, move them onto some ship or some island, and then I declare war. I've eliminated a chunk of your army without firing a shot.

I want to discourage the player from going to war. He already wants too.

Why do you want to discourage this? The player should be neither encouraged nor discouraged from going to war by anything other than the costs and benefits.

I would say that depends.

On? I figure it ought to be the same. Either you can or you can't.

As long as you are able to fulfill your duty to return the units.

You lease the units from the French for 20 turns and lease them to the Germans for 19. As long as you get them back on time, it doesnt matter. Although you could make a dipl agreement where you vow not to do that.

I see that as being a potential problem. Let's say I borrow them from the French and sublet them to the Germans. What happens if the Germans declare war on the French? Or vice versa? Do the units revert back to me? They were rented from me, though, and I'm at peace with Germany. Do they revert back the France? Why? I'm paying for them...

 

[Texan General]

Ironically given the initial accusations against my previous summary I find myself in a position to suggest that this issue has now been over complicated. Various assumptions have been made about what I meant in various phrases and incorrect interpretations have been made surrounding my previous submission of a plan. When I wrote my previous suggestion I meant everything I said and nothing I didn't. The words, phrases, and suggestions included were meant to be taken literally and at face value.
Renting Units was never meant to be done in a chain-like fassion with one nation loaning to another who loans to another and so on. Likewise, I assumed that the units loaned were individuals rather than an organized unit (though your opposing thought is not negative, it only creates the basis for a future argument). Furthermore, for the purposes of simplicity I ignored the historical precedents for line of sight in rented unit for the parent country and thier unruly behavior in favor of simply leaving such complications out. Furthermore, I declined to mention anything about lease lengths because I consider that tied into the subject of the scope of diplomacy, an entirely different subject.

Another serious concern regarding this issue has centered around exploitation of the AI. I think it is a given that virtually everything revolves around the quality of the AI and thus no feature will reach a truly quality level without a strong AI backing it up. Exploits in general are there because the AI is too stupid to either negate thier effects or prevent them altogether. Further, agreements with terms are meant to be risky, a fact not altogether recognized by popular opinion. These agreements always came with the risk that they would not be fulfilled and thier value has always reflected that in real life. Paying nations understand the implications along with the recieving nations. I might point out that the Versailles treaty involved a payment over time agreement that was never fulfilled. This is realistic and, when considering issues based on realism, obviously appropriate. Yes, there are exploits involved but none that aren't in real life.

 

[K.F. Huszár]

1. Civs should be able to TRADE or LOAN military units.
2. A sold or loaned military unit should got assimilated to your nationality after a while (e.g.20 turns). If it was a unique unit it should turn to the "normal" or "original" variation of the type.
3. If you enter war with a civ that bought/loaned units from you, these untis are either to mutiny; or to surrender; or to remain loyal
mutiny: if your civ is culturally superior; if the units are close to your capital; if a special covert operation is accomplished; if you were attacked
if mutiny occurs in a tile in which the hostile civ's original units are stationed, then the rebel unit must fight them or flee if quicker
surrender if the unit is stationed on a tile which is occupied by an overwhelming stack of hostile units. if a surrender happens, then the unit is turned to worker and some shileds are added to a nearby city especially if it is producing military equipment
loyalty if the sold/loaned unit is stationed far away from its orig.civ's border; if they are bought by the hosting civ; if the hosting civ is culturally superior
4. these are probability rules, so they are added and counted what to happen (mutiny, surrender or loyalty).

So, that"s my point of view about selling units. It should be installed in Civ4.

About discussing military plans: i think it is wise idea. It should be applied in offense (remeber Alpha Centauri - "you should attack x while i move in force against y") or in defense (i need help in x city - or near y city).

bye

 

[apatheist]

People keep saying they think mutiny should be in there, but I haven't heard much rationale for it. Nor do I understand why bought units need to be assimilated. Why is that better and not just different? I hope it's obvious that's it's more complicated. If you're choosing a complicated mechanism over a simple one, there had better be a substantial benefit to the complicated one. Maybe it's lost in the shuffle up above, but I haven't seen a clear statement of any benefit.

 

[searcheagle]

Why do you need additional risk? The lender is risking something by loaning out an army it might need. The borrower is risking something by paying to borrow something it might not need. Heck, why do you want to introduce risk into this in the first place?

The lender is really only risking one thing:

Not having troops when he needs them. This system would stop or slow down the Power curve in Civ by have a single civ from lending units all of the world to every and building up a never end amount of power.

Why introduce a capability and then discourage players from using it?

Because in Civ I want NO solution to be all positives. If the decision is all positive, then it is not a decision. I see a solution such as yours being almost all positive. France suddenly declares war on British and 3/4 of the Leased British calvary units in his territory are right there to attack him.

You're saying that rented units should always have a shepherd? No matter what? What's the point of doing it then?

What are you talking about? I merely pointing out that you trust your lending partner. As far as the defecting thing, I purposefully left it small to prevent an exploit factor.

The system is already there: reputation. If you stab them in the back, you take a hit in reputation. It operates at the diplomatic level, not at the unit level. Making renting units into a ticking bomb will just make people frustrated and ignore the capability.

The player does not have good access to the reputation, not know what does into it and so forth. Extending the Rep system to unit trading will encourage people to play more honestly, not create a ticking time bomb, unless the players play merits it.

Because you want to strand their units. Let's say you rent half of their army and send them off into limbo. That makes your conquest a lot easier, not to mention you get back a big chunk of the money you gave them.

This is no greater then the standard risk of unit trading- your troops being unavailable when you need them and the solution is simple- DONT TRADE UNITS IF YOU CANT PROTECT THE HOMELAND. Also, you would not get any money back because you broke the deal.

If I ask to buy them back the next turn, it would be pretty dumb of you to sell them back, especially if you did so at the same price.

No it would not be dumb to sell them back at a higher price- you just made a profit. If you make a profit for selling back units, why wouldnt you do it?

You can nail it down even more. You can restrict transactions to units in a city. If and when the deal expires, the units go back wherever they started. If I rent you the Spearman in Thebes, it magically goes to whatever city you choose. When you're done with it, it reappears in Thebes. There are several different ways of doing it that avoid the exploit

Those solutions would be workable.

without introducing random rebellions and all that.

Who is introducing random rebellions? The defections are extermely limited in scope and time period. That hardly fits the definition of random.
Why do you want to discourage this? The player should be neither encouraged nor discouraged from going to war by anything other than the costs and benefits.

On? I figure it ought to be the same. Either you can or you can't.

On this agree with you. However, it depends on how the unit leasing would be implemented.

I see that as being a potential problem. Let's say I borrow them from the French and sublet them to the Germans. What happens if the Germans declare war on the French? Or vice versa? Do the units revert back to me? They were rented from me, though, and I'm at peace with Germany. Do they revert back the France? Why? I'm paying for them...

It does make it messy but it opens up a number of diplomatics options as well:

1. Non tradeable- You can use these units but noone else can. These would cost the least in trade terms to the borrower.
2. Trade to others- You or an opponent can use these. These would cost more due to the potential risk but you could potentially make more money as well.

 

[searcheagle]

When I wrote my previous suggestion I meant everything I said and nothing I didn't. The words, phrases, and suggestions included were meant to be taken literally and at face value.

When you propose an idea on the forums, others are allowed to do what they want with your idea: Praise it, criticize it, or propose changes to it. And propose changes to your idea is what ultimately happened to your idea.

Your idea on Unit trading has sparked other thoughts/concerns, etc on the topic.

 

[Texan General]

A couple of thoughts regarding the ongoing argument:

1. Embassies should be required to sign a unit trading agreement in order to simulate limited access.
2. Units should be moved into a civ's capitol upon trade but should not be available for a second trade or for use until the following turn to prevent exploits and simulate movement to a reasonable extent. (Perhaps territory capitols, if that feature was included, would be a better choice.)
3. Civ's should be able to trade UU's but they should stay UU's if they do not have lifespans. Without lifespans we are simulating an appoximation of military recruitment rights to an area of land and thus the troops recruited would still have essentially the same qualities the originals did after any period of time.
4. The reason for possible mutinee is simulation of the allegiances of the troops themselves. Allegiances may change or stay the same over time and thus the troops we are speaking of in this thread would have a chance of throwing thier lot in with either of the two parties involved in the wars which seem to perplex this forum. Ultimately the benefit to this is realism as well as a trade off between having your own army and having a temporarily purchased army. The trade off lies in the fact that rented/purchased units would be less reliable in where thier loyalties lie whereas domestically created troops might not be as good and would be more expensive but there would be no questions of loyalty and reliability. (Again, I must stress the realism issue. This is a feature which will see much future debate if not realistically and properly implemented.)

When you propose an idea on the forums, others are allowed to do what they want with your idea: Praise it, criticize it, or propose changes to it. And propose changes to your idea is what ultimately happened to your idea.

Your idea on Unit trading has sparked other thoughts/concerns, etc on the topic.

Again I find misunderstanding. It seems these forums are frought with it but I suppose that is the cost of having to communicate through a means other than face to face. Granted, changes were proposed and thoughts spoken however many of them were based on things which were assumed about my suggestion. In order to offer a viable rebuttle one must first understand what was said. It is impossible to hold a reasonable, productive discussion based on unfounded assumptions about statements which were meant to be interpreted at no deeper level than the literal. In essence my response was meant to remove fears of consequences and aspects of my proposal that were never listed, a significant problem I noticed after reading the responses. In formal debate this would be called a "Kritic" and, in this case, would be meant to undermine an opponents argument by makeing it invalid and off subject. Your point is taken however and valued highly.

 

[apatheist]

The lender is really only risking one thing:

Not having troops when he needs them. This system would stop or slow down the Power curve in Civ by have a single civ from lending units all of the world to every and building up a never end amount of power.

You're assuming you'll always find a willing buyer. Maybe everyone is at peace right now. Then I'm stuck. Renting troops should always be more expensive than building your own, at least on a long enough timeline. As such, you would only rent units when you really needed them. Additionally, the lender of units still has to count them on the books, so to speak. If I lend out 50 of my 100 units, I still have to pay the 50 gold per turn maintenance cost. Hopefully, I'm getting paid enough to cover that, but there's no guarantee.

Also, that single civ with the enormous army wouldn't have an enormous army on hand unless its agreements ended. I may have an enormous army on paper, but part of it is working for China, part of it is working for India, and part of it is working for the Aztecs. I could cancel all my agreements, but then I don't have any income from the troops and I'm saddled with this enormous army that I can't pay for. Furthermore, I'm devoting all this production to military units while other civs are building temples, marketplaces, and libraries. I may have a massive army, but I'll quickly have no techs, no trade, and no culture. Furthermore, my construction of a large army may provoke the other civs to band together against me out of fear. These aren't risks in the dramatic sense of units rebelling against me, but they're still pretty sizable as far as the game goes. Compared to those, rebellion is just a small annoyance.

Because in Civ I want NO solution to be all positives. If the decision is all positive, then it is not a decision. I see a solution such as yours being almost all positive. France suddenly declares war on British and 3/4 of the Leased British calvary units in his territory are right there to attack him.

That's not a positive; France is still at war with England. If England gets all their units back, France has to fight them off still. I don't see how my solution is any worse than the status quo with no unit renting.

What are you talking about? I merely pointing out that you trust your lending partner.

I said that it would put you in the position of having to follow all the mercenaries with your own, loyal units so that when you declared war on your lender, your units would be there to put a bullet in the heads of the ones that mutiny. In response, you said "you should be doing that anyway," which I found to be a rather confusing comment.

The player does not have good access to the reputation, not know what does into it and so forth. Extending the Rep system to unit trading will encourage people to play more honestly, not create a ticking time bomb, unless the players play merits it.

Huh? I'm not sure what you're trying to say, so I'll restate my point. If you stab an ally in the back, your reputation takes a hit. Other civs will be less likely to make deals with you and will demand more in exchange when they do. They'll also be more likely to attack you. That should be enough to keep you honest without having to deal with mutinies. If it's not, well, they just need to tweak the AI to make it more sensitve to back-stabbing.

This is no greater then the standard risk of unit trading- your troops being unavailable when you need them and the solution is simple- DONT TRADE UNITS IF YOU CANT PROTECT THE HOMELAND. Also, you would not get any money back because you broke the deal.

You can never be sure whether you have enough. It's not a yes/no thing where, once you hit 42 units, you're safe. It's always a gamble. If I can trick you into moving even a part of your army out of the path of my army just by giving you money or something, it makes it easier to conquer you.

When I said you'd get the money back, I meant that in the context of conquering their cities and plundering them, and possibly getting them to pay you for peace. Besides, I don't have to pay you in gold. Maybe I gave you a city that I took right back. Maybe I was giving you furs.

No it would not be dumb to sell them back at a higher price- you just made a profit. If you make a profit for selling back units, why wouldnt you do it?

You would. I'm saying you'd have to pay a bunch of money for the exploit. Let's say I sell 10 swordsmen to the AI for 100 gold each. The next turn, I want them back, but the AI demands 120 gold each. My magic teleportation will then cost me 200 gold total, which is a pretty big chunk of change at that phase of the game.

Of course, that exploit is moot, since we agree that units must leave from a city and then return to that same city.

Who is introducing random rebellions? The defections are extermely limited in scope and time period. That hardly fits the definition of random.

Random in the sense that some units rebel and others don't, and you don't know which will do what. Random also in the sense that this is the only context in which units have free will. Units can't switch sides, surrender, rebel, spontaneously disband, or smoke opium in other circumstances, so why should they be able to do so in this situation? If units have free will in this setting, why can't they have free will in other settings?

It does make it messy but it opens up a number of diplomatics options as well:

1. Non tradeable- You can use these units but noone else can. These would cost the least in trade terms to the borrower.
2. Trade to others- You or an opponent can use these. These would cost more due to the potential risk but you could potentially make more money as well.

I think it's just easier to forbid sub-lease. I think adding that complexity is deep into diminishing returns on the effort.

A couple of thoughts regarding the ongoing argument:

We're not arguing, we're discussing ;-).

1. Embassies should be required to sign a unit trading agreement in order to simulate limited access.

Why simulate limited access when you already have it? You can only trade with civs you know and are peace with. They're only going to lend you what they think they can get by without, and they're going to try to squeeze as much out of you as they can.

2. Units should be moved into a civ's capitol upon trade but should not be available for a second trade or for use until the following turn to prevent exploits and simulate movement to a reasonable extent. (Perhaps territory capitols, if that feature was included, would be a better choice.)

How about a different way of stating it: units that have moved cannot be traded, and trading a unit uses up its turn.

3. Civ's should be able to trade UU's but they should stay UU's if they do not have lifespans.

I have no opinion on whether trading UUs should be allowed.

4. The reason for possible mutinee is simulation of the allegiances of the troops themselves. Allegiances may change or stay the same over time and thus the troops we are speaking of in this thread would have a chance of throwing thier lot in with either of the two parties involved in the wars which seem to perplex this forum. Ultimately the benefit to this is realism as well as a trade off between having your own army and having a temporarily purchased army. The trade off lies in the fact that rented/purchased units would be less reliable in where thier loyalties lie whereas domestically created troops might not be as good and would be more expensive but there would be no questions of loyalty and reliability. (Again, I must stress the realism issue. This is a feature which will see much future debate if not realistically and properly implemented.)

Again, this is an issue of free will. Your troops don't have free will at any other time. If they're going to have free will, they should have it all the time, not just in this one narrow case. If you don't want units to have free will in other cases, then don't give them free will at all.

Again I find misunderstanding. It seems these forums are frought with it but I suppose that is the cost of having to communicate through a means other than face to face.

Ha. I think face-to-face discussions just make it easier for us to think we communicated clearly.

 

[Texan General]

I think you misunderstand what I am saying when I say limited access. In this case I am refering to your ability to acess the troops themselves rather than to the government of those troops. Embassies imply a presence in the region and thus a means to recruit. That aside, it isn't a particularly important facet of the issue and would not have any adverse effects that I can think of.

On the subject of mutinee you seem to be fixated on a somewhat irrelevant subject. This feature would be included in the interests of realism and therefor realism is the preeminent factor in determining the issue. What the unit have and do not have at other times in the game is irrelevant. When realism is applied to the situation it becomes apparent why mutinee is reasonable in this situation and not in others. There are no instances of mutinee on this level in history without some other factor being involved. Civil Wars and Mercenary situations seem to be the only times (again, historically) that units defect or mutinee in large numbers. Therefore, considering civ's focus, it is unreasonable to presume to give units the oppertunity to mutinee at any other time besides those two instances.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

Remember what I said previously, guys. KISS!!! All this talk of mutinies and the like just seems to add way to much complexity for a civ level game-whilst adding precious little to gameplay.
I think a very simple arms/unit trade system is the best way to go, with a choice between Loan and Sell-with the limitation based on the degree of relations between your two nations. Just my $0.02c worth.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[apatheist]

I think you misunderstand what I am saying when I say limited access. In this case I am refering to your ability to acess the troops themselves rather than to the government of those troops. Embassies imply a presence in the region and thus a means to recruit. That aside, it isn't a particularly important facet of the issue and would not have any adverse effects that I can think of.

You're not recruiting your troops from the foreign civ, though. You're contracting the with the government to get the troops they already have recruited. As such, you don't need a presence; you just need to be able to reach each other. Although, given that establishing an embassy is pretty trivial, I guess it doesn't really matter much. I do think it's too much to require an MPP or RoP, though; peace ought to be enough.

On the subject of mutinee you seem to be fixated on a somewhat irrelevant subject. This feature would be included in the interests of realism and therefor realism is the preeminent factor in determining the issue. What the unit have and do not have at other times in the game is irrelevant. When realism is applied to the situation it becomes apparent why mutinee is reasonable in this situation and not in others. There are no instances of mutinee on this level in history without some other factor being involved. Civil Wars and Mercenary situations seem to be the only times (again, historically) that units defect or mutinee in large numbers. Therefore, considering civ's focus, it is unreasonable to presume to give units the oppertunity to mutinee at any other time besides those two instances.

I'm "fixated" on it, as you put it, because of two things. One, realism is nice, but gameplay takes priority. If making it more realistic makes it less fun, then realism should get thrown out. Two, if you're going to insist on realism, then you need to be consistent about it. It's realistic for troops going into an unwinnable battle to run away. It's realistic for troops getting beaten to surrender. It's realistic for troops to desert because they don't want to fight. It's realistic for troops to protest and rebel when they get sent too far from home. If you want realism, be consistent about it. All of those have plenty of historical precedent.