Giving & receiving military units to other players in game

[youngsteve]

One area I have always thought was a bit lacking was being able to give military units to other civs & vice versa. I know people will see this as a bit of an advantage to the player, but I wasn't thinking all out like with CS. I was thinking more in the way how civs demand or give gold/resources to player/other civs or ask you for you to supply them, which you would not have any control over except when given/asked. If asked it would be up to you to supply one of your untis or none if you didn't want to.

Although a small thing, this could make the game more interesting in my opinion. Any thoughts about this idea.

 

[Tyskzipyz]

I have always wanted to give some of my conscripted units to my puppets or a civ that's on the verge of losing, like a more diplomatic way of warfare. The idea itself is interesting but I think there's too much hassle to implement and balancing such mechanic.

 

[Anarcomu]

Implementing should not be an issue, it is a vanilla feature. Balancing, on the other hand... Can't say. It was probably removed for a reason.

 

[Recursive]

Implementing should not be an issue, it is a vanilla feature. Balancing, on the other hand... Can't say. It was probably removed for a reason.

Correction, you can do it if you're on the civ's territory. You can't do it from a distance like with City-States.

It was removed because AI couldn't make use of it.

 

[CppMaster]

It was removed because AI couldn't make use of it.

Why? It cannot make strategically good decisions? Because it could be executed similar to Great Musicians: Move a unit into a territory and choose an action.

 

[Recursive]

Why? It cannot make strategically good decisions? Because it could be executed similar to Great Musicians: Move a unit into a territory and choose an action.

There's no code for it to know when it's a good idea, nor to move units there.

 

[CppMaster]

Ok, so matter of decision making, not execution.

 

[civitasjohn]

Could it be easier for AI to gift money to keep/sustain another player in war?

 

[Tekamthi]

imo this would be a very desirable feature... I'm vanilla it was fun in mp to pump up ai's with units on the sly at times. I think the vanilla mechanism is never gonna work for ai though. It would have to be via diplomacy screen somehow; very heavy lifting dev-wise.
Presumably the AI already knows when it should or shouldn't gift to CS so I wonder if that logic could be adapted for trade between majors.

Alternatively it might be replicated via expansion/modification of the strategic resource system, since ai can already trade those. This route kinda makes more sense, as irl we may see equipment exchanged, even raw manpower to some extent, but rarely in history have entire units been reassigned to other nations

 

[msw1]

It doesn't necessarily have to be that complicated. It could be something that AI civs only do with other civs that they have a defensive pact with. The logic could just be something like:

If I (an AI civ) have a defensive pact with my ally, and
my military is in the top 25%, and
my ally's military is in the bottom 50%, and
I have not given my ally a unit in at least 20 turns, and
my ally is not at their supply cap, then
I will give my ally a unit that doesn't require any strategic resources.

 

[greenfieldpark]

Sounds like something that should be proposed. I would be for it.

 

[bonniepbilly]

It reminds me of the feature in Civ7 where you can support one side in a war... (I didn't quite understand how it works though).

On a related note, I feel like it is never possible to bribe an AI into a war. I understand it should generally be very expensive, but wasn't the threshold set too high? Do you have the same experience?

 

[phoenix2054]

I agree that a key ingredient missing within game has always been the concept of ‘arms sales’. And I fail to see why decision making would be an issue for the AI

Example, civ A has militant leanings that form part of its ideology, has an abundance of cash but it isn’t doing too well as a civ in terms of production & technology. – This civ definitely qualifies as a potential buyer

Meanwhile civ B is in quite the opposite position. Cash is an issue, but has modern units to spare and an inclination to produce. Ie we have a potential seller

Whats hard for the AI? Civs needn’t have a pact. We’re talking about beneficial trade like any other resource in the game

Units wouldn’t have to be in the buyers territory either. That would only apply for ‘gifting’. If you buy units they would be transported straight to you

If you can broker tech, then you should be able to broker units

 

[msw1]

With no pact you run the risk of the AI doing dumb things like selling units to a civ that wants to destroy them.

Also, if a civ has abundant cash but few units, they can just buy units. No need to buy them from someone else.

 

[phoenix2054]

With no pact you run the risk of the AI doing dumb things like selling units to a civ that wants to destroy them.

Also, if a civ has abundant cash but few units, they can just buy units. No need to buy them from someone else.

not quite. Their tech maybe lacking. So they'd prefer to buy someone elses units than their own. But ye, fine in regards to having some sort of pact/treaty as a requirement

 

[nekokon]

The decision making would be too complicated to make this not abusable by players.
Note how strategic resources valuation are also gated the same way (AI extremely overvalue theirs and undervalue yours, even when it's not being used) because it's very hard to make clear distinction how much is one unit's value when it varies constantly depending on the actual situation at hand.

Personally I'd say put it back in as an advance option for ppl who want to enjoy the roleplay aspect and don't try to exploit the system, as it does affect balance heavily just like some other advance options.

 

[CppMaster]

Personally I'd say put it back in as an advance option for ppl who want to enjoy the roleplay aspect and don't try to exploit the system, as it does affect balance heavily just like some other advance options.

That could be too much work for an optional advanced option, which is not focused on.