Like in real life: BUY & SELL UNITS BETWEEN CIVILIZATIONS!

[egaonogenki]

Different countries' militaries buy and sell from and to each other in real life, so why not let that happen in this Civ game?

In Civ 4, I could only gift units. I would stand to profit well (perhaps) if I could SELL my units to other civs. I don't have Civ 5, so I don't know whether we can sell units to other civs there or not.

By the way, make it so that the more sophisticated your unit is that you're selling, the more Gold you'll earn! (You wouldn't stand to make much off of the sale of a Warrior, but would make a FORTUNE selling a mecha (called a GDR back in Civ 5.)

 

[Browd]

Countries buy and sell military equipment, but not military units. A stack of crossbows is potentially useful, but isn't a unit of trained crossbowmen. Tanks without crews, supporting infantry and logistical support make good lawn ornaments. What you are building in Civ when you train up a military unit is not just equipment, but a whole process of recruiting, training and, yes, equipping a military unit that is prepared to fight (albeit at a basic-training (i.e., unpromoted) level, unless you recruit that unit in a city with XP-providing buildings).

Frankly, gifting units in prior games was hard to justify on any basis other than gameplay grounds.

 

[m15a]

It sounds like trading units would be pretty complex from a user interface and AI perspective. And it doesn't sound like it adds that much to gameplay.

If you're interested in just interested in paying money for units, you can do that in your city screen. If you're interested in getting rid of units for money, you can disband them (and maybe increase the earnings if need be). If you're interested in having other civs take control of your units, then gift them (or disband your unit and give them money to buy their own units). If you're interesting in decreasing the military power of other civs, well, then you're probably not a good trading partner.

 

[migkillertwo]

There's little gameplay or historical value to allowing civilizations to buy, sell, or gift units. The most obvious reason is that such trades almost never happen between great powers. China, Russia, France, UK, and USA, for instance, build all their own military equipment (ships, tanks, guns, planes, etc.). The only instances where military aid makes substantive contribution to the "course of world history" if you will is military aid to client states from great powers.

If you ask me, Civ 5 does a "good enough" job by letting civs gift units to City States (but if you ask me, there should be quite a bit more reward for doing so)

 

[Ryika]

I think gifting Units to another Empire should be easier and more efficient, because it would allow us to more efficiently take part in Global "Diplomacy". If I want to use half my army to pump up the power of that small Civ that is about to be overrun by that super-state next door - both on another continent - then I should be able to. Well, maybe restricted to more modern eras.

But other than that I do indeed not see much actual use for unit trading. It could even hurt the gameplay if you can trade production in addition of Gold.

 

[killmeplease]

i recall unit trading in civ1 (or specifically civ net)
it was pretty fun, dont know why did they scrap it

i'm surprised how most commenters are against this idea.
historically greece, switzerland, germany, scandinavia were famous for their mercenaries
gameplaywise it'd allow to use other civ's uus or just advanced units you dont have a tech for

 

[Browd]

I think gifting Units to another Empire should be easier and more efficient, because it would allow us to more efficiently take part in Global "Diplomacy". If I want to use half my army to pump up the power of that small Civ that is about to be overrun by that super-state next door - both on another continent - then I should be able to. Well, maybe restricted to more modern eras.

But other than that I do indeed not see much actual use for unit trading. It could even hurt the gameplay if you can trade production in addition of Gold.

To me this is an argument in favor of allowing you to send forces to intervene in another civ's war, without becoming a combatant/party to that war (essentially sending "volunteer forces" that you continue to control). Alternatively, have them sent as expeditionary forces for the duration of the campaign, but still under your control. Or maybe under the control of the destination civ, but automatically returned (if still alive) at the end of the war.

However this might be implemented, there should be some prudential limits on how many troops you could send (e.g., no more than 10-15% of your forces, since no major power in its right mind would strip its own defenses for that purpose) and there should be a major negative diplo modifier with the civ on the other side of that war (you are actively supporting their enemy, after all).

This would not address the desire to spit out units to sell for gold (probably a poor way of translating production into gold anyway), but would allow you to support a weaker civ militarily without having to make a permanent gift of those units.

 

[TRoosevelt]

There's little gameplay or historical value to allowing civilizations to buy, sell, or gift units. The most obvious reason is that such trades almost never happen between great powers. China, Russia, France, UK, and USA, for instance, build all their own military equipment (ships, tanks, guns, planes, etc.). The only instances where military aid makes substantive contribution to the "course of world history" if you will is military aid to client states from great powers.

If you ask me, Civ 5 does a "good enough" job by letting civs gift units to City States (but if you ask me, there should be quite a bit more reward for doing so)

I think there would be a lot of potential gameplay involved here. It could be the great equalizer, being able to equip a smaller nation who is being attacked by a larger one with advanced weaponry. In return they would be friends for life and eternally grateful. And I don't just mean selling/giving units to city states, but to everyone. It would be a really interesting experience if I could be an arms merchant to the world, or if some other AI civ ruined my world domination ambitions by supplying all my targets with advanced weapons. LET THE GAMES BEGIN!!


And you say that this has never happened. How about during WWII when the US did EXACTLY THAT: gave ships, tanks, guns, planes, and supplies to all of the other major powers mentioned above, in which our own president (FDR) called our nation, an "Arsenal of Democracy" - defending the world against the Axis Powers during WWII. Without our Lend Lease Act, I doubt England and Russia could have survived against a mightier Germany, or China against Japan. Other examples are: the Chinese and Soviets supplying both N. Korea and Vietnam during their wars with the US; the Soviets selling to Iraq and Egypt arms in the 70's and 80's; and the US and other countries selling to Israel arms then and today. It's obvious you can buy any weapon on the world market today - EXCEPT nuclear missiles. It's a good way for the smaller or backward nations that don't have the vast infrastructure or the up-to-date research of the major powers to be able to keep up with everybody. Japan's first early battleships originally were built by Britain - who had the most experience in shipbuilding, and probably the best designs available. It helped Japan modernize its shipbuilding industry by seeing how they were built, and it helped Britain keep its shipyards open and operating, and its treasury full. It was a win-win for everyone - well, up until WWII.


I would really like the option of buying/selling/giving units to other civs, with one exception: you can't give units to someone that they haven't researched yet. In other words, you can't give a civ bombers if they haven't researched flight yet. They wouldn't know how to use them. But if you give or sell a civ an advanced unit - more advanced than their enemy, they should be a lot more grateful than if you gave or sold them an older unit. Also, if you give a civ who is at war a lot of units, they should be extremely grateful. Great Britain gave the US a 99-year lease on all of its island bases in exchange for 50 old WWI destroyers that were badly needed to fight the German U-boats during WWII.


EDIT: Ok, Killmeplease makes a valid point below. I guess you can give someone a unit they haven't researched yet, but depending on how advanced it is than the recipient's current level of technology, maybe they can't use the new unit for a few turns until they get trained on it - maybe one turn delay per each tech above their current level. Makes sense to me, now. But if you give a civ an advanced unit from a tech they haven't discovered yet, that will give them a big boost toward that tech as they will learn how the new unit operates and its advantages over older units. So be careful who you give your advanced units to; like nuclear technology in the real world, you could be letting the genie out of the bottle.

 

[killmeplease]

In other words, you can't give some civ bombers if they haven't researched flight yet. They wouldn't know how to use them. But if you give a civ a state-of-the-art unit, they should be more grateful than if you give them an older unit.

why's that?
US and USSR were arming African semi-tribal states with tanks and stuff. It takes some time for instructors to train soldiers and officers but its perfectly possible.