Purchasing units in Civ
- Thread starter Aytek
- Start date
searcheagle
Emperor
I support this idea and I know there are other forums out with this same idea. This idea has been proposed.
The designers would have to be careful to make sure that it was properly balanced or it could become overwhelming.
Commander Bello
Say No 2 Net Validations
I support this idea as well, even more as the first step already has been made, allowing you to give units as presents to other nations.
A first idea (would have to more balanced, though) would be to charge the "customer" with let's say 3 gold per hammer needed for that particular unit.
Mewtarthio
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,930
As I've suggested before, this would work best if you simply negociated instantaneous payments at the diplomacy screen and have the deal itself go off once the units are gifted. That is to say, if I trade Liberalism for ten Cannons, my trading partner gets Liberalism after he gives me ten Cannons.
searcheagle
Emperor
People generally agree with the concept. I think people vary alot about how to implement it.
For example, Should you be able to sell units if they do not have the pre-req tech to make them. I lean towards say they should be able to. Other disagree.
Another debated item is resources:
Should you be able to sell techs if they do not have that resouce. And people vary on it depending on how they see the resource. For example, Iron for a legion is required to create the unit, but not to maintain it. Oil for a tank is necessary to maintain its performance BUT not to create it.
For example, Should you be able to sell units if they do not have the pre-req tech to make them. I lean towards say they should be able to. Other disagree.
Another debated item is resources:
Should you be able to sell techs if they do not have that resouce. And people vary on it depending on how they see the resource. For example, Iron for a legion is required to create the unit, but not to maintain it. Oil for a tank is necessary to maintain its performance BUT not to create it.
Mewtarthio
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,930
You don't lose all your Tanks if your Oil gets cut off. At leat, not when I last checked...
Realism you mean?
I would support this idea, but only with a bit of nerfing. You shouldn't be able to trade techs for units. What if I was first to Alphabet? I could trade it around until I have an army to invade my neighbor. Rinse and repeat until everyones dead.
Unit cost should be determined by the AI with their relative MILITARY strength to YOUR relative military strength as well as dip boni.
Last but not least, can't you buy units through Universal Sufferage? And to cite your example, Universal Sufferage, or at least democracy, was discovered before Iraq bought its tanks from Russia.
Mewtarthio
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,930
Sure, if your enemy's enough of an idiot to hand an large army to an obviously advanced opponent. Using that logic, you might as well claim that the first person to Education would trade it for everyone else's entire gold reserves, becoming fabulously wealthy and impoverishing his neighbors in the process.
In fact, instantaneous trades (techs, lump sums, etc) are the only trades that make sense with this suggestion, as there's nothing to prevent you from trading resources for soldiers and then turning around and invading your business partner.
Well, that's a given. A small nation gets more use from an extra unit than a large one if the militaries are proportional.
Was Iraq running Universal Suffrage at that time? Also, US technically doesn't let you "buy" units: It lets you pay out ridiculous sums of money to get everyone in the city to help equip them (Slavery does the same thing, only by whipping any resistors to death).
This feature was in one of Civ2 or Civ3 (can't remember which) so it was presumably removed from Civ4 probably because of the potential exploits associated with it. VERY careful consideration would have to be given to ensure it was balanced and more or less impossible to exploit before it was re-introduced.
For example, civs should really refuse to sell you units if your military was stronger than theirs. And perhaps before they even consider it in the first place, you'd need to be at least friendly with them.
For example, civs should really refuse to sell you units if your military was stronger than theirs. And perhaps before they even consider it in the first place, you'd need to be at least friendly with them.
Yeah, I love to do that... Only I prefer to do it with a lower tech because Education is an important tech to not trade until only the small guys don't have it, unless you stand to get several separate techs in exchange for it. The tech I usually do that on it currency. When I get it, no one has more money than the tech is worth so I can get all the money everyone else has and sometimes even an extra tech or two. That usually lets me upgrade all my warriors to Axemen, and it lets me me keep my research rate high while forcing the others to lower theirs.
Yeah, that's how it works pretty much... I don't see the reason for people to need to buy units. If they're selling them then they are probably obsolete anyway. If they aren't obsolete then they probably want to keep them to themselves anyway. Players can gift units to allies. The arrangements by which the units are transferred between nations are deals that are more intricate than the ai could grasp, and the diplomacy system need not have such a system... It wouldn't hurt if it did, but it really does not need one.
searcheagle
Emperor
You could bribe units in Civ 2 with a spy unit. This was considered a spy action, not a "trade".
I disagree. This should be viewed as a strategic issue. There are times when a weaker party may see arms to the stronger party= so long as they are not rivals. A party may decide selling arms is the only way to get "back in the game."
searcheagle
Emperor
1. Units are taking too big a bit out of finances with unit costs.
2. Too many units.
3. Want to wage a "proxy" war against another civ.
4. Need to acquire units quickly.
This was definitely in one of the two. The units had to be in the civ's capital city before he could offer them at the table. It was probably only workers though... can't remember.
The reason I made the suggestion is because it otherwise opens up huge windows for humans to exploit AIs. I'd much rather prevent such an exploit than give the players (whether they be AI or human) one more way to get "back in the game". Besides, the very thought of a weak civ selling arms to get back in the game sounds contradictory!
Keep in mind, I'm just suggesting that AIs red this option out in the situation (for example by saying, "No thanks. We need our military!") - not for it to be banned by some gameplay rule. So humans could always do it. This is just like how AI civs will sometimes refuse to give away certain cities for any price - it's built in to avoid exploits.
1. AI's aren't that smart. They'll just funnel more into gold to support the larger army anyway, and they'll dispose of them by using their superior fire power and army size to take a chunk out of a weaker neighbor, or they'll just use it up fighting a stronger neighbor. Costs of unit upkeep is microscopic compared to other forms of upkeep.
2. The way the AI sees it, there is no such thing as too many units.
3. Ai would not be as intricate a planner to wage a "war by proxy," against another civ. It is just not a behavior that is programmed into the Ai. PLayers CAN do this already by encouraging allies to war with certain civs, then gifting large amounts of units.
4. The need to accquire units quickly would be irrelavent. The costs to buy a unit from another civ will likely be just as high if not higher than the cost hurry production. AI's wouldn't be so generous. And human players can already work out unit exchanges through the existing mechanics. Before this diplomatic function would serve any purpose whatsoever, the ai must first be programmed to rationalize certain features that are already in the gam engine that the ai does not make use of. Or else it would be just like the "Trade City" option. Cities would be available to trade, but the AI players would just be unwilling.
searcheagle
Emperor
In Civ 2 any unit could be BRIBED so long as it was OUTSIDE of a city. In Civ 3, you can TRADE for workers that are in the capital city.
I would perfer to have not have the limitation. However, if the AI cannot handle, its not good to create an exploit either ...
searcheagle
Emperor
For options 1-3:
The AI is constantly improving from one version to another. It is inherent in this idea that the AI can handle this trade. If the designers wanted to implement this type of a system, they could.
4. There are situations where buying units is required, even with the ability to hurry production. The cost should be 60%-80% of the cost to hurry production (varying by trading situations).
Obviously, for this feature to work right, the AI has to work.
You miss my point entirely. An AI that is able to rationalize the factors illustrated in my first three steps will most likely also be able to rationalize that somone else is militarizing, and will most likely simply disband units, or gift them to their closest allies in lieu of selling them to someone... As such with such an AI, the AI player may make an offer of sale, but will not accept an offer of purchase. In all likelihood the price of the unit will be equal to or greater than the price to hurry it from 0 shields to fully produced.
searcheagle
Emperor
How?
I would like to see the AI be able to make the decision of whether to sell or not. Perhaps a civ, desperate for cash, could could create a "defense industry" by selling military units to oppoents. I just wanted to see an AI capable of making the right decision. Your only arguement is that the AI is not capable of making those decisions.
The valuation process would not be simple. It would depend on these values, among others:
1. How Advanced the technology is: More advanced would cost more. Obsolete would cost less
2. Diplomatic status- Ally would get the cheapest unit, followed by "friend" nations, followed by neutral civs (civ which you are at peace with but you are not close with).
3. Existing level of military strength: low military strength-low cost (defensive), high military strength-high cost (due to the appearance of gearing up for war)
4. Warring against an enemy- ie. the enemy of my enemy.
Post Number 1,000
My argument isn't just that the AI is not smart enough to do it. It's that an AI smart enough to do it would be smart enough not to do it. The Valuation process would probably be something that is simpler than people think, like most things in Civ games are. It would probably be something as simple as the city trading system in actuality. City trades are locked unless the city is nearby the other nation's border, or you are negotiating a peace treaty. Likewise the unit trading option would probably only be used or accepted by rival ai's when you're negotiating a defensive pact or a war with an enemy.
bob bobato
L'imparfait
In civ 2, you could offer units to allies, and they might ask you for units if they're in the middle of a war. I'm not sure you could buy them, though.
Similar threads
