Should You Be Able To Trade Units?

[sir_schwick]

I believe the real debate now is whether there should be limits to the arms trade or not.

 

[dh_epic]

I think the obvious limits are to prevent someone from trading away their entire army. Then again, would this really be such a bad thing? If someone wanted to be this ignorant and trade everything away and leave themselves undefended, that's their choice.

So long as the AI has limits on what it will do, that it plays as if it's competing with the other AIs instead of just "surrendering" the entire army to another AI to help them win.

Otherwise, I can't think of any other limits I'd even consider. You SHOULD be able to trade weapons towards people who don't understand those weapons, and who can't build those weapons themselves.

 

[The Omega]

Arms trade is good, but how would you feel if your leader told you that they had traded you to the Facist country next door?

 

[dexters]

All I'm hearing is it's a good thing without much consideration of exactly what this means to the gameplay balance. It's really appaling that everyone is fighting over details like what sort of units can be traded without even considering the big picture.

The issues are much bigger than one issue exploits like giving away obsolete units, or trading away entire armies.

The real issue is how big of an advantage this gives to human players. There has to be enough checks in play to prevent balant abuse of the system by human players and the AI should be able to competently use arms trading to their benefit.

If none of the conditions can be met, I'd much rather they leave out the arms trading and focus their energies on features that can a) be implementable b) won't unbalance gameplay c) the AI can use.

I think people like me have repeated this for about a million times, but Civilization isn't a simulator. It's an approximation of the historical sweep of civilization. Realism comes at the bottom of the list of criteries the developers should be checking for when they implement a feature.

I don't want another SMAC with human only features. No thanks.

 

[sir_schwick]

I do not like the idea that you dumb down gameplay because you play with dumb players. We should fix the player, not the rules.

Actually you could say some American soldiers were pissed that they were fighting for what could be considered a Authoritarian government in Vietnam. Diem was no angel and definitely not one to believe in the 'voice of the people'. You also probably would not sell weapons to a next door neighbor unless they could not threaten you or they were in another war. also, America has often had to face weapons they sold to former allies(Afghanistan, Iraq).

 

[dexters]

do not like the idea that you dumb down gameplay because you play with dumb players. We should fix the player, not the rules. <real world rant deleted>

This makes absolutely no sense. With games, you don't fix the player. You make it such that so that even the most cheat happen player can be reasonably constrained and not run away with the game.

I'm really surprised this is even an issue. It seems like a pretty strong consensus so far exploits is expected and the problem is how to prevent it by making good rules. Your point of view is extremely dangerous and suggests all sorts of features that will satisfy you as a human player but no one else could use. This is the last thing many of us want. Sirian makes a lot of good points about this issue in the various AI threads floating around here.


Gameplay balance is more important than being able to trade units. If Firaxis can't make it so that human players aren't given massive advantages, they should cut the feature and focus on something else.

 

[dh_epic]

I fail to see a serious problem with trading soldiers to other nations. So long as there are logical and reasonable constraints on it, I think it's fine. The point of supplying arms IS to upset gameplay balance. And everyone has an equal opportunity to mess with the world order.

The only catch is if the AI will be able to take advantage of this in a credible way, not an exploitative way. Of course it's possible to program the AI to do this. All they have to do is make it a priority.

If they canned every good idea for Civ because it would mean something to add to the AI, we wouldn't even see a sequal.

 

[dexters]

If they canned every good idea for Civ because it would mean something to add to the AI, we wouldn't even see a sequal.

We shouldn't see an idea in a sequel if they can't make the AI make use of it.

And oh how quickly people forget. You may not be one of them, but one of the biggest gripes with Conquests is the Army is broken because the AI don't built them enough and there's a bug in the formula that prevents it from putting in certain type of units.

I'd love to invite all the C3C posters to read this thread and tell you how they don't want another Civ game with human only features.

That's what I've been saying all along. If they can make it work, good. I want it. If they can't don't put it in. Every other argument detracts from the point. Since the criteria is really that simple.

 

[dh_epic]

So you're arguing they should get rid of armies?
Maybe they should get rid of movement, since an AI can never pathfind as efficiently as a human player.

It's not a question of "it works or it doesn't".

This is one of those things that they can balance and work out. Maybe not to "deep blue" standards, but if we expected that, then we probably wouldn't even have Civ at all.

 

[sir_schwick]

I fail to see a serious problem with trading soldiers to other nations. So long as there are logical and reasonable constraints on it, I think it's fine. The point of supplying arms IS to upset gameplay balance. And everyone has an equal opportunity to mess with the world order.

The only catch is if the AI will be able to take advantage of this in a credible way, not an exploitative way. Of course it's possible to program the AI to do this. All they have to do is make it a priority.

Constraints would make sense for the AI, but not for human players. Besides, are not AI constriants supposed to be methods of preventing them from doing something really stupid?

 

[dexters]

So you're arguing they should get rid of armies?

Lol. It's not just me. A lot of C3C players are arguing a particular point. I'm not a lone voice here. But you miss the point again.
We are arguing they fix it not remove armies.

It's not a question of "it works or it doesn't".

It is actually.

In a time when Firaxis looks like its going to abandon C3C uncompleted with among others the Army bug, we have people like you telling them its a good idea to implement features just like the Army bug because you like to trade units.

That is really irresponsible. I noted in my very first reply that I was appalled. I really am. Because after 3 pages, all the discussion has been about the details. Everyone it seems have already assumed its workable and the AI can use it and there won't be any exploits.

There's not even a voice of moderation in the rabid support for this idea asking how the AI will use this feature, or how the gameplay balance will be affected if it does turn out to be a human only feature. I raise those concerns and all I get are responses questioning trivial points.

The point still stands. If they can't implement it properly, it should be left out.

 

[sir_schwick]

Explain how this will unblance gameplay. I am curious since this is also a discussion of the merit of the idea.

 

[dh_epic]

For everything that "works" there is a "remainder" that doesn't work. Path finding just as an example. You build an AI that basically pathfinds, but over the entire span of the game it is likely that a human player will gain a lot of movement (I don't know how you'd quantify it. Spaces? Turns?) over the AI.

This remainder that exists, the gap between the AI and the human player, is compensated with the amount of "cheating" the AI is given.

I'm all for fixing armies. But I guarantee you it's impossible to make the AI use armies as effectively as the player. The answer, inevitably, is to put together "good enough" AI and then have it cheat the rest of the way. But I agree there's too much cheating in past Civs. The answer is to shrink this factor to a point where it's seldom noticeable, because you'll never be able to eliminate it completely.

I don't think this whole unit-trading thing really opens up a huge imbalance between AI and human player. Unless you just let the AI ignore it, which I would hope they'd have more sense than to do that. But I'm all for hearing how it would be viciously exploited.

 

[dexters]

Explain how this will unblance gameplay. I am curious since this is also a discussion of the merit of the idea.

Explain to me how the AI will use it and how the humans won't gain a massive unfair advantage.

Non of the posts above have done any work on doing that. That's my problem.

For everything that "works" there is a "remainder" that doesn't work. Path finding just as an example.

Oh dear god. Sirian is going to hate you as do I. You absolutely have no interest in building a better game AI, and i'm surprised even you even started a thread on one.

Accepting mediocrity and 'good enough' or 'half baked' AI because you really want some feature the AI can't handle well or can't handle at all is a recipe for discontent for Civ 4.

That's god to be the worst excuse for a feature in history. I'd much rather a feature be tossed if the AI can't handle it than leave it in just so a few people can feel good trading units.

No thank you.

 

[dh_epic]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how artificial intelligence is implemented and the achievements that are possible with AI.

Again, by your rationale, path finding should be tossed altogether. Any game that has movement should eliminate it.

 

[dexters]

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of how artificial intelligence is implemented and the achievements that are possible with AI.

There is no fundamental misunderstanding. More like a fundamental LACK of explanation on how you would make this feature work by basically avoiding the most important issues.

Edit: Instead of responding every 2 minutes to tell me i fundamentally misunderstand something, and give excuses that half-baked AI is good enough (many are unhappy with Civ pathfinding and we all expect a better one for Civ4) your time may be better served actually addressing my concerns and write up a treatise on how the AI will use it.

Otherwise, my point is still valid that you guys are salivating over a feature without tackling the most important points. And my correspondence with you has left me even more shocked. Especially with your suggestion that it's ok to throw in a feature even if the AI can't use it properly. Those would be candidates for patch fixes, not features.

 

[sir_schwick]

China is on continent A and India and Pakistan are on continent B. China buys 4 luxuries from India cheap. The China AI has already decided that protecting India is important. India is losing in a war with Pakistan, which is not on good terms with China. China cannot conceivably make a difference in the war by directly attacking Pakistan. They are secure militarily at home and can sell some units to India, since that is a way to ensure Indian independence.

Same setup with location. India and Pakistan are in a war. Both sides are about even and pumping out units as fast as possible. China has no vested interest in either side winning. If they provide roughly the same amount of arms to both sides, then the stalemate will continue. The money from these deals allows china to lower taxes and raise luxuries and science. They could also maintain tax rates and stockpile the gold to rush severl improvements every few turns.

THese were just a couple situations which the AI should be able to figure out.
--------------------------------------------------

Here are a couple exploits that would need to be dealt with:
Mobilization - This would become way to powerful, especially for situation B up above.

 

[michael4000]

re: China, India, and Pakistan: Boy, I don't know.... I don't get a sense that the current AI has a sense of where its long-term geopolitical vested interests are. It strikes me that asking an AI to figure out whether it should support one party or another, or both or neither, in a war on another continent -- which is going to involve changing possession of cities, resources, luxuries, and overall balance of power, to be factored into both immediate cost/benefit and future cost/benefit -- would involve a pretty massive algorythm. All we really have now is a machine that reacts to the current disposition of units, and it seems like you are looking for a unit-trade mechanism that would have the computer doing long-term strategizing. That's a quantum leap!

 

[dh_epic]

I don't think anyone said you should throw in a feature if the AI can't use it properly. But I think your expectations of the AI are a little high.

The AI could use it. Of course they could. I'm not programming the AI, so their choice on how to implement it is up to them. But it's a money thing, the AI weighs the costs of producing a military unit with the benefit of the money they receive. They also factor in the potential damages of that unit being used against them (how far away are they? how much do we get along?).

So if the AI is looking for a way to improve profits, they might weigh the costs / benefits of this strategy. Or the AI uses it to bail out an ally who is having difficulty in a war, assuming that ally can be trusted (the AI has the capacity to know this better than the player does).

There's a more important question than how can the AI use it. That's trivially true. The question is if the player can use it to open a gap up on the AI. The answer is, trivially, yes they can -- because humans are just smarter than computers, simple and plain. No amount of programming will ever resolve that. But really -- does the AI fall drastically behind and get nailed to the ground because of their own ignorance of the method?

The only thing I can come up with is a player up against the ropes... knowing he'll lose, he donates his entire army to an ally, and watches as his cities are conquered by the AI. There are a few checks and balances for this:

1) This doesn't matter in single player. If the player is dead, it doesn't matter who his allies are.

2) Keep a limit on the amount of soldiers you can trade in a turn, so you can't totally sway a war in a short span of time.

3) OR -- make it so that you don't actually trade your own units away. Instead, you're supplying "weapons" -- the percentage of the production cost for a unit that doesn't involve basic training, along with the technology to produce it. This way you never just surrender your army. You're aiding in the production of units, and your ally still has to build them.

 

[Licentia]

Yeah! During the cold war USA and USSR armed their puppet banana states with lots of weapon systems they would never been able to produce/develop themselves. This is one of the most important changes I want to see in CIV 4! Especially in multiplayer it will be nice to support the enemies of my enemies with advanced weapons without giving them the tech. for it, so they can fight harder, and not give the thech away when they discuss peace terms!

Emphasis on not give the tech away. That's what usually happened in Civ2.