Trading in UNITS

[yoshi]

I don't think that you should be able to give a unit to a civ which does not have the required tech-in the same way as resources are limited by tech in trades.

Trading Strategic Resources in Civ3 requires that the reciever have the required tech because it can't build the unit without the resource. It couldn't be any other way.
The reciever in a unit-trade deal requiring the tech is not quite as logical. Technically the giver civ has already built the unit so there is nothing stopping the reciever from using it. For instance, the US supplies the Isreal with F-15s. It doesn't mean that Isreal can't recieve them because it doesn't have the tech (i.e. facilities, ect.) that allows them to build more F-15s. From the game-play point of view having the reciever require tech would just get in the way because then it would imply that the reciever MUST possess advanced tech in order to use advanced units. This would require a poor civ that is given/sold/whatever a unit by a rich to also require the tech for that unit; i.e that the poor civ be at the same/similar level of technological development than the rich civ, which would be unfair. You could argue that the reciever civ must have the tech in order to repair damaged units and maintain them, but that would complicate unit-trading unecessarily. Civ3 is not that specific. Giving units high maintenace cost might change the situation a bit; i.e. in reality, poor countries that recieve weapons from rich countries cannot build their own not because they don't know how but rather because they cannot afford the expense (i.e. the facilities to build the weapon(s), the labour cost, the building materials, the maintenance, ect. They would go bankrupt. Another reason is that doing so would be a breach of contract with the company producing the weapon(s), but in Civ3 terms it just means you can't build the unit.

Giving units individual maintencance costs, initial build costs (in gold) and requiring certain city improvements in order to be built would reproduce this real-life effect. Unit-trading would play a huge role in Civ3 if this were the case.
[I created a thread on this (IUMC/Units Require Imp.) in the "C3C Requests" forum if you're interested.]

How are you supposed to get you bought/rented planes and tanks going without oil.... the CIV should have the ressource...

If a civ loses control of the required Strategic Resource, it can no longer build more of a unit, but that doesn't mean that the already existing units disband. So why should it be any different with unit trading?

But this does bring up the question: why don't units in Civ3 have fuel requirements? Why shouldn't a civ's units disband (or simply stop, when in a city) once control of the units' required "fuel" resource has been lost? This would also apply to unit-trading (i.e. a civ can recieve units, but if it does not have access to the required resources, it can't use the units; or just not be able to recieve the units to begin with).
[I also created a thread about this ("Unit Supply") in the "C3C Requests" forum.]

...you should have to go and pick them up on the sellers Continent, or having him deliver them, but making them appear in
one of your cities like in CIV2 was absolutely unrealistic...

Good point but CIV's interface is just too simple for that, but I guess the unit could always just change color or appear outside the city it was in...(?)

Unit-trading is definitely something that would improve CIv3's gameplay (i.e. make it more involving) and would probably be quite easy to implement.
Nice thread, alireza1354.

 

[Dida]

I think you should be able to sell your unit to any backwards civ. They should not receive the tech automatically, it should just help them a little in the research process. So that you can continue to sell the same unit to them and make money until they themselves aquired that tech.
And once that civ have bought that advanced unit from you, it should just function exactly in the norma wayl for simplicity's sake. Let's assume that the initial cost of the unit also includes the repair cost(repairs done by you).
Units should not be rented. It rarely happens in history. (yes in WWII), but renting military unit to another civ is simply stupid idea, and too complicated. Not good for game play.

 

[aeldrik]

Remember CIV2, giving a CIV a unit it couldn't build gave it a chance to receive new technology through the trade... wasn't so bad...

 

[yoshi]

Units should not be rented. It rarely happens in history. (yes in WWII), but renting military unit to another civ is simply stupid idea, and too complicated. Not good for game play.

"Renting" also means Mercenary units. This has played a significant role in the past (particularly in Europe) and will probably play a big role in the future (high tech mercenary armies are already close to becoming a threat in various hot zones throughout the world).

wasn't so bad...

Wasn't bad but wasn't good either. It meant that by giving an ally one advanced unit, you gave that civ a free tech as well. If you went to war with this ally later on, this seemingly insignificant friendly move would bite you in the ass.

 

[Bamspeedy]

Wasn't bad but wasn't good either. It meant that by giving an ally one advanced unit, you gave that civ a free tech as well. If you went to war with this ally later on, this seemingly insignificant friendly move would bite you in the ass.

Now this is certainly realistic. If you think about the U.S. and who some of their friends were decades ago, who are now their enemies.

 

[aeldrik]

well, I guess since you know it, it's up to to you wether to take the chnace or not

 

[yoshi]

Now this is certainly realistic. If you think about the U.S. and who some of their friends were decades ago, who are
now their enemies.

When the U.S. gives Isreal F-15s, it doesn't mean Isreal will start building F-15s --part of the reason is that it would be illegal. USSR sending weapons to N. Vietnam does not mean that Vietnam can suddenly produce AKs ad eternum --it lacks the infrastructure to do so. CIV is too simple to include these economic factors, so we just assume that it's not an available option. If CIV was more dependent on infrastructure (e.g. Carriers require expensive Ship Yard improvements to build), then it would not be such a problem. As things stand, there would be too much of a downside to giving away 1 unit if unit trading were like Civ2; i.e. the moment you give the unit, they get the tech and start building that unit for themselves. So, not getting a free tech with the unit is as realistic as CIV can be as it is.

 

[Spacedog]

In 1940-41, we had the "Lend-Lease" deal in which we loaned England a bunch of destroyers in exchange for some small islands in the Caribbean that they didn't need anyway. This helped England protect the shipping convoys from the German U-Boats and allowed them to survive. Before the bombing of Pearl Harbor, most Americans were against U.S. involvement in the "European" war, so this was Roosevelt's way of getting us into the war without actually getting us into the war.

Trading units would allow you to prop up a smaller civ that is getting pounded on by a larger civ. This is a great idea!

 

[Michael York]

I would love to be able to sell a dozen tanks to Germany in exchange for 1000 gold. That would be sweet!

 

[aeldrik]

I don't see no reason not to allow it, with only a chance of receiving a missing tech.... When the Chinese got the US Spy plane a couple of years ago and got to dismantle it, they most certainly got technology out of it, therefor the same chance would only be realistic in the game...
the part of helping a civ against another one without going to war would also be great...

 

[yoshi]

Well, that would be an example of a unit being destroyed and the attacker possibly getting the tech --that sounds like a good idea but it would make 'fluke' wins all the more tragic; as if losing an expensive, advanced unit (which can happen far more easily in Civ than it does in reality) weren't bad enough, the enemy gets a free tech too! Also keep in mind what I said above how Civ3 doesn't take infrastructure into account (i.e. in reality, you need advanced labs, ect. to build adavnced weapons --in Civ3, the lack of this would mean that even the poorest player could start building Stealth Bombers the moment they shoot one down).

As far as unit TRADING is concerned, Civ3 isn't that specific; i.e. complicating it with added realism (that's minus the reasons for not doing so that I mentioned above) seems unecessary. If you want to give a unit AND tech, then you do should do just that --tech should not be automatically be included with the unit. That is to say that you should have the option of giving one or both.

Of course, first thing's first: UNIT TRADING has to be on Firaxis' list of things to add...is it? Should be. It would just mean including all units into the already existing (sell) 'Worker' option during negotiation, and not limiting it to only units in the giver/seller's capital city. That doesn't sound too difficult.

 

[aeldrik]

I wasn't saying one should get techs from destroying a unit, just saying that maybe getting tech by being sold isn't all too unrealistic.
Yoshi, you are definitevely right, one shouldn't only need ressources to build units, but also city Improvements...
One last thing I wish to recapitulate, a unit shouldn't be, as are the workers, transported by miracle to the buyers capital... THAT is absolutely unrealistic...

 

[yoshi]

...a unit shouldn't be, as are the workers, transported by miracle to the buyers capital... THAT is absolutely unrealistic...

I shall elaborate a little on the solution I presented earlier:
Assuming you would have to be allied with the reciever/giver civ, and Alliances imply Right of Passage, the unit in question would just change owners on the spot --without losing experience, or regaining health; i.e. only ownership and nothing else changes. As for units in cities, they would 'teleport' to the nearest available square to that city (this is case the city is on just a single land square --island, thus the unit will go to the nearest friendly land tile).
With this in mind, there would have to be a comprehensive way of determining, during negotiation, which units you have available to sell/give and their locations.

Although, you shouldn't be surprised if Unit Trading gets incoperated into Civ3 but uses the Civ2 teleporting system. My solution would require siginificantely more changes to be made to the program than just tweaking the already existing Worker option. So, considering how restricted Civ3 designers are budget-wise, it's unlikely that they would go that far. In other words, count your stars if they even put in the effort to inlcude Unit Trading.

 

[allhailIndia]

Trading units is also more realistic as compared to real life.
There are two ways to trade.:
1. The weapons are given and training on their use is given (ex: Israel and India)
2. The weapons are given and the technology to produce more is also given ( ex: USSR/Russia and India)
Another possible option is the mercenary whose destroyed before the 20 turn contract, leads to the borrower paying the lender civ half the cost of the mercenary in gold.