Trading military units

[Beloyar]

That's not exactly true. The backwardness of the Zulus and Iroquois were not caused by their conquest by others. At the time of conquest such nations (or tribes) have been uncivilized for centuries. Look at the Aboriginees of Australia. All modern science is available to them now but they still live in their own Stone Age-like society inside a modern country.

The barbarians in the game are also forever stuck without any technological progress. Why can't they also conquer a piece of the Roman Empire and start their own civilization from there?

I agree with reintroducing the Civ II ability to buy/sell/trade units.
There is a discussion about that in the topic Trading military units.

The only reason the Zulus and Iroquois don't have the ability to build modern units in the real world, is because they never gained the technology to build them.

Civ is a game of alternate history that allows all the nations the same chances that they would normally have had. In the real world, the Zulus and the Iroquois were conquered before they reached that level of technology.
If you were to defeat or suppress them early in the game, you would have duplicated what had happened in the real world.

I agree that the Civ is alternate history, however, the civs were assigned unique features and units based on their actual history. In a true alternate history, the civs would develop their own unique bonuses and units, depending on their position, relative to other civs, their geographic location, and many other factors. In other words, Civ 4 should start all civs exactly the same. Later on, depending on their progress, each civ should develop their respective bonuses and units. Catch my drift?

 

[Beloyar]

Turner_727,

I would have appreciated an email alert about this. It took me some time to find this merged thread. I take it the forum system does not have this function yet.

Moderator Action: Duplicate thread merged.

 

[Beloyar]

You're contradicting yourself here. The Americans did not exist at the same time as the Babylonians, and that is one of the reasons why the Americans have the F-15 fighter. The Babylonians disappeared hundreds of years before the Germans appeared, and that is a direct reason why the Germans have the Panzer and not a "Giraffe". The English appeared as a direct result of Anglo-Saxon migration to the isle of Britain and later mixture with the Danes and Norman-French, and that is why they have the Man-O-War, and the Mongols don't. In Civ 3, the English could start off in the desert or the tundra or be stuck in a landlocked region, while the Mongols could start off on an island, but both will be stuck with their appointed special units nevertheless. And if the Anglo-Saxons haven't migrated to an island, there may never have been an America in the new world as we know it today.

There is a direct cause and effect result in the history of our civilizations and their appearance in the world. Civ 3 denies us these processes - they are pretty much impossible to recreate in a game. But some characteristics are assigned to the civs anyway.

You can't win this debate. No one can. There is some credibility to my suggestion, and it is obvious. So take it or leave it.

...
Romans, Greeks ancient in the game), Aztecs, Iroquois, Mongols, Celts, Carthaginians, Sumerians, Byzantines, Mayans, Egyptians (ancient in the game), Babylonians, Persians, Zulus, Ottomans, Arabians (ancient in the game), Hittites, Incas all banned from modern techs. Wow! your slip is showing somewhat. Some of these have not existed as a political or cultural entity for thousands of years.

Perhaps to redress the balance the Americans can sit on the sidelines until the eighteenth century and then make their bid for what's left of the world; Germany can start in the mid-nineteenth century when unification took place; etc. etc. etc.
...
Seriously, in the game the units are extensions of the research results and that is all they are. You can already sell technologies (somewhat easily compared with the real world, but that is game life for you) so what can such an idea do but undermine one of the major premises of the game?

 

[Algernon Pondlife]

There are two separate issues in this.

Firstly, buying and selling military units:

In concept this is an extra tactical device that offers little to the overall game. However if implemented it could have long term repercussions that damage the integrity of the game. I would thinlk it could affect choices for research as well as reducing the importance of trading resources Wars and alliances are already a problem in civ because the scale of their logic requires that they work as if the timescales were much shorter than the rest of the game. The game would benefit by reducing this tactical complexity rather than the opposite.

Secondly, inhibiting some civs from parts of the tech tree:

This is even worse than the pre-ordained traits and UUs already in the game. The use of historically named civilizations is nothing to do with the game per se. It came about because it is much easier to sign-up to than a more abstract approach. However, the game is all about building a technology, culture and population from scratch. The types of behaviour observed in history are relevant, but not the historic behaviour of particular countries. your notion is somewhat weird, in that you are proposing some civs can become as powerful and influential as they like, but somehow still won't be able to conduct basic research and development.

Your choices of examples seem very selective and have some uncomfortable connotations. The issue of assimilation and loss of cultural integrity is far more relevant in many cases. No small population is going to become a super power simply by adopting outside technologies and it cannot be done without erosion of what they already have and value.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, obviously unit sale/trade is, to some extent, abstract within the civ system. But there is an easy workaround.

1) Unit Sales: These reflect a sale of ARMS, not soldiers. Unit sales would cost less in monetary terms, but any unit that costs population will cost the purchasing nation the same no. of population points. By the same token, the selling nation GAINS that no. of population points back. The unit the nation recieves will be of the lowest possible experience level. Also, if my population model is taken up, then there would be finer gradations of population, allowing more variance in the population costs of different units-but that is a side issue!

2) Unit Loans: These represent your classic mercenaries. They cost more-mostly because you 'hire them on a per turn basis-though they don't cost any additional maintainence. The units possess the nationality and experience that they have prior to the trade. If these units are killed/captured by the enemy, though, then it will lower your reputation with that nation!

EDIT 3) Random Event: Each turn, there would be a % chance that 1-3 units will join you for X gold. The chance of being approached would depend on several factors, including your relative cultural strength and wealth, the # of Minor nations in the game, your ratio of military wins/losses, the # of barracks you have, and whether you are a commercial and/or militaristic civ.

The value of a unit, either in sale or loan, will depend on tech level, shield cost and resource requirements. Lastly, if a low-tech unit defeats a high-tech unit, then the low tech unit should be given a choice to 'upgrade' to the higher tech unit type-to reflect the capture of the other units weapons (like the Native American example used above!) This can only be done in a city, though, and does have small cost attached to it. In addition, like the unit sale, above, the unit loses any experience they might have already gained!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Beloyar]

There are two separate issues in this.
Firstly, buying and selling military units:
In concept this is an extra tactical device that offers little to the overall game. However if implemented it could have long term repercussions that damage the integrity of the game. I would thinlk it could affect choices for research as well as reducing the importance of trading resources Wars and alliances are already a problem in civ because the scale of their logic requires that they work as if the timescales were much shorter than the rest of the game. The game would benefit by reducing this tactical complexity rather than the opposite.

This first part is all ambiguous theory without any concrete examples to defend your argument.

Secondly, inhibiting some civs from parts of the tech tree:
This is even worse than the pre-ordained traits and UUs already in the game. The use of historically named civilizations is nothing to do with the game per se. It came about because it is much easier to sign-up to than a more abstract approach. However, the game is all about building a technology, culture and population from scratch. The types of behaviour observed in history are relevant, but not the historic behaviour of particular countries. your notion is somewhat weird, in that you are proposing some civs can become as powerful and influential as they like, but somehow still won't be able to conduct basic research and development.

Your choices of examples seem very selective and have some uncomfortable connotations. The issue of assimilation and loss of cultural integrity is far more relevant in many cases. No small population is going to become a super power simply by adopting outside technologies and it cannot be done without erosion of what they already have and value.

On the contrary, the use of "historically named civilizations" has everything to do with the game. How can you say the opposite?! The civs are not Klingons, Vulcans, and Atlantians, their units are not warlocks, death robots, or spidermen, and great leaders are not Judge Dredd, Walker Texas Ranger, or Blade. The game is not based on fiction, but on our history. The lack of specific future techs further reflects our own time.
I think it is perfectly acceptable to have some civs lack in techs at the point in history when the U.S. has the F-15 fighter and is the top superpower in the world. This would only help relate to our present world. When Zulus and Babylonians can build nuclear missiles, the U.S. will have already researched more advance technologies to defend against them and have a far superior air unit. But the game stops at that point and only offers hollow Future Techs.
Furthermore, I would be challenged to face off with a modern Roman Empire with my inferior units. I would have to find other ways to overcome it, which should be available in the game for the sake of fun, gameplay, and strategy. This has happened many times in history - the backward barbarians destroyed the advanced Roman Empire, for one.
I actually play the game with my own rules, where certain civs can't produce modern era units. This does not prevent them from becoming super powerful in earlier ages, destroying some civs, and taking control of major resources. I also assign some civs with more than two bonuses, and give some civs more techs and units at the start to try to recreate (or make up) a resemblance to historic conditions. It's a lot of fun and a great challenge. You should try it sometime, too.

I have no connotations in my suggestions. I would appreciate it if you didn't try to make a witch trial out of a very direct and simple idea.

 

[Jaca]

OK, obviously unit sale/trade is, to some extent, abstract within the civ system. But there is an easy workaround.

Aussie, this time I'm really impressed. As before, the ideas are worked out to the detail, but this time it also looks simple and not such an effort to implement. I like your concept of sale and loan of units.

Jaca

EDIT 3) Random Event: Each turn, there would be a % chance that 1-3 units will join you for X gold. The chance of being approached would depend on several factors, including your relative cultural strength and wealth, the # of Minor nations in the game, your ratio of military wins/losses, the # of barracks you have, and whether you are a commercial and/or militaristic civ.

An interesting approach to make the militaristic trait a bit stronger. However, the units approaching should be of any value to the other civ, and be less expensive to maintain, no?

The value of a unit, either in sale or loan, will depend on tech level, shield cost and resource requirements. Lastly, if a low-tech unit defeats a high-tech unit, then the low tech unit should be given a choice to 'upgrade' to the higher tech unit type-to reflect the capture of the other units weapons (like the Native American example used above!) This can only be done in a city, though, and does have small cost attached to it. In addition, like the unit sale, above, the unit loses any experience they might have already gained!

That might be cool indeed. Chance of happening should be low, which is already partly reflected by the fact that the weaker unit will generally lose of course. And indeed, they might start as conscripts.

Jaca

 

[Beloyar]

Good job. Interesting concepts, but seem a little too complicated for me. Too much calculations and micromanagement could leave some people frustrated. I prefer to keep things simple and fun.

Here's how I see it:

• To sell or donate a unit, you just produce it, move it to a city w/harbor or airport, or to the capital, and sell it. It will automatically appear in the other civ's capital or nearest port and become his for good (Like a barbarian village sometimes gives you a warrior).

Costs:
• A cavalry unit sells for, say 100 gold. This price has to be paid by either the buyer or the seller (if he donates the unit free) - if you give the unit free, you have to pay for it out of your budget. This will prevent you from feeding your units to another civ indefinitely.

There may also be other restrictions.

You have also introduced the concept of capturing units, among others. I haven't yet considered those things.

OK, obviously unit sale/trade is, to some extent, abstract within the civ system. But there is an easy workaround.

1) Unit Sales: These reflect a sale of ARMS, not soldiers. Unit sales would cost less in monetary terms, but any unit that costs population will cost the purchasing nation the same no. of population points. By the same token, the selling nation GAINS that no. of population points back. The unit the nation recieves will be of the lowest possible experience level. Also, if my population model is taken up, then there would be finer gradations of population, allowing more variance in the population costs of different units-but that is a side issue!

2) Unit Loans: These represent your classic mercenaries. They cost more-mostly because you 'hire them on a per turn basis-though they don't cost any additional maintainence. The units possess the nationality and experience that they have prior to the trade. If these units are killed/captured by the enemy, though, then it will lower your reputation with that nation!

EDIT 3) Random Event: Each turn, there would be a % chance that 1-3 units will join you for X gold. The chance of being approached would depend on several factors, including your relative cultural strength and wealth, the # of Minor nations in the game, your ratio of military wins/losses, the # of barracks you have, and whether you are a commercial and/or militaristic civ.

The value of a unit, either in sale or loan, will depend on tech level, shield cost and resource requirements. Lastly, if a low-tech unit defeats a high-tech unit, then the low tech unit should be given a choice to 'upgrade' to the higher tech unit type-to reflect the capture of the other units weapons (like the Native American example used above!) This can only be done in a city, though, and does have small cost attached to it. In addition, like the unit sale, above, the unit loses any experience they might have already gained!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, first of all Jaca, I personally don't feel that ANY of the ideas I've presented thus far are too overcomplicated. If you look closely at them, they mostly involve just a few slide-bars and a few additional 'point and clicks', with the rest of the work being done 'internally, by the computer. If thats too much micromanagement, then I've also left the option open to hand over the responsibilities to your AI 'governer' or 'government'!
As far as the unit trading goes, I forgot to mention that, for 'random event' mercenaries, you pay the one-off gold cost and then, from that point on, they have no maintainance cost (or, perhaps, half normal?)
Oh and Beloyar, I don't think my idea is too complex. All of it would be done via the diplomacy screen, and would be essentially no different to trading oil, or technology or anything else. The player or AI will give you what THEY think the unit is worth, but the AI will base that worth on certain, set, parameters. Any population gains/losses would occur automatically-as soon as the unit trade is complete. If anything, it sounds like your idea is a lot more complex, as it involves a LOT of moving units around-wheras mine is a lot more....abstract!
Anyway, just a thought.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker

 

[Mgoering]

Sounds like CIA (sorry for those it can hurt) to me, but it isn't a bad idea.

 

[Søren]

war by proxy would be a great way of figting without getting your hands dirty ( donating units to an inferior country and letting them pay the cost)

 

[WS78]

How about trading mercs like you do resources?

 

[Beloyar]

...If anything, it sounds like your idea is a lot more complex, as it involves a LOT of moving units around-wheras mine is a lot more....abstract!

You mean my idea is much simpler than yours. To trade in general, you have to move your workers to the tile that has a resource, build a road, then build a road to another civ's capital, or build a harbor, etc.
To trade a worker, you have to move it to the capital, so it would appear in the diplomacy screen for trading. That's why I suggested doing the same with other units. Nothing could be simpler.

I suggest buying, selling, and trading units. You suggest loaning, random events, and upgrading those units. You also want to involve population increases and decreases, which only happen when settlers and workers are involved, and all civs can build those on their own.

 

[Ramius75]

Actually trading of military units should be something like this.
1) U haggle and pay as per normal trade. If another country wanted to give it to u freely, so be it. Or if u really wanted something badly, u pay for it.
2) u pay twice the normal upkeep. This is to simulate the expenses in hiring Expat and maintenance of parts oversea.

Simple and easy.

Ramius

p/s: maybe oversea expenses should be added to increase upkeep during war, especially one that is half way around the world. This will make war much difficult .i.e More expensive !!
To upkeep one unit of carrier should cost much more than one unit of spearman.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK, my point was just the extra moving of units involved. I'm also trying to differentiate between selling a unit to someone (which, in real life terms, would reflect arms trading) as opposed to loaning units to someone (i.e. mercenaries). I agree that moving them to the capital first would be the best idea, but I always believed that unit trading would be done just like any other kind of trade!
As Ramius pointed out, you would haggle over units the same you would techs and/or resources. Once the deal was negotiated, though, all costs would be automatically deducted/added.
So, as a working example: Your friends, the iroquois are in a losing war with your hated enemies the Germans-largely because the formers technology is far behind that of you and the Germans (say, Iroquois are still using Cavalry, you and the Germans now have TANKS!).
Now, you decide to help turn the tide with the 6 tanks you have in your capital. You call up the Iroquois in the diplomacy screen and make them an offer. At this point, you have two options.

1) You offer to SELL them the tanks. They might offer you X gold (lump sum) or access to one of their resources. When the deal is agreed upon, then they recieve the tanks in their capital, you get their gold/resources and you regain whatever the tanks cost you in population, whilst they lose an equivalent amount. The tanks they recieve will have their civs colour, and will be regular or conscript-as the Iriquois have to LEARN how to use them.

2) You offer to loan your tanks as mercenary support. Again the Iroquois might offer you X gold/turn, or might offer you access to one of their resources. Once the deal is done, they get the tanks in their capital. Though under Iroquois control, the tanks will still have your colours, and will retain their original level of xp! If the tanks are still alive at the end of the agreed time, then you get them back!
So you see, there isn't really much to it. All the stuff about the value of the units had more to do with AI priorities than anything else-e.g. an AI civ will put more value on a high-tech unit than a low-tech one, and will consider the resource cost when deciding what to offer for the unit!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Beloyar]

Aussie_Lurker

I like your first option more. I think you sell or give the unit(s) as is. No difference in xp or what not. I have PTW, so I don't know what population costs you are talking about. If you draft a unit, then you lose population, but your buyer cannot bring it back.

Your second option can't be done. Another civ can't use your color. It's too confusing. Also, if you loan units for 20 turns, then do all the surviving units have to be in your friend's capital in exactly 20 turns to transfer back to you? Or will they simply disappear from the battlefield after 20 turns? What?

I think we also need to discuss two other things right now:
1. What would be the limits to the arms trade?
2. Which units can be traded?
and
3. Ramius75 pointed out one thing we forgot: How can you ask another civ for units? There should be a new option in the diplomacy screen for this. Civs don't usually stack extra units in their capital. So, unless other civs will be eager to make extra money on unit trade and offer their units for sale every time a war breaks out somewhere, I don't know how you could ask them about it. It would be too complicated to ask a civ to produce some units for you and place them in its capital by next turn (or in 5 turns), so you can offer money for them.

 

[Denarr]

How can you ask another civ for units? There should be a new option in the diplomacy screen for this. Civs don't usually stack extra units in their capital. So, unless other civs will be eager to make extra money on unit trade and offer their units for sale every time a war breaks out somewhere, I don't know how you could ask them about it. It would be too complicated to ask a civ to produce some units for you and place them in its capital by next turn (or in 5 turns), so you can offer money for them.

I think you'd either use a variant of the Civ 2 method: Offer to trade a unit, choose a city, choose the unit, haggle over the price. (A bit clumsy)
or you'd use the Civ 3 method for selling Workers. (Whatever's in the Capital is sellable)

As for buying from the rival nation, the Civ 2 method (the clumsy one) has you ask for units, and your rival tells you what is available for trade.
The Civ 3 method for Workers would allow you to make an offer for whatever was available in the Capital.
Or they could have it so only the Units that the rival was willing to sell was available for negotiation, so you wouldn't necessarily know how many units of what type were protecting their Capital.

 

[a4phantom]

This conversation seems to have stopped a long time ago, but I'm going to throw my change in anyway. Adding the ability to sell or give away units would be easy and makes a lot of sense. It would add a lot of realism, and unless two human players are unfairly collaberating thorughout the game it wouldn't disincentive research because a civ that remained low tech and simply bought quality units would be forever at the mercy of its suppliers; look at Egypt, Syria, Iraq, etc. Adding "mercenary" status to units which are on loan would be historical (the Hessians, the Abraham Lincoln Brigade) but very complicated to implement, especially when some of those units died. Also, if those units still belonged to the supplying civ it would shoot holes in the proxy war idea.

The idea of limiting certain civs from the modern world is bright but not thought through, as it would destroy the game. What's the point if every match follows the exact course of history and whether you can win or not depends entirely on the civ you choose? The UU and Golden Age already give each civ an advantage during its proper era of history.

 

[douche_bag]

selling nukes too.now that would be awesome muhaha

 

[a4phantom]

It seems to be working for Pakistan.