Trading of weapons

[rhialto]

Problem with building 'men' and 'weapons' separately is that it ignores the training issue completley. You can't just take a low tech but elite unit armed with spears, give them guns, and expect them to fight with them effectively.

the only realistic solution would be to give the men an experience rating with each type of weapon, which is ridiculously micro.

 

[Pacifist]

Okay, since nobody seems to like the idea of adding additional micromanaging, how about this ...

Instead of my first idea about building "user" & "weapon" separately ...

No "weapon" building. Instead, have a city improvement, maybe call it "Weapon Smithing/Manufacturing Plant" (I'm not very good with naming ideas so just bare with me ) and allow it to be built from the beginning. I'll refer to it as "WS" from this point.

Let me use the swordsman example again ...

Once "Iron Working" tech has been researched and have access to "iron" resource, you can build the swordsman unit. As long as you have access to "iron", you can freely create as much swordsman unit as you want (no changes required)

Now, this is where the changes come in ...

In order to trade "weapons" with other civilizations, you must build the "WS" improvement in your cities. The trade quantity allowable would be perhaps 5 weapons per city with the "WS" improvement.

If you decide to trade the weapons, you may still build swordman units but at reduced production rate. The effect would last 20 turns, just like any other per turn deals. This would simulate the demanding task of producing "weapons" for your civilization as well as the extra civilization you are trading with. The reduction rate would depend entirely on how many civilizations you are trading with and the "weapon" quantity you are supplying. The civilizations who accept a "weapon trade" deal will instantly receive the unit equivalent (in this case, swordsman units). The reduction rate will be automatically distributed as evenly as possible between your cities. This reduction rate will ONLY apply to units that have its "weapon" equivalent being traded. So, if you are trading "swords", only swordsman units will have reduced production. If you are trading "swords" & "spears", swordsman and spearman units will have reduced production.

Once a "weapon" becomes obsolete, the "WS" improvement must be upgraded to suit the tech. One way to handle this is to have another improvement that could be built (perhaps named "Upgrade WS") and once it has been built, replaces the old one (the improvement name displayed would still be "WS"). This way, there is no need for individual improvement for each type of weapon and the improvement maintenance cost would be manageable. The UPGRADE will allow the new "weapon" to be traded and the obsolete "weapon" will no longer be tradeable.

This way, there's not much to micromanage but the DOWNSIDE is the logic of my idea and how to implement it programmatically (is that even a word? )

So, does it look a little simplified now or did I make it more complex?

 

[riley555]

A very large portion of Iraq's military equipment was at least 'funded' by the US. A good portion may very well be American made as well.

The CIA basically hired Sadam and gave him fortunes of war money to go to war with Iran remember. Once he had the military built up from the war money we gave him, it's not like he would get rid of it all when his job was done (invading Iran, I.e, pissed off neighbor). Even with all the talk of Sadam's mythical WMDs and all that, the worst weapons ever found in Iraq were the ones the USA basically gave them in the first place. Even though Sadam is gone, the military/"insurgents" still use a good portion of the former government's weapons.

It wasn't much of Russia's doing at all, it was on our part. Don't try blaming other countries for what we did ourselves...

Yup. The sad thing is many Americans flat out deny this. Seriously, wake up, we are the biggest supplier of arms to dictatorships everywhere....dictatorships we installed.

 

[apatheist]

It depends on the level. A weapons smithy doesn't seem any different from any other kind of metal smithy, and I think we can assume that any decent-sized city in the Iron Age would have one, if not many. That holds true at least until the industrial age. The only units that would require some super-specialized manufacturing are cannon, artillery, and mechanized units.

 

[Pacifist]

It depends on the level. A weapons smithy doesn't seem any different from any other kind of metal smithy, and I think we can assume that any decent-sized city in the Iron Age would have one, if not many. That holds true at least until the industrial age. The only units that would require some super-specialized manufacturing are cannon, artillery, and mechanized units.

LOL - If its not micro-managing, its something else hehe ...

Okay, forget all of the ideas I've proposed and just use the most simplest method available (which has been suggested countless times already) ...
... Trading units hehe

As some people have trouble "visualizing" a unit belonging to one civilization voluntarily changing sides just because of a "trade agreement", just think of "trading units" as "trading weapons". It's not the unit that gets traded, its the "weapon" that reflects the technology the unit is using that gets traded. The "weapon" exchanges hands and the receiving civilization arms their units with the "weapon", becoming a "unit" controllable by that civilization.

Swordsman example again

1st Civ has 10 swordsman units
2nd Civ does not have the tech required to build swordsman units
2nd Civ encounters 1st Civ
2nd Civilization wants to purchase "swords" from 1st Civ
1st Civ agrees and trades off 5 swordsman units
2nd Civ receives 5 swordsman units (The units' levels could depend on the buyer's tech advance level. In this case, 2nd Civ does not have the tech required to build it's own swordman unit so the swordman units it receives would be "conscript" level)
1st Civ now only have 5 swordsman units remaining.

While this example shows "units" being traded-off, its not the actual units being traded but the "weapons".

As for the cost, the minimum OFFER should be the unit's production cost (if the "weapon" is not yet obsolete, otherwise, it would be half. Of course, the cvilization "selling-off" the weapon could always choose the final cost, be it ZERO (a gift, an offering) or whatever amount the civilization feels to be fair.

I guess the simplest solution sometimes works the best
It would just be treated like any other trade deals.

No micro-managing, no infrastructural improvements, no head-aches - LOL

For personal reasons, I still prefer the separation idea though hehe and I wouldn't mind one bit if I had to create every "weapon" separately - I don't really care if I have to micro manage every single aspect of the game

Micro managing can be a pain in the b*** for most but not me hehe
Looks like Civ4 is trying to minimize it now though - an improvement for many I suppose but for me, its just something different that I'll have to get accustomed to

-Pacifist-
"Warmongering? What's that?"

edit: sorry 'apatheist', I didn't realize I quoted you twice - fixed now

 

[apatheist]

As for the cost, the minimum OFFER should be the unit's production cost (if the "weapon" is not yet obsolete, otherwise, it would be half. Of course, the cvilization "selling-off" the weapon could always choose the final cost, be it ZERO (a gift, an offering) or whatever amount the civilization feels to be fair.

I think the cost should have no constraints imposed on it by the game engine. On the other hand, the AI should be programmed to make sensible choices, and it should rarely offer to pay more than a unit's production cost to get that unit if it can build that unit itself. However, often it won't be able to build that unit itself due to resources, technology, etc. Or, depending on how placement is implemented, it may be willing to pay extra because that unit is in a location that it cannot easily reach with the newly produced unit. Or, perhaps it cannot wait until the next turn because it needs that unit NOW NOW NOW NOW!

 

[Mewtarthio]

Of course, trading advanced units should give the recipient some sort of tech bonus (reverse engineering). I like Pacifist's idea best; just always give the other guys Conscript units, or rather Civ IV's negative-XP equivalent thereof (no time for training, just show the guys which is the business end and hope they can extrapolate from there).

 

[searcheagle]

I think the cost should have no constraints imposed on it by the game engine. On the other hand, the AI should be programmed to make sensible choices, and it should rarely offer to pay more than a unit's production cost to get that unit if it can build that unit itself. However, often it won't be able to build that unit itself due to resources, technology, etc. Or, depending on how placement is implemented, it may be willing to pay extra because that unit is in a location that it cannot easily reach with the newly produced unit. Or, perhaps it cannot wait until the next turn because it needs that unit NOW NOW NOW NOW!

Agreed.

I think these should influence the cost of units, in the following order:

1. Technological ability (you cannot produce the unit)
2. Technological rarity (few civs can produce it)
3. Resource Ability (ability to mine resource)
4. Resource Rarity (how rare the resource is worldwide)
5. Rush Order? (Speed of delievery required)
6. Stance towards civ (Friendly, Opposition)
7. Stance towards allies (Generally good, neutral, or bad)
8. Does this unit have any bonuses? (Especially a factor if bonues are done per unit, (aka German Tank #232 can use enemy roads) vs all German tanks can use enemy roads.
9. Combat experience.

I think THIS idea would be a code way for the computer code to work behind the scene and decide what the computer is will to pay with respect to units.

 

[aewn]

It would be cool with a "fund war effort" option. Then you could choose between selling weapons, giving weapons, trading weapons or "funding war" which could maybe pay for your proxy fighters army expence.

on Iraq,

The biggest exporter of military Hardware to Saddam Hussein after the first Gulf War was Russia, however over the entire period until the First Gulf War the United States was the primary contributor, though mostly with money. (and some helicopters and stuff I think but hardware wise it was miniscule compared to later russian sales of tanks)

The fact is that after the first Gulf War the United States halted all exports, and indeed sanctioned saddam as we all know. In my opinion I disagree with the helping of Saddam in the first place, it was more of a coincidence than the work of the CIA that saddam came to power, however when he came to power he was supported as the right man by the CIA. (atleast to my knowledge)

We should have taken Saddam out during the first gulf war, but Bush senior was cautioned by the CIA not to do it because they feared what we now see in Iraq. At that point however we had more soldiers and Al qaeda was not as renowned as it is now in the Islamic World. The fact that we didnt take Saddam out also led the French to believe that Saddam could be taken back into the club, infact not dealing with saddam then led to the subseqent breaking of the coalition that removed him and he played an instrumental role in helping the intifada in palestine by the fact that he let Arafat, and arafat was a fool when it came to foreign affairs, ally with him.

So my conclusion is that removing Saddam is not a bad decision in itself, just a shame Bush had to lie to us to do it, atleast he twisted the truth by quite a long stretch. But the worst thing is that he went to war listening only to Rumsfeld, with his idea that small armies can occupy a country the size of France, Bush should have listened to the state department instead, I bet you we could have solicited 50 000 more troops then which could have helped stem the looting of arms that now are in the hands of the insurgents. (of course what we really have to do if we want to occupy a country like Iraq is draft and go in with an army about a million strong )

Well, u see I am quite interested in these issues.

 

[apatheist]

It would be cool with a "fund war effort" option. Then you could choose between selling weapons, giving weapons, trading weapons or "funding war" which could maybe pay for your proxy fighters army expence.

You can already achieve those goals with the mechanism described above or existing ones:

Selling weapons = selling units
Giving weapons = selling units for 0 gold
Trading weapons = selling units in exchange for other units
Funding war = giving/lending money

 

[Skybuck]

Hi,

I see some nice idea's in this thread... be it in units be it in weapons...

I do hope that it would be possible to sell/exchange/give advanced weapons to underdeveloped nations.

I don't hope that a civ is required to have a certain tech level before it can purchase advanced weapons that would be unrealistic and weird.

However... some units/weapons might require continued support like Oil, Ammo, Bombs, Rockets maybe even replacement swords when they break off.

So those things would have to be bought as well.

I think the idea is really great... That way some nation which has the resources can exploit this and simply produce all this stuff and simply sell it and become filthy rich while others fight it out lol.

But now comes my new requirement.

Players should be able to find out who the supplier of the weapons is/are.

Maybe a simple sticker like: "made in china" or so lol... would do... but I don't know if that is common with weapons.

Anyway... this would require some "intelligence..." like CIA or something... which analyzes the weapons of the enemies etc... and can report stuff about it...

Something like:

"We suspect that these weapons came from France" or whatever...

or

"We know for a fact that france supplied germany with advanced fighterjets" etc.

This could again be some "intelligence tax bar"... or maybe some special invisible units which can spy on enemy territory... until they are discovered by other special double spies or something.

I still like my idea of supply lines of weapons etc and discovering them and taking them out or something or cutting them off

The motivation behind most of my ideas is to enable more strategy and strategic gameplay etc.

Though maybe civ 4 is not only about strategy.

I like the idea of adding some secrecy to weapons and spies etc since that's also pretty realistic.

"Think area51"

When researching/developing weapons these need to be tested and improved etc... and spies can detect that for example:

"We suspect that the usa has developed a new fighter plane with these charactistics:" etc...

Maybe even sabotaging enemy research would be funny lol..

But then there would have to be a counter measure as well

Yeah that's actually what's missing in Civ 3 at the moment...

No anti-spy stuff...

People can just steal tech... what can be done about that ? maybe barracks or courthouses or police stations ??? not really clear to me...

I rather have an "anti spy tax bar"

I just love those tax bars.

Nice and simple

I really hope that some of these ideas make it in Civ 4 to deepen the experience...

I was a bit worried about the request I made for more sharing of information between allies... now implemented (?) and called "teamplay" and I simply tested the idea as follows:

Today I played a game and I simply put some units on mountains in a "poppet civ" which I pretty much concuered. I couldn't really take him out but he was no threat...

But I was able to see whatever moved through his land... it was kinda cool

I do plan on using this tactic in future games.... In future games I will simply put some defensive units on the mountains of my allies to see what's going on in my allies land pretty cool stuff.

So I think the team play option is probably gonna rock I just pray it doesn't allow any cheating or stuff I would hate that.

I just checked with google... and somebody already compiled some stuff and it includes the spy unit... and ofcourse also the later spy satelite coool

http://civilization4.net/3/118/199/

Actually I just thought a bit more about these supplies lines... "Remember the game pirates! ?"

All those ships moving goods etc... I would love to see that in Civ 4 etc... and capture them and get a bit richer and force the enemy to protect his trade routes or loose em etc... same thing over land with caravans etc ohhhh yeah baby.

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[Pacifist]

@apatheist - didn't mean to quote you twice in my previous reply; it's been edited; I have difficulties stopping a game once I start, loose lots of sleep that way hehe & apparently seems to be affecting my performance

Players should be able to find out who the supplier of the weapons is/are
Maybe a simple sticker like: "made in china" or so lol

LOL - That sounds intriguing!

For example ...

If "Civ-A" is at war with "Civ-B" and "Civ-C" is supplying weapons to "Civ-B", "Civ-A" could declare war at "Civ-C" if they find out and "Civ-A" would not receive a "reputation" hit. Then "Civ-A" would have to find a way to intercept trade agreements between "Civ-B" and "Civ-C" (through 'espionage') to cripple "Civ-B's" advantage.

Is this the kind of thing that you are proposing?

-Pacifist-
"All for one, one for all!"

 

[Himalia]

I cant see why this couldnt be added after all we can already trade workers and there a unit.

 

[Skybuck]

@apatheist - didn't mean to quote you twice in my previous reply; it's been edited; I have difficulties stopping a game once I start, loose lots of sleep that way hehe & apparently seems to be affecting my performance


LOL - That sounds intriguing!

For example ...

If "Civ-A" is at war with "Civ-B" and "Civ-C" is supplying weapons to "Civ-B", "Civ-A" could declare war at "Civ-C" if they find out and "Civ-A" would not receive a "reputation" hit. Then "Civ-A" would have to find a way to intercept trade agreements between "Civ-B" and "Civ-C" (through 'espionage') to cripple "Civ-B's" advantage.

Is this the kind of thing that you are proposing?

-Pacifist-
"All for one, one for all!"

Exactly... not long ago I played against 3 other people.

I simply had to destroy them all one by one... Since I was suspecting the bigger ones were helping the smaller once via tech mostly... and vice versa probably too so had to take em all out.

I simply reduced each enemy in size until each one was no longer a threat

(then I simply let them rott )

Bye,
Skybuck

 

[mokeysonice]

i like the whole weapon smith idea, but i think a way for the varying degrees of weaponry would be like an option where ya kno how you can put money into research and/or happiness? Well you can have a third option which is weapons quality--money which you could easily make back from selling the weapons. I think it would add a much needed sense of economy/economic bans/annd source of gpt that the game has been lacking

 

[Skybuck]

Yeah I like this idea of better quality products or weapons For a not to high price.

Like a quality/price ratio... Your civ's people would buy from the best ratio or so.

So you not only have to be a big war mongor... but also produce some nice goods otherwise your economy might plumped

 

[wooga]

It wasn't much of Russia's doing at all, it was on our part. Don't try blaming other countries for what we did ourselves...

Yup. The sad thing is many Americans flat out deny this. Seriously, wake up, we are the biggest supplier of arms to dictatorships everywhere....dictatorships we installed.

Arms transfers to Iraq, 1973-2002

http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/atirq_data.html

Report:

http://projects.sipri.se/armstrade/IRQ_IMPRTS_73-02.pdf

Seriously, wake up, and take off the tin foil hat. Just because Rummy got his picture taken with ol' Saddam doesn't make us "the biggest supplier." That title goes to either France or the USSR, by a loooooooong shot.

Back on topic. I think unit trading/gifts should be included, even if the receiving civ does not have the relevant technology/resource. In games where I have a significant tech lead, I want to be able to give a weaker ally some strong defensive units, without giving them the tech to offensively hurt me when they inevitably stab me in the back. (of course, the apparent Civ4 elimination of the offensive/defensive stats shifts this dynamic, but the point remains)

 

[Phoenix_56721]

I would just like to say that i think your on to something Skybuck!! Thanks for starting this thread!

 

[brokguitar]

I cant see why this couldnt be added after all we can already trade workers and there a unit.

I like all the ideas about selling units, i think everyone agrees it would be a great addition. As for simplistic sake, we should be able to trade/sell/give any military unit regardless of recieving nations tech level. Being able to trade them like a worker unit as stated above. You can think of them as a mercenary unit from your country or after you trade a axeman its not your people working for another nation but the weapon is trading hands and the recieving nations people are now taking the weapon and have their own axemen. Hope that made sense. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=87926 http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=95148 <---old thread about this topic

 

[joethreeblah]

I like all the ideas about selling units, i think everyone agrees it would be a great addition. As for simplistic sake, we should be able to trade/sell/give any military unit regardless of recieving nations tech level. Being able to trade them like a worker unit as stated above. You can think of them as a mercenary unit from your country or after you trade a axeman its not your people working for another nation but the weapon is trading hands and the recieving nations people are now taking the weapon and have their own axemen. Hope that made sense.

In the latest video interview, the Firaxis dude mentions in game teams giving each other free units.