Trading of weapons

[Skybuck]

I just say a nice video of americans fighting in Iraq...

The moslim fighters have like bazooka's and stuff like that.

Really made me wonder where they got their weapons from.

If I were an american general I would like to try and put some pressure on russia and other countries to stop supplieing weapons to my enemies

So for that Civ 4 would need a "weapon trade system" and "weapon production system"

That would be cool =D

( Stocks and piles of weapons yeah baby )

I just got a new idea too:

Maybe even a whole trading system... where people/civ's etc can just offer weapons to the "market" for a perticular price etc... maybe even weapons of a certain quality

Then other players can simply buy them without needing any diplomacy at all (for faster game play during multiplayer )

Bye,
Skybuck

 

[Darwin420]

Well, from the pre-release info, it was said that you'd might be able to trade units to allies... not sure if this is still in or not, though. But, I agree, it would be nice to finally have this option in a civ game (instead of the civ2 'bribing' of units to join your forces)

 

[Skybuck]

Yeah,

I still like my idea better though.... it's just way more realistic...

Since... what are the chances of moslims fighters changing side and fighting for american ? just for money ? they dont care about money...

However.... exchanging/buying/selling weapons is interesting.... since there is no real emotion attached to it.. it are just goods

A bit more like a settlers idea I guess...

In settlers there were these little men who produced swords (weapons) and transport people would needed to transport these weapons... etc...

So it could be cool if civ4 or civ5 had like a transport system for weapons... maybe even other goods... like food and commerce stuff and production stuff... and maybe even supply lines for armies...

The enemy could than try cut these supply lines which could be great fun for him and the enemy since now you have to find sneaking ways around it

Having caches of weapons is than good for trading with other civs

Once you trade stuff... it still has to be transported... this could happen automatically... or maybe you need to do it manually.... so you have to protect the transport as well so it doesnt fall into enemy hands or barbs

Maybe even insurreance or law suits etc... could be added if it fails lol

Or the gold/payment is only done on delivery... or maybe half is payed up front... etc...

Bye,
Skybuck.

 

[Superkrest]

just a quick point..the us sells more weapons abroad the any other country in the world..but yes certain unit sales would be cool..i think tanks artillary planes and boats...but equipment for inf or other person style units would get odd.

 

[searcheagle]

Well, from the pre-release info, it was said that you'd might be able to trade units to allies

Where did it say that? I watch updates pretty closely and have never caught that.

(instead of the civ2 'bribing' of units to join your forces)

This isn't an Either Or proposition. Both could be included in Civ IV.

 

[josephstalin]

That is a nice idea. People trade weapons, trade them, and will trade them! This will open bunch of opportunities for play.

 

[Ochylski]

Actually, I believe this option, of trading a unit to another civilization, was included in Civ2. I think the unit had to be in your capital and non-fortified. There was one time I had given a marine over to some civ. It was only you who could give units, the AI couldn't offer it to you. There may have been some other details... but your idea is a more flexible approach. Maybe there could be like a black market available to smaller nations?

 

[apatheist]

To trade weapons would demand that the game distinguish between weapons and personnel. Right now, Civ only has the concept of unit, which is an atomic entity encompassing both. Splitting the atom, as it were, would have far-reaching consequences. I figure it's just easier to rent and sell units as covered in the thread on this previously.

 

[troytheface]

where they got bazookas? where do u think they got timed explosive devices? They are american. Talked to a soldier that just got back from over there and he said -
"all that stuff is ours- they set off explosives miles away- "

 

[rhialto]

Yep, most of the weapons Iraqis use were originally purchased from the USA. A lot of teh others were made locally - before sanctions at least, Iraq had a decent domestic arms industry, one of the best in the region.

 

[FieldMarshall]

I like the idea of trading weapons. It's very realistic. But apatheist has a point: what about actual personel? Can't brainwash them and then send them to their buyer, now can you?

 

[Crayton]

Mercenaries!
Or just educating the locals on how to wield a sword and work iron. A one time only deal. Unless of course you sell/lease/teach/rent/whatever again.

 

[BrendanM]

This would be great for wars by proxy, or trying to keep a balance of power in the world. Good idea!

Splitting the equipment with the personnel wouldn't matter because the nation receiving the equipment would know how to use it (because he has researched the technology and can build it anyways) and provide their own personnel.

If that nation does not have the technology to allow building of that unit, then they should receive a hit-point deduction to show the lack of skill with that type of equipment.

Trading foot soldiers would be like sending advisors (the US armed forces advises many nations all around the world, from Georgia to Columbia) Same rules apply above.

 

[Andrew_Jay]

You can already trade smaller Civilizations technology and resources (and money) allowing them to build the latest units.

Civ4 will allow you to ask a country to wage a war without involving you. Do that and generously supply them with tech, resources and gold and you have exactly what this idea aism for, but much more simple and elegant.

 

[riley555]

Alot of the weapons are probably American. America was always a large supplier of weapons to the middle east, mainly Saddam Hussein and Iraq.

 

[brinko]

Weapons Plant- as a must military improvement...if you want weapons..

I often wonder,where does my artillery come from? some dudes back yard?
The Barracks?
no...

Thats why in order to sell and build weapons... u need a weapons plant.

 

[Pacifist]

To trade weapons would demand that the game distinguish between weapons and personnel. Right now, Civ only has the concept of unit, which is an atomic entity encompassing both. Splitting the atom, as it were, would have far-reaching consequences. I figure it's just easier to rent and sell units as covered in the thread on this previously.

Splitting the atom? LOL Sorry, just reminded me of the Young Einstein movie

Anyway, I'd have to disagree here. While Civ does work great with just the concept of units, I've always wondered if the game mechanics could expand on this.

For example, let's say we could build swordman in the Ancient Age.
Current "Civ3" format requires it to have access to "iron" resource.
We then use "shields" laborers to create the unit

Now if we divided it to "user" and "weapon" ...
We could build the "user", in this case, the swordsman without the sword, which would NOT require "iron" resource to build.
Next, we build the sword, which would need the "iron" resource. We could accumulate as much "weapon" as we like, swords in this case. It would need an icon of its own with a number next to it representing the amount. This could be displayed in the trade advisor screen page. The weapon created could either be used by your civilization or traded to others. If used by you, the "user" that was created earlier could be equipped with ONE sword, becoming a swordsman.

With this scenario, the "user" could be equipped with any weapon that has been created (i.e. "users" equipped with pikes become "pikemen"). With regards to mounted units, the "user" would encompass the "person" and the "horse", therefore the "weapon" could be a lance, sword, musket, etc. For motorized units, the "user" would encompass the "person" and the "weapon" being the motorized vehicle (i.e. tanks)

The game already stores many variables (i.e. food consumed/stored, production amount, commerce, resources, etc.) Weapons would just be an additional variable but would have different variants (swords, spears, firearms, etc.)

Once a "weapon" becomes obsolete, they could become relics/artifacts that add a ONE-TIME culture bonus, depending on the amount stocked.

For me, I find this a fine idea that could enhance the Civ game mechanics.

-Pacifist-
Remember, the "pen" is mightier than the "sword"

 

[BrendanM]

Splitting the atom? LOL Sorry, just reminded me of the Young Einstein movie

Anyway, I'd have to disagree here. While Civ does work great with just the concept of units, I've always wondered if the game mechanics could expand on this.

For example, let's say we could build swordman in the Ancient Age.
Current "Civ3" format requires it to have access to "iron" resource.
We then use "shields" laborers to create the unit

Now if we divided it to "user" and "weapon" ...
We could build the "user", in this case, the swordsman without the sword, which would NOT require "iron" resource to build.
Next, we build the sword, which would need the "iron" resource. We could accumulate as much "weapon" as we like, swords in this case. It would need an icon of its own with a number next to it representing the amount. This could be displayed in the trade advisor screen page. The weapon created could either be used by your civilization or traded to others. If used by you, the "user" that was created earlier could be equipped with ONE sword, becoming a swordsman.

With this scenario, the "user" could be equipped with any weapon that has been created (i.e. "users" equipped with pikes become "pikemen"). With regards to mounted units, the "user" would encompass the "person" and the "horse", therefore the "weapon" could be a lance, sword, musket, etc. For motorized units, the "user" would encompass the "person" and the "weapon" being the motorized vehicle (i.e. tanks)

The game already stores many variables (i.e. food consumed/stored, production amount, commerce, resources, etc.) Weapons would just be an additional variable but would have different variants (swords, spears, firearms, etc.)

Once a "weapon" becomes obsolete, they could become relics/artifacts that add a ONE-TIME culture bonus, depending on the amount stocked.

For me, I find this a fine idea that could enhance the Civ game mechanics.

-Pacifist-
Remember, the "pen" is mightier than the "sword"

Micromanagement, and kind of complicated. I think it would be much easier to just have the unit move from one civ to the other. You no longer pay for it so it's as if you disbanded it, but instead its gone to another civ who is now commandeering it.

You can already trade smaller Civilizations technology and resources (and money) allowing them to build the latest units.

I'd much rather keep my technological lead over as many nations as I can, but also being able to share units to wage proxy wars on my enemies. Besides, it's faster to give them units to fight right away, than have them build the infrastructure and pump them out slower.

 

[Nyvin]

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...

 

[Che Guava]

With this scenario, the "user" could be equipped with any weapon that has been created (i.e. "users" equipped with pikes become "pikemen"). With regards to mounted units, the "user" would encompass the "person" and the "horse", therefore the "weapon" could be a lance, sword, musket, etc. For motorized units, the "user" would encompass the "person" and the "weapon" being the motorized vehicle (i.e. tanks)

Wasn't this concept around in colonization? There you had to build a foundry (sp?), make guns, then arm ordinary citizen to make them soldiers. After that you could add horses and make the cavalry. I liked that a whole lot (sure made a lot more sense than 'building' a swordsman) but I do agree that it would add a lot of micromanagement to the game that might get in the way. Maybe we should be bugging the civ team to give us a colonization sequel...