Weapon trades

[dmanakho]

In real world countries do buy and seel weapons,
tanks, armor, ships, rifles even uniforms.
I think it would be nice if in Civ4 there was a feature that would allow players buy and sell military units.
So often I wish I could help one or 2 weak AI civilization to fight a war against stronger one by simply selling them some cavalry units or couple of battleships. I think even infantry can be sold. :soldier:
I think this will add quite few new strategies into the way we do combat.
Plus, on hard levels AI really should be better at combat.
It's been mentioned so many times so i don't want to repeat it again and again, but AI really sucks in combat.
Well, those were my couple thoughts for all they worth.

Thanks,
D.

 

[Philips beard]

Most of us agree in this! It has been discussed several times before! I think this is surely to be implemented in Civ 4, if they listen to the fans, and if its practically possible!

 

[milan]

And not only military stuff but also computers, cars, etc.
All this combined with trading military units(see alsotrading military units) and techs will make really great world economy and trade!
It would be even greater if there is a world market were you can offer your goods.When you go to that market you will see what is offered at what price and get the cheapest offer. There may be also a feature where you can say that you don't want to sell your goods to a certain civ.

 

[Deathgoroth]

Great idea. The idea of a marketplace is also good. Then it would be easier to ban other nations from the market, so that illegal trading outside the market would have to be done, which can be revealed through espionage, and then you could have a Iran-Contras scenario....

 

[wisewood]

Yes we need nuclear weapons trade...it's a good way to support your allies...

 

[sealman]

Most of us agree in this! It has been discussed several times before! I think this is surely to be implemented in Civ 4, if they listen to the fans, and if its practically possible!

I can't recall anyone actually being against this idea. I think that if any of our ideas are included, this one would be.

 

[Trade-peror]

I think trading units is a pretty realistic hope for Civ4 (especially because it was possible in Civ2!). What would be even better (but much less likely to come true) is trading actual weapons themselves as commodities, along with other resources and products, on domestic/international markets that play a significant role in diplomacy and military influence. My suggestions as to reflecting this are in the UET thread (link in my signature). The summary or the last few pages of the thread pretty thoroughly describe my suggestions.

Anyway, I also agree with sealman--I have yet to see anyone disagree with unit trading.

 

[crimson238]

Definitly Unit trading.. commodities exchange.. I'd have to see it in plaec before i pass judgement on it.. might get too complicated. I like the import export system as is....
Perhaps you could have your armson there as well... have a city devoted to building up a unit, and trade the civ 1, say tank, per turn, for 20 turns.. for say 900 gpt.. or something like that.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think the KISS philosphy is best applied to resource trade. Personally I feel that it should involve the sale of shields and food on the market. At its most complex it should also include differentiation between raw and manufactured commodities.
As for differentiation of commodity types (beyond food and shields) I think that Planets 4 does it well. In this game you have a contraband market, and each race has different preferences for certain contraband items-which effects its sale price. A similar system could be adapted to civ4 without adding complexity IMHO. That is, like civ2s trade items, each city produces commodities of a certain type (metals, wood, stone, natural fibers etc). These would be assigned automatically based on terrain type. When you trade these to another city or nation, the value will depend on how 'important' the item is to them. This will be based on certain 'intrinsic' values (like metals being more valuable than wood, for example), and will be affected by how many sources of that item the buyer has, government type and civ characteristics! All of it would be pretty much automatic, much as it was in civ2 and Planets4!
Anyway, just a thought !

 

[phoule]

As long as the AI is smarter than it is now, I like this idea. But I see potential AI abuse in it's future. For example I have a city far off that isn't hooked up to my empire, I'm in a democracy and using cash to rush warriors because the city isn't hooked up to any iron source...can I force the AI to buy this unit from me by putting it in the trade window? I sure hope not, otherwise it would be a great way to bankrupt a powerful rival at minimal expense albeit at a slow pace. Or if they refuse to buy it from me because it's so out of date, I could simply gift it to them and gain a gifting benefit when in fact I'm trying to harm their economy. And if they feel the need to upgrade that unit well I just made them spend their bankroll to get a subpar unit that now costs them a unit upkeep.

I think if we as players have the ability to gift/sell units then there needs to be limitations on it. For example we can only gift/sell units to a Civ who we currently have a Military Alliance with against another nation OR we have to continue paying the upkeep on that unit. Although the gifting/selling could be more like renting a mercenary, so we can make a profit off of the deal and get the unit back if it survives. This would allow an advanced nation to play puppeteer by setting up governments at their own expense and yet potentially make a killing by essentially becoming a mercenary civ renting your army to rich weak civs. Gives being a militaristic civ a whole new stratgey. Granted I would like to not have to be at war with a Civ in order to gift/sell units to a side I want to prop up against a powerful foe, but I think it's necessary to prevent abuse if we do not have to pay for the units upkeep once gifted/sold to another civ.

EDIT: Bleh I just thought of another potential exploit to my proposed idea, what would happen if you gifted them out of date units like spearmen, if you got them back after the 'rental' period would they be upgraded to riflemen free of charge? I like the thought of trading military units but I have to re-emphasize the potential for abuse which would definately need to be addressed by posing some limitations on it.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

I think a couple of things can be done to make it fairly non-exploitable.

1) Legal sales of units should only be possible with a nation with whom you have an MPP and/or alliance. You can secretly trade units to another nation but, if it is found out, your international reputation will slide.

2) Giving or selling too many units in a given turn might adversely impact on the happiness rating of your civ-perhaps creating a form of 'pseudo war-weariness effect'.

3) A simple algorithm should prevent major exploits of the AI (at least, I believe so, but I am no programmer). You simply create a form of ledger system, where Attack or defense above a certain level will give a +, and below a certain level a -. Same with hp and experience. Each tech level of the unit ABOVE the AIs current TL will be a +, each level below will be a -. Each special ability will grant a +, as will any bombardment capability. A unit which has no resource requirement will be a negative, wheras each resource a unit needs will be a +. Its movement above 1 will be a +, and the more you ask for a unit, the greater the -. When you add together all of these factors, a net value of greater than 0 means that the AI will accept the unit(s), 0 or less means it will be refused-even as a gift. The amount it is above 0 determines how greatly the AI values this unit, in gold, gpt, resources, treaties or techs. If you give the unit for below this value, then your reputation with that civ would improve. If you try and 'gift' or sell a unit for greater than what the value the AI associates to it, then your reputation with that civ might diminish (especially if you do it a LOT!) As an algorithm, you the player would not be able to see what intrinsic value the AI ascribes to the unit, and nor will each civ give the same units the same value. Therefore unit trading will always carry some inherent risk-but with the potential for great rewards!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

 

[Drakan]

Great idea. I hope they listen.

 

[Ian Beale]

Trading units is an idea i have supported strongly for some time! It would be great if you could give units to an ally you support, even if you don't want to go to war with a country yourself. I also want to be able to pay a country to go to war with another, without actually going to war myself. I'd also prefer it if you could decide how many turns a trade lasts for, in the current game it is always 20. To me, it would be better if you could do a deal for 5 or 10, especially if you don't have enough gold for the full 20 turns.

 

[crimson238]

I really like the way Aussie_Lurker sets up the value scale. I'd be more than happy to work with something like that in civ 4

 

[Sark6354201]

Why wasn't it included in Civ3 anyways? They had workers being traded it's the same principal. I would love for unit trading to be included, does anyone know how you could enable it in the epic game for Civ3?

 

[TheDarkPhantom]

I think we should have a poll to attract it to peoples attention, including the game designers, I'll start a new thread if that's ok with everyone, it is a great idea.

 

[TheDarkPhantom]

Oh and Sark, it can't be enabled in Civ3, PTW or C3C unfortunately, only workers can be traded unfortunatly.

 

[SwitchbladeNGC]

Most of us agree in this! It has been discussed several times before! I think this is surely to be implemented in Civ 4, if they listen to the fans, and if its practically possible!

I don't see why it wouldn't be possible. It is ableto be done (to a degree) in SMAC and you can trade workers (as was mentioned before).

 

[Pook]

From the former "guy on the ground" maintenance bubba for the Kuwait F-18 program. What exactly would this trading of units simulate? Are we talking about:

1) Mercenaries, where the nationals of one country are fighting for another?; or
2) "Security Assistance" of helping a country defend itself by giving/selling it better weaponry?

I ask because option 1) in real life often brings the risk of outright war between major powers. If the soldiers of a major power are fighting alongside those of another country, it's hard to say that the major power is not at war.
Option 2) is hard, really hard. The entire logistics train (parts, supplies, training) will likely originate in the donating/selling country. Just giving another country the weaponry is not enough- there's a whole series of tactical, logistical & cultural/discipline factors that go into making a military unit. By this, I mean that if I ship a load of gladii and "tortoise" shields to a horde of barbarians, I don't get a Roman legion- maybe I get a better barbarian, but not much more.
In the modern world, "parts parts parts- you can't fly without supply." A modern fighting force has a very short life span without loads of logistical support- repairing electronics, testing engines & hydraulics, sophisticated weapons in large quantities, etc. I'm wondering if this feature was left out of Civ III for that reason.

 

[Aussie_Lurker]

OK Pook, 3 things:

1) As people keep reminding me, its only a game. It doesn't have to equate directly to reality-it just has to be good in gameplay terms and, as I've said above, I think it can be done without any real exploits.

2) If you want to bring in a dose of reality, then why not have both 'Mercenaries' AND 'epuipment provision':

(a) Mercs are worth more to a civ than mere 'equipment', but they retain the xp and the and level they had prior to sale. The downside is that their death/capture will cause war weariness in the 'sellers' civ, any captured mercs could cause an international incident and the seller has to pay any ongoing gold/population/resource costs.

(b) 'Equipment' units start off as the regular type of that unit (losing any xp they already have), and the buying civ has to pay any gold/population and resource costs. If they lack the resources, then the seller can always throw it into the bargain-if not then the unit will start to suffer degredation as soon as it leaves a city its based in (also making it highly unlikely that the potential buyer would accept it!). The upside is that the seller gets any population and gold back after the sale AND they can keep things at arms length (no risks of reputation loss).

3) Point #2 can be easily incorporated into a civ3 style diplomacy screen by having a 'Unit' heading. You click on units and it shows what units are in your capital. You click on the ones you wish to offer and a screen would pop up asking to choose between 'Mercenaries' and 'Equip and Train'.

Everything else I've stated above, about the AI's relative valuing of the unit, would still apply! See, improved realism with almost no increase in MM, as the population/gold and resource costs would be deducted/added automatically, and the unit(s) would appear in the city closest to the sellers border-assuming trade is possible between it and the capital (if not, then no arms trade could occur!)

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.