Will Civ4 allow unit donation and/or selling?

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Wise Ass
I don't know, if the code is already built into the diplomacy model it would be a huge overlook by firaxis not to put it in standard games. It will be available by the second patch

The code for transferring units, not the code for deciding when to transfer - and I'm not sure it's done through diplomacy, since in the diplo screens we've seen it wasn't there.

[Kuciwalker]

In Civ2, IIRC, unit trading was hugely broken, same for SMAC/X, too.

[General Ludd]

There is a "team play" mode?

[Shogun Gunner]

Originally posted by The_Aussie_Lurker
You don't need to get it to TRULY think like a human. Just for it to 'ask' certain questions, like:

~snip~

That doesn't seem too hard to me!

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

Okay, again, very logical. Then why isn't this done in Civ or similiar game? Wouldn't the formula become to predictable? That's how Civ3 feels when you end up negotiating a trade agreement with your advisor, not the foreign leader. There are other scenarios where the player has figured out how the AI will respond in certain situations.

[asleepathewheel]

great

[The_Aussie_Lurker]

Nope it wouldn't, for a few different reasons:

1) Each Leader type would rank the different questions differently-i.e. one leader might be more interested in the raw strength of the unit, whilst another leader might be more interested in its maintainance cost.

2) Civics-particularly government and economics-would also influence the relative ranking of each question-which effects the final score.

3) The formula only decides the relative ranking of the unit, the final value (in gold, resources, tech etc) will be based on this ranking AND the wealth of the civ. Also, you would not be PRIVVY to such information yourself, and could only go on the value YOU might attach to the unit.

Anyway, hope that makes sense.

Yours,
Aussie_Lurker.

3)

[Navyman]

What were the unit trading exploits in the Civ2 and SMAC?

[Cabbagemeister]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker
Not as far as we know. Judging by the diplomacy screens, I doubt it.

They could be working on it as we speak.

Or, unit trading might only be enabled with the discovery a certain tech. This would be nice, as it would prevent the worker-buying exploits that cripple AIs in the early game.

[MattPilot]

Here's a different viewpoint...

Why are all of you concerned with the play styles of others during singleplayer gamemode?

Why should a feature be excluded just because it has the potential to be exploited during singleplayer gameplay, but doesn't affect multiplayer?


If a player wants to exploit, why does that bother you?

If you are like me on the other hand, and want to play by the rules, then JUST DON"T EXPLOIT. Nobody is forcing you to exploit something - its your own decision.

Why should fireaxis fix the 'early worker buying to cripple AI' "bug", if its not really a problem? YOU, the player must make the decision NOT to exploit it.

Same for unit trading. Why would you be concerned with some redneck in the middle of nowhere about using an exploit?

Simply be happy that we have a feature and YOU decide not to exploit it for your own personal enjoyment.

[Cabbagemeister]

Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I (the human player) am not the only one who has access to this exploit. In fact, AIs may buy workers from each other (and I believe they do, though I may be wrong). This doesn't help the AI who's buying too much, but it really hurts the AI who's selling if the sale occurs in the early game. I can't abstain from using the exploit and prevent AIs from being crippled if the other AIs won't abstain as well!

But really, why should I have to abstain from anything to make the game fun? The AI doesn't use enough mounted units. Should I refuse to use mounted units? The AI doesn't make proper use of artillery. Should I refuse to build artillery? Some players do these things. But really, why should they have to? Give me AI that doesn't require me to play with one arm tied behind my back.

(disclaimer: this is coming from a player who can't consistently win at emperor... )

Anyway, the point is that unit trading is awesome.

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by Cabbagemeister
They could be working on it as we speak.

But they have no UI for it.

[Cabbagemeister]

Right, unless the UI only becomes visible after you research the "unit trading" tech, or whatever.

Don't give up hope!

[MattPilot]

Originally posted by Cabbagemeister
Well, correct me if I'm wrong, but I (the human player) am not the only one who has access to this exploit. In fact, AIs may buy workers from each other (and I believe they do, though I may be wrong). This doesn't help the AI who's buying too much, but it really hurts the AI who's selling if the sale occurs in the early game. I can't abstain from using the exploit and prevent AIs from being crippled if the other AIs won't abstain as well!

But really, why should I have to abstain from anything to make the game fun? The AI doesn't use enough mounted units. Should I refuse to use mounted units? The AI doesn't make proper use of artillery. Should I refuse to build artillery? Some players do these things. But really, why should they have to? Give me AI that doesn't require me to play with one arm tied behind my back.

(disclaimer: this is coming from a player who can't consistently win at emperor... )

Anyway, the point is that unit trading is awesome.

What i'm saying is, add as many features as possible. If selling Workers between AI civs hurts the game, then don't allow that. But the player should still have that feature.

Singleplayer is about the player, not the AI.

The more features, the better. If a player decides to exploit a feature then by all means, let him do that. If players want to play within the games rules, then thats a decision those players can make by not using exploits.


Using your example of building certain types of units. Thats a problem with the AI, not with a feature. Just because the AI doesn't build Battleships & can't value their importance, does that mean the game designers should take out the battleship? Or does that mean the player should simply not build Battleships to keep it even/fair? Heck no! In this case the BB is an added feature. The problem lies with the AI. It should have a script saying build at least x% of BB's of total fleet composition.

[Vince278]

Originally posted by Gramphos
On the feature list on 2k games website it reads

Now, what does that mean?

I like the sounds of sharing wonder effects.

[Addled Platypus]

History tells us this would be: Lend-Lease

Great between allies, units only