Unit Trading - bad idea

[ChrisiusMaximus]

In civ2 that would happen wouldnt it, if you gave a backward civ an advanced unit they would automatically aqquire the required knowledge/tech for that unit.

I think this one is best left out of civ3 as it is you can already give tech and cash, if they had any sense they would spend the money on new units anyway.

[dexters]

Chrisius, tech + cash, or just cash is pretty much the extent of puppet mastering in the current Civ 3 build.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the need for unit trading. It can be cheaper for the granter, and you are sure the AI gets the units and doesnt' squander your cash elsewhere.

One potential problem here is that the AI, if you watch their debug games, divides their units into offense and defense. I wonder how it will deal with a sudden infusion of 10 units like Guerilla, where it can go either or.

[ChrisiusMaximus]

Youve probably got a point there dex, and what would it do with say 10 Artillery ?

The AI does not use this effectively any way so it would most likely leave them all in its capitol.

Id like to see the AI come at you with large stacks of Artillery and escorts to soften up your cities before attacking, but thats off topic for this thread.

[Carver]

Being able to use a weapon and being able to build that weapon are totally different issues. We should be able to trade or give any weapons we have and let that civ use it. This is what happens throughout the world today. There are many countries armed with tanks that don't have the ability to build them.

True, if we went back in time to the ancient era and gave an army one tank it would probably just sit and rust. But most weapons purchases in real life include training, spare parts, and sometimes maintenance support. This could easily be implicit in Civ weapons trades. That's why if you capture arty without the tech it is destroyed, no support. But if you buy it from someone they give you the needed assistance.

[Fosse]

I think that the tech advancement that lets one build a unit, for balancing purposes, should be viewed as a basic understanding of how to use that unit. The countries that don't have the capacity to build tanks, still know what they are and how to work them - in Civ terms they "have the Tank advance."

If unit trading isn't restricted to known advances, then the player could never spend the money or time to research or buy military tradition, and still buy hordes of cav... and similar things.

For design sake, the requirement to build the unit must be met.

For civs that don't have the resource or the production base to build those units though, trading is a great - and realistic - option.

[bobbo008]

what does it matter if people abuse and take advantage of the AI???

you dont have to, if people like to take advantage of the AI, there, then there are all the more happy with their purchase.

[Rommel2D]

But most weapons purchases in real life include training, spare parts, and sometimes maintenance support. This could easily be implicit in Civ weapons trades. That's why if you capture arty without the tech it is destroyed, no support. But if you buy it from someone they give you the needed assistance.

A very clear real world example of this was back in the early 70s when the US gave Libya (I think) a number of F-14s, along with the technicians and mechanics to keep them working. When Quadaffi came to power, all the US support people went home, the fighters all 'developed' little problems that kept them grounded, and not one has been used in combat, although they still have them, IIRC.

In Civ3 terms, advanced tech units could be traded like any resource, for 20 turns or until the deal is broken, when they are returned or destroyed.

Hmm, I seem to be in the wrong thread... :-]

[ALPHA WOLF 64]

maybe there can be a flag that identifies a unit as tradeable and another that indicates whether the receiver must have that specific tech. this way you can identify which units can be traded and limit those that require a more difficult tech. for example, i can always trade spearmen whether they have bronze working or not, whereas modern armor could be limited to those who already have the tech.

[Ision]

My first point about unit trading was not to suggest that there is no historical precedent. However, The dynamics of this game make what is being proposed absurd and highly unhistorical. What we are talking about here are NOT small mercenary units assisting another Civ, or the sale of equipment to another nation. Unit trading on the scale being proposed is not the same as the USA selling 30 F-15's and 50 Tanks to Israel. It would be tanamount to the USA 'giving away' 250 F-15's, 1000 Tanks, 200,000 Infantrymen, ect ect... Lend Lease during WW2 was very generous, but come on! This is more than a small stretch, or minor abstracting. To allow a massive military give away to a small battered CIV at war with a dominant CIV moves the game from an abstraction to a complete unrealistic fantasy.

The only way to incorperate this into the game in a reasonable fashion would be to have severe restrictions on the total amounts allowed to be traded or given away. Perhaps no more than 5% of your total military (even this is quite a stretrch!). Also, repeated or large trades to a CIV already at War should at some point trigger a DOW by the opponent CIV's on you as a result.

Personally, I still don't like it. It just seems like a cheap exploit. If you really want to wound that other dominant CIV. Be a man, declare war.

As to the comments about the AI being able to reasonabaly handle Unit Trading - yeah right. Lets just say, thank god they created the huge AI cheat advanatages through the levels - otherwise the game would be unplayable.

CIV3 is my favorite game. Unit tradeing in a very very limited manner (with heavy pro-AI advantages) I could live with. Even in MP unit tradeing should be greatly limited. Personally, the game is great without it. Why bother.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Ision
My first point about unit trading was not to suggest that there is no historical precedent. However, The dynamics of this game make what is being proposed absurd and highly unhistorical. What we are talking about here are NOT small mercenary units assisting another Civ, or the sale of equipment to another nation. Unit trading on the scale being proposed is not the same as the USA selling 30 F-15's and 50 Tanks to Israel. It would be tanamount to the USA 'giving away' 250 F-15's, 1000 Tanks, 200,000 Infantrymen, ect ect...

There is little unrealism to that. As I said, some countries in the past have specialized in mercenarying, and almost all their forces were leased to great powers. This behaviour has stopped because the countries became able to raise troops by themselves. In today's world, we have seen that most weaponry from the Arab countries has been bought to the Soviets or to western countries, that nearly all Vietnamese weapons came from China + USSR etc. And yes, we are talking huge amounts here.
If there is a threat taht justifies selling / giving away a real chunk of the military potential, the countries can do it. But today's countries do prefer to keep their troops for themselves

Lend Lease during WW2 was very generous, but come on! This is more than a small stretch, or minor abstracting. To allow a massive military give away to a small battered CIV at war with a dominant CIV moves the game from an abstraction to a complete unrealistic fantasy.

Not quite. During WW1, French and British ground forces were united under the same command (led by a French Marshall). In Civ terms, it would mean the Brits have given all their ground troops to the French, and took them back after the war.
Today, all NATO troops can be under the same command. It would mean all NATO countries basically 'give' their units to the US until the end of the war (NATO is the military structure that comes along the Atlantic Alliance). Yes, we are talking huge amounts here.

The only way to incorperate this into the game in a reasonable fashion would be to have severe restrictions on the total amounts allowed to be traded or given away. Perhaps no more than 5% of your total military (even this is quite a stretrch!). Also, repeated or large trades to a CIV already at War should at some point trigger a DOW by the opponent CIV's on you as a result.

I don't think you should be limited in the amount of your military that you can trade or give to other countries. However, I agree with you that unit-trades should quickly lower the attitude of your client's enemies towards you (resulting in war if you don't take other steps). OTOH, It should quickly raise your client's attitude with you. This way, if you deal units to all warring Civs, they all remain neutral to you.
As a matter of fact, I think all trades with a Civ at war should make this civ's enemies more angry towards you, with unit-trading being the fastest angrying factor.

Personally, I still don't like it. It just seems like a cheap exploit. If you really want to wound that other dominant CIV. Be a man, declare war.

I feel this precisely is a flaw in Civ3 in comparison to Civ2. In Civ2, you could pay countries to wage wars for you, and give them units so that they are more efficient while fighting your rivals. The 'puppet master' features allow for a builder strategy for those of us who prefer to build rather than to fight. Besides, unit-trading can work both ways, and if you are a warmonger, you may be able to buy your units to the AI if you need a quick (yet expansive) surge.

Personally, the game is great without it. Why bother.

Because it would make the game better IMO.

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by Arrian
If implemented, I think there should be limitations on it (only can give X number of units per X turns to a civ, AI civs will reject terribly outdated units, etc).

I think the best thing would be to have all gifted units' be regulars at best (if they were conscripts, they stay conscripts, regulars stay regulars, vets or elites get demoted to regular).

Very good ideas Arrian. These kind of limitations are pretty cohesive with Civ, and I like them. It makes unit-trading a good feature, but not an unbalanced one.

If unit-trading also pisses off your client's enemies (and pleases your client), I think these will be all the limitations we need to avoid abuses with the feature

[dexters]

Well, IMO, we should stop arguing about history and realism and all that nonesense. Civ3 is highly unrealistic. The historically accurate portions of the game are only accurate because of conveninence. Gameplay decisions take precedence in almost all design decisions, as it should be.

Arguing about Libya, the Swiss mercenary forces, while highly interesting, doesn't really get us anywhere.

Gameplay balance and overall challenge and enjoyment tends to argue in favour of 2 things

#1) Requisite technology to build the units must be met.
#2) Unit trading cap based on a formula

A Civ without rubber but with Replacable parts can get Infantryman through trade.

It's as simple as that. Having a Civ barely able to build a rifleman having infantryman running around is a bit ridiculous and may cause AI "addiction" to the units and stunt its technology research.

[wrylachlan]

It doesn't need a trading cap or a resource requirement, all the problems you bring up could be balanced by the cost and attitude adjustment. The AI wouldn't sell you techs above your tech level without a significant premium, therefore it would still in most cases be more economically viable to spend the money on science, except in a close war where you have more cash than production capability, or maybe you have lots of gold in your coffers.

As for the other way around, the problem of giving away useless units to the AI to burden it with upkeep... wouldn't the AI just disband???

And giving arms to another country to fight a proxy war, that should really piss off the country that is getting hit by those weapons.

Seriously these aren't game-breaking problems, just balance problems.

[dexters]

Originally posted by wrylachlan
It doesn't need a trading cap or a resource requirement, all the problems you bring up could be balanced by the cost and attitude adjustment.

Uhhh... trading caps are required. That much we can agree on. And for practical purposes, it may be required just to make sure human players dont exploit the AI.

But if you bothered reading the post you were responding to, no mention was made of resource requirements.

Tech requirements was the topic. I simply pointed to a hypothetical scenario where unit trading would be allowed. That is, a civ with the tech but not the resource to build it. It can also be that the civs have both techs and resources to build a unit but just aren't building them fast enough and may decide to procure them from you.

[Spiffor]

I am not fond at all of tech requirement. I can see some limitations to trading advanced units to a backwards Civ (like making them concript, for example), but I fail to see the use of a tech requirement.