Unit Trading - bad idea

[dexters]

Originally posted by 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.

Abuse
AI addiction
unintended consequences

The AI is built with rather general instructions to maximize this or that. Giving them access to units they don't have technology for could potentially lead to game imbalances that will be a pain to fix.

Aside from your insistance that you don't like a tech requirement to trade certain units, which is a reasonable requirement, you haven't really given any conving argument why unit trades should not have a tech requirement.

Maybe a modified system would be to just give the Civ receiving a unit all the techs needed to build it.

That will work just as well for me. Either way, from a gameplay standpoint, operating a unit = having the required techs. For a design perspective Firaxis has already picked the position that they prefer Civs to not have units they cannot build, as we see with how the game treats captured units. I suspect they will extend it to unit trading if it is implemented in Conquests. Makes perfect design sense to me.

[Tiberius]

I liked the way in which unit trading was done in Civ2. Each time a modern unit was given to a civ, a small chance existed that it would trigger a tech revolution fopr that civ.
Maybe giving MAs to a civ that has only knights is too much (I mean, how could they know how to use it?), but other than this kind of exxagerations, I also fail to see why should a tech requirement exist.

One restrictive condition that makes sense for me would be the requirement to be in the same era, in order to trade units. For example, you couldn't give MAs to a civ who's best unit is the knight, but you could give them cavalries or you could give MA only to a civ that already has tanks.

Edit: when I say "they have knights" or "they have tanks" I mean that they have the tech prerequisite for tanks or knights.

[dexters]

Same era requirement + a limition on how far behind the receiver can be (technologically) to still be able to receive a unit is a reasonable compromise...

I wouldn't oppose that. Throw in a chance that the receiving Civ have a probability of receiving the techs for building the equipment and I can see that it tends to on the whole, balance things out.

This compromise however only exists if the whole tech requirement is an issue of dispute at Firaxis. Firaxis however seems to be leaning the towards a tech requirement model. If you look at how they worked out their captured units model in Civ3 and PTW, I can't see why they will do an about face and suddenly decide tech requirement isn't important for other units when you can't use a captured unit you dont have a tech for.

Again, this all depends on if Unit Trading is in. If it isn't, then all of this is moot.

[Spiffor]

Era requirement looks good

[Spiffor]

Originally posted by dexters
Aside from your insistance that you don't like a tech requirement to trade certain units, which is a reasonable requirement, you haven't really given any conving argument why unit trades should not have a tech requirement.

Well, since I 'insisted' only once to talk about a personal dislike of a strict tech requirement, there is little surprise in it.

While I agree with era-requirement, which allows not to give a disproportionate military might to a backwards Civ, a strict tech requirement would nearly kill the feature.
Indeed, some players will want to sell units in order to make money, to acquire resources, to get an alliance etc, NOT out of generosity for the recieving Civ. The price of one or a few units is likely to be lower as the price of the techs needed by the customer, hence making the units affordable for the customer even though the techs aren't.

Besides, don't forget unit-trading works both ways. In higher diffculty levels, the player is most often late in the tech race until the late middle ages. Should there be a tech requirement, the player will basically never buy foreign troops, at least during the time he is technologically late. When the player become technologically advanced, there is no need to buy foreign units, especially since draft allows cheap up-to-date units.

As for AI addiction, I wasn't aware the AI developed addicitions like a human being. I see very well a human player depending on others and specializing in building his Civ, but I fail to see an AI do this. If an AI often builds military units and searches military techs, there is no reason it suddenly stops. After all, even though tech-trading is rampant in the game, we don't see the AI civs setting their research to Zero.

And could you please enlighten me and explain what the 'unintended consequences' would be ? If we know them, we can fight against them.

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by dexters


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.

Who's this we? I don't agree that caps are required at all. Trade all you want. What specifically are you worried about that trade caps will fix but a balancing of the AI's valuing of trades will not?

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

You are absolutely right. This was a slip on my part. I meant Tech 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.

Again I disagree on a couple of levels. On the historical level, did vietnam every have the ability to produce machine guns itself? That entire war was fought with weapons given by another nation.

And on a game play level, the balancing of economics will take over. You can produce this unit yourself - I'll charge you a 10% premium. You don't have the tech - thats a 100% premium. That type of balance will fix everything.

[playshogi]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Ision :


2.
Firaxis has done a great job to make sure the AI understands a feature. .

Oh!
I've not played Civ3 in a long time and didn't buy PTW, but it seems to me that the AI still does not know how to use artillery on the offense, at all. I could be wrong though.

[Boris Godunov]

I'd agree that unit trading should have limits. I don't think you should be able to give units to civs that are woefully behind the necessary technology. Giving tanks to a civ that doesn't have tech to refine oil shouldn't be possible. So in that sense, once could maybe limit your ability to give a unit to a civ based on whether or not that civ has the right resources for the unit. Since many units are contingent on resources only discovered by more advanced technology, that would at least put a crimp in it.

As for the "250,000 Germans becoming Mongolians" idea, well, the idea isn't that you're actually giving them the people, but rather the weapons and materials. So think of your trade to Mongolia of tanks being just that--the tanks, not the personel. In this light, all traded units should be reduced to regular status (i.e. not veteran) upon the trade. Drafted units would remain drafted-level.

[Spiffor]

[q]once could maybe limit your ability to give a unit to a civ based on whether or not that civ has the right resources for the unit(/q]
Sorry Boris, but this one is a firm no-no. If a civ both has the techs and the resources to build a unit, I wonder why this Civ would buy units at all, except in the rare circumstances when it is in urgent need of manpower (this is about as rare as a Civ needing a loan).
A resource requirement to unit-trading is about as 'good' as no unit-trading at all. With this, unit-trading would be about as useless as colonies IMHO.

[Jack_www]

I am all for unit trading and hope to see it in the new expansion!

[Jack_www]

Anther thing I just though of, why not include in the rules at the start, so for those who hate unit trading can turn it off and those who love it can turn it on
?

[Carver]

Originally posted by dexters
It's as simple as that. Having a Civ barely able to build a rifleman having infantryman running around is a bit ridiculous...

No it's not. There are currently countries which can't build a propeller driven fighter that operate jet fighters.

In reference to infantry specifically, I think an eighteenth century rifleman could make very good use of the equipment of a WW1 or WW2 infantryman, especially after a crash course in twentieth century infantry tactics provided by the selling nation.

[Carver]

It is true that someone completely unfamiliar with modern technology would have a very hard time learning to operate a Challenger tank. (i.e. if you have never driven a car, used a computer, played Sony Playstation, operated a machine tool at a factory, or likewise, it would take a long time to become acquainted with modern technology and to learn how to use a tank).

However, every country on Earth has some people who are acquainted with modern machinery and could learn the skills, fairly quickly, to operate new weapons. Even the most backward Third World countries today have computer specialists, engineers etc. Thus, the backward countries in a Civ game would have some people familiar with modern technology, even if the country as a whole hasn't reached that level of development.

There is simply no need for a tech requirement.

[dexters]

Originally posted by Carver


No it's not. There are currently countries which can't build a propeller driven fighter that operate jet fighters.

In reference to infantry specifically, I think an eighteenth century rifleman could make very good use of the equipment of a WW1 or WW2 infantryman, especially after a crash course in twentieth century infantry tactics provided by the selling nation.

The focus has been about gameplay balance not realism.
I'm eager to hear whatever ideas you may have with regards to how unit trading be initiated on the gameplay side.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Spiffor

once could maybe limit your ability to give a unit to a civ based on whether or not that civ has the right resources for the unit

Sorry Boris, but this one is a firm no-no. If a civ both has the techs and the resources to build a unit, I wonder why this Civ would buy units at all, except in the rare circumstances when it is in urgent need of manpower (this is about as rare as a Civ needing a loan).
A resource requirement to unit-trading is about as 'good' as no unit-trading at all. With this, unit-trading would be about as useless as colonies IMHO.

I disagree. If a civ is involved in a tough war, getting an influx of several units that are even just a modicum more advanced than what one has would be or enormous help. And you wouldn't need the tech for the unit, just for the resource. In most cases, the tech to use the resource predates the tech to use the unit.

Let's say the French have discovered refining, but not yet armored warfare. So they have access to oil, but don't know how to make tanks. Along comes their good friends, the Germans (*snicker*), who do have tanks at this point. They'd be happy, for a handsome monetary sum, to send a few tank divisions to Paris (*double snicker*). The French have enough cash on hand to do it, and what would ordinarily go into rushing weaker cavalry or foot units now just goes to the Germans and the French are now sitting there with some tank divisions. Against an opponent of the same comparable tech, the tanks will have a decisive impact.

Even if the French had the technology to build tanks, being able to get a bunch of new divisions in one turn from an ally would be of good advantage in a close war