Unit Trading - bad idea

[Ision]

Well count me as the lone voice against the popular idea of unit trading.

I have 2 problems with it:

1. It's one thing to be able to have a small 'mercenary force' that you can send to assist one of the AI's. But, ourtight unit trading is a bit riduculous. I know that CIV3 is a highly-highly abstracted game. But the idea of 'trading (giving away)' 40 modern armor to an AI CIV that is at war and doing this without any repercussions - is crazy. Exactly how does one explain to 250,000 German Infantrymen that they are now Mongolian Infantrymen! Even if the trade is not an outright give-away, and is a; 20 of my Cav for 30 of your Infantry type things - this still pushes the concept of 'game abstraction' to an absurd level.

2. More importantly, the AI is already dead 'stupid'. To add this particular feature to this AI would be yet another overwhelming 'Human advantage'.

As an MP option it might be an interesting idea. But in SP - no way. We humans have more than enough advantages already.

[Dominae]

I agree: unit trading only makes sense in MP, from a strategic perspective. I can only imagine abuse with respect to this ability in SP games against the AI.


Dominae

[Tiberius]

I'm not a big supporter of unit trading (read: I can live without it), but IMHO it ads fun to the game. I once helped the weakest civ in the game (with only 1 city left) to become the 2nd most powerful after me, just for fun. "Puppet master" strategies are fun to play from time to time, for a change.

I understand if (and why) you don't like it, but since it would hurt only single player games, how would it hurt you ? You don't have to use it if you think it's an abuse.

[Spiffor]

Ision :

It is no mystery that I am a very big fan of Unit Trading. So, let me please answer your concerns.

1.
Unit-trading, taken as a 'mercenary force' is realistic, despite being abstract. During the renaissance era, mercenary forces were of extreme importance on the battlefield, and were the most important part of the forces. For example, the Marignan battle of 1515 (between France and Italy IIRC) had nearly only Swiss pikemen fighting each other.

At that time, a few countries were specialized in being mercenaries, which was the business of a significant chunk of the population (Switzerland and some German principalties).

The importance of mercenary forces in European warfare declined as the States became more centralised and more able to mobilize troops by themselves. The States preferred to rely on their ability to raise troops rather than depending on foreign countries.

The invention of nationalism and the draft made mercenary armies totally obsolete in the West, since it was now easy to raise troops. However, weapon trading remained a juicy business, and still is today.

In today's Africa, mercenary forces continue to be an important asset in the military, even though the African countries are slowly able to raise troops by themselves. Mercenary forces are handled by private companies, some from the West (Gbagbo's Ivory Coast is rumored to use the services of a British mercenary company).

So, unit-trading is realistic, even though it doesn't represent exactly the same before and after nationalism. Before nationalism, whole units (weapons + people to operate the weapons) were traded. After nationalism, only weapons were traded. Since military units don't eat up population in Civ3, these are exactly the same from a gameplay point of view.


2.
Firaxis has done a great job to make sure the AI understands a feature. The few features that have been added in PtW (outposts / radars / airbases) are used quite adeptly by the AI.
The big interests of unit-trading can generally be understood as :
- giving some immediate help to an ally in need.
- giving some immediate help to a non-ally who is threatened by a rival
- getting money, techs, or whatever.
Of course, for the AI to understand these concepts, it will require quite some work. But it doesn't look impossible to me. After all, so far, the AI has understood tech trading, resource trading, alliances etc. I don't see unit trading being infinitely more complicated than the already present diplomatic features.

[Louis XXIV]

Also, the Soviet Union traded its weapons all the time. They didn't get huge reprecussions.

[HazieDaVampire]

i think i would imagen it as selling them the Helmets and rifles, and maby training up some men for them.
Or building them a load of ships, or giving them some tamed horses.

[The Templar]

Originally posted by HazieDaVampire
i think i would imagen it as selling them the Helmets and rifles, and maby training up some men for them.
Or building them a load of ships, or giving them some tamed horses.

This is how I tend to think of unit trading in the modern age - selling tanks and training. Of course even in the 20th Century you had foriegners joining other armies from the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the spanish civil war to Americans of Kosovar dissent signing up in New Jersey to fight in that war.

[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 it's more of a MP feature, though.

I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that you could give a civ stuck in the middle ages Modern Armor and it would work as well as MA you use. If they have the tech & you're just giving them hardware, fine, but if they're really backward & you're giving them units they are nowhere near buidling themselves... well... I dunno.

-Arrian

[Rommel2D]

How about if gifted units lost hit points or became conscripts when traded to represent re-training?

[spy14]

How about if they get downgraded to that civs level? i.e your MA's become Tanks. Spose they could also get upgraded if the other civs ahead of you as well. Failing that, they could remain as they are, but they're used and maintained by your own soldiers and after a set number of turns they are either re-let or returned to your civ.

[Arrian]

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).

-Arrian

[Fosse]

I think making all units regular is a fine idea... it makes building units at home still a preferable option 9 times out of 10.

I don't like leasing ideas, because units die... the last thing I'd want is to get a rep hit for leasing a unit that the AI winds up killing...

I don't like the idea of automatic upgrades/downgrades as far as type of units though. If I sent MA to a civ that doesn't have the right techs, the units don't transform into tanks... it'd be weird. Civs should only be able to receive units from other civs that they have the tech for. If you want to give that medieval civ modern armor, then give them the techs too.

[dexters]

I think the point about the AI not being able to use units they don't have a tech for is important.

They shouldn't be able to use it. If human players want AI to use infantry, they should give replacable parts to them too.

[spy14]

True, but what im saying is that the capability would be downgraded so tanks would be the equivalent. Having said that they could just be made into regulars...

[dexters]

I don't want unit trading to be costless for the aiding player.

If you want to be able to play the puppet master thing, then, you should go and build the units you are going to give away.

If the best units the AI your helping can build are knights, then you should have to build them. If you're lazy and feel their knights are outdated, given them Cavalry by giving them the techs.

The game already disallows the use of captured units like artillery if you don't have a techs for it. It makes sense.