Trade your units as Mercenaries

[ahenobarb]

Something that I think would add an interesting deminisions to Civ III (or IV) would the ability to rent out your troops as mercenary's.



This could be part of the bargining table. You agree to rent out xx number of yy [hoplites, cavalry, frigates, tanks] for 20 turns in exchange for $$ amount of dough [or the whole thing in reverse, you rent another civs troops]. They take control of your units (or vice versa) for that period of time. At the end, renew the agreement or not. This can be done either cash-and-carry (meaning the purchasing civ has to ship them wherever, or teleport to the purchasing civs capital).

[Gramphos]

What has this to do with creation?
It can definately not be done with the editor...

[ahenobarb]

Not to be glib, but the choices are:

Civ3-General - This isn't a general comment on the game
Civ3-Strategy - This isn't a strategy to use to win the game
Civ3-Civilizations - This isn't a new civ I want created
Civ3-Files - There is no file to attach
Civ3-Help - I don't need help (at least not with the game )
Civ3-Stories - No story

Which leaves:
Civ3-Creation - This is a feature that must/should be created

Yeah, that's the one

You're right, you can't do it with the editor, or your MultiTool (as wonderufl as it is). However, I believe the "real" editor hasn't been released yet, Firaxis still wants $50 bucks out of me later for their expansion pack, which I imagine will include the real fully-featured editor -- which would consist of features only acheivable with the MultiTool (No word if the real editor could do this, though, and I am doubtful it could)


But, what about the concept itself? I think this would add a nice feature to the game that would make it enjoyable. Any one else like the idea?

[Gramphos]

Well, I think the idea is good... However, I've seen threads with ideas in General, where I believe you would get more replies. In Strategy you would get people to tell if it is a good way that wouldn't unbalance the game, so I guess it is a little on what answer you are looking.

But yes, I like the concept, and it has actually came up in my mind that I want to do this ome times.

[godinex]

I will Love iT

[Gramphos]

As they have many other ideas for civ4 in general, including DCs list for civ4, I move this thread there...

You will probably get more replies there, as I gues that the visitors of the Creation forum has read this thread by now.

[Rimpy]

They already tried that

I'm about 90% sure that I read a comment from one of the Firaxis programmers that they did try to do something similar to this, but that the AI ended up exploiting it and it was a detriment to gameplay.

I think that this was in response to a suggestion that there should be a feature to allow you to trade units (like you can workers), rather than your mercenary suggestion.

I was trying to find that old message, but I couldn't locate it.

[Gramphos]

Re: They already tried that

Originally posted by Rimpy
I'm about 90% sure that I read a comment from one of the Firaxis programmers that they did try to do something similar to this, but that the AI ended up exploiting it and it was a detriment to gameplay.

I think that this was in response to a suggestion that there should be a feature to allow you to trade units (like you can workers), rather than your mercenary suggestion.

I was trying to find that old message, but I couldn't locate it.

No, what the tried to do were as it were in Civ2 (give/sell units, not rent units)

[Scooby_Doo]

A good idea, but it does pose some interesting gameplay problems:

1) What happens if the unit is killed before the 20 turns is up? Would the civ that rented the unit still receive the per turn payments?
Would the renter have to provide another unit to fulfill the 20 turn obligation?

2)What would happen if the unit is used to fight a battle at all?
Would the renter then be part of the war when the civ handed the unit back?

3)What happens if the unit is upgraded (or should it be capable of upgrading during renting?)
Would the unit revert to its pre-rent type?
(this could be a good method of allowing large civs to help out their smaller friends-small civ sends large civ their units, lage civ upgrades them and sends them back)

Sorry this is a rather short message, I have to be somewhere else, but I thought I would just pose those questions.

[ahenobarb]

Good questions, Scooby_Doo

1) You keep paying even if the units are killed. If you rented them out, you get the money for the units, whether they are there or not (Don't rent out units you need). If the units you are using get killed, you still have to pay for them (The expectation was that you needed them to win some battles and if you're going to make an omlete, you gotta break some eggs). Presumably you could *not* have won these battles without them, so you can't complain if you're still paying and you got them killed.

2) Nope, whatever happens when they are in the other civs control is his business. This also goes if he attacks you with them. The greeks often fought other greek mercenaries in the Persian army. Be careful who you give them to.

3) Nope you get the upgraded unit, and the renter loses the money. So it isn't worth it to upgrade the unit for him unless he really needs to. Also, if you rent a unit that you can upgrade, you probably rented the wrong unit, the idea is to rent a unit you can't produce yourself and that is 2-3 techs ahead of you.


This should be fairly easy to program. The game already keeps track of the nationality of your workers if they get captured.

What was mentioned above regarding the previous incarnation of this wasn't the same. that was "bribing" units on the field, which happened only infrequently (the condottieri in italy) and was a major nuisance (who ever heard of a modern tank unit being bribed). This is a mutual agreement concept.

[Scooby_Doo]

I agree with you, ahenobarb, on number 1.

But number 2 is certainly a bit of an odd one for me as I would feel quite agreived if Big Civ X lent out 20 of its best units to Small Civ Y who then kicked in my civ without Big Civ X being "officially" involved in the war. I would feel that Big Civ X should be in the war and I should suffer no penalties for attacking them in return.

However, I see your point and I think there may a historical reference for the lender not getting involved, after all, many civs throughout history have supported other nations covertly and did not become "officially" involved in any conflict.

I also see your point to Number 3 as well.

Has anyone else got any queries? Its a very interesting concept and could add a lot to the game if implemented correctly.

[Gramphos]

On #2 I believe that if the units were up to attack units with the same nationality they shouldn't be as efficient as usual. This could maybe also apply for when attacking units with nationalities strongly related to you. Also I think that the relations could be affected by if you rent units to a civ, and a civ should have the ability to demand you to cancel the deal, with or without economical compensation.

[ahenobarb]

Gramphos, I think you're right, you should be able to demand and end to the agreement, you can with many of the others.

Your first point would require adding a new element to the game: "morale" of your troops. So if you're an eilte unit, but you just lost you're capital (for the third time in arow - as is a common experience for the AI), you're moral is down. Conversely, if your a wounded veteran, but have high morale you fight better. Morale would also be affected by the nationality of your opponent, and whether you are fighting your own mercenaries. Nice idea, but harder to implement.

[Spiffor]

Ahenobarb :
Those are good ideas, but I don't think they can be implemented without some major changes. I also fear the concept of Unit morale will mean more micromanagement and could confuse the newbies... Also I don't mind that, many people will probably won't like it.
That's why I stick to the good ol' unit-trading, which is simple, elegant and straight to the point.

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Ahenobarb :
Those are good ideas, but I don't think they can be implemented without some major changes. I also fear the concept of Unit morale will mean more micromanagement and could confuse the newbies... Also I don't mind that, many people will probably won't like it.
That's why I stick to the good ol' unit-trading, which is simple, elegant and straight to the point.

Point taken Spiffor, that was sorta my gist with the reply to Gramphos. Morale would be asking too much, the other stuff shouldn't be a problem.

BTW I liked your note about the exploit of dumping (i.e. offering as a gift) defunct units to other civs and your proposed solution.

Now we just need someone to listen and pick these ideas up, but it looks like the XP is close to being in the bag already so I don't expect it there.