FIRAXIS : Why unit-trading must be in

[Spiffor]

DanMagahaFIRAXIS imho, the best way to lobby for features is to explain ad nauseum what cool things could be done if the feature were added

Ok, that's why I'll try to do here on the super-duper feature which is not in Civ3 : unit-trading. I post the long post first, I'll post a short sum-up after.

1. More flavour in SP : the "puppet master" feeling
What I lack from Civ3 is the "puppet master" feeling I had in some Civ2 games, when I was the economic center of the world, and had everybody else do the dirty work for me. Also, I kept an eye on Balance Of Power between other Civs. I didn't want to get directly involved in a war, because it would have hurt the economy.
In Civ3, not getting directly involved in a war is even more important : your economy suffers from less trade, and war weariness applies even when you're not actually fighting. However, the only way to help weakened Civs go to war yourself, as money gifts are not used exactly as you want by the AI.
Trading units is also a way to make all rival Civs weaker, if you trade with all of them : they suffer from an everlasting war, and you tip this war so that nobody wins. You'll make tons of money, your economy will still flourish, and the others will have to enter monarchy / communism. The "puppet master" feeling agains, Muwuawuawua !

2. An intense necessity in MP

2.1 Teamwork
In the upcoming MP, trading units will be an excellent way to really have teamwork, because it is currently impossible to have player1's units on a tile with player2's units. Thus, the only way to defend your friend's cities when needed (which is possible in ALL strategy games, think Starcraft or AOK) is to give them your units, so that they stack with others in attacked cities. I can't think being unable to help my friends, but this is likely to happen.
An example : I was friends with Indians who served as a stamp State between the mighty China and myself. The Indians lost most of their cities and were stuck in the Arabic peninsula, then signed a peace treaty with China. When China attacked again, the only thing I could do was to "siege" Indian cities, to avoid the Chinese to conquer them, as I was officially at peace with the Chinese. It's frustrating for me as the protector, and it will be frustrating for the Indians as well, when they'll be played by another human.

2.2 Deeper diplomacy
In MP, traded units will also be a resource for backstabbing, as the players could use those units to attack the seller. It would make for very interesting strategy (such as when player1 hesitates to sell oil to player2).
Overall, unit-trading will make for a much more interesting and deep diplomacy without being confusing for the newbies : they'll understand what unit-trading means, as much as they understand what workers-trading means.

3. There won't be so much abuses
Now, Firaxians will probably say "We got rid of it because of the abuses". True, there is a way to abuse unit-trading : you can give obsolete units to your "friends" so that they have to pay loads of money to upkeep them ; and as they can't refuse gifts, it seems to be a sure strategy.

But there are ways to bypass this problem, expecially in Civ3 :
- the AI can upgrade its units (and it will do this often, as long as the said unit is upgradable). This is great news compared to Civ2, where upgrades were exceedingly rare.
- the AI could try to sell these units as well to weaker Civs, or sell them for a discount (tech or something)
- the AI will use these units to pillage its enemies' roads, as it already does with its own obsolete units. They(ll be wiped out pretty quickly.
- upkeep is not such a big issue as in Civ2 / SMAC, because it's payed by the whole treasury (and a bunch of units are free under tyrannical governments), and will not paralyze individual cities.
- as you can upgrade your units yourself, you'll probably won't have tons of outrageously useless units in the late eras. Esp since the new "medieval infantry" seems to get swordsmen on the upgrade path. It's also possible you want to save these units in order to upgrade them when you'll have the money.


There. I wanted to show by this post how great including unit-trading will be, and I'm not even mentioning scenarios, which will feature many wars, and thus many military help, etc... I hope Firaxians read this, and understand why unit-trading is an outstanding idea, which should come back in Civ3 with the triumph it deserves

Edit : removed an irrelevant part

[Spiffor]

To sum up the previous long post :
- unit-trading is good in SP, because it gives much more interaction towards your allies
- unit trading serves the "puppet master" feeling very well
- unit trading is an absolute necessity in MP, because it's the only efficient way to protect your allies' cities.
- the abuses of unit-trading, while relevant in Civ2 and SMAC, are irrelevant in Civ3 because of the new features
- most code needed for unit-trading is already present.

[notyoueither]

What about the big exploit of the unit getting to move more than once per series of turns?

Maybe not an issue, since if they used the worker code, they go from capitol to capitol. But then, what about ships when one or the other's capitol is not on the Ocean, or is on a land-locked inland sea?

[Skanky Burns]

Ships could be teleported to the nearest city on the ocean or to the ocean square nearest to the capital. If necessary, force it to not move at all on the turn its traded to prevent the same unit moving faster than other similar units, simply because it was traded.

[Spiffor]

I too think a traded unit shouldn't move the same turn it was traded : we can say it took a whole year to enter the other Civ's territory.

[ahenobarb]

Here's a thread I started a while back on the same topic. Ignore the initial discussion with Gramphos, it was one of my first posts here and he bumped me to the right forum.

The rest is interesting.

http://apolyton.net/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=44172

[MiloMilo]

I think this is a good, and necessary, idea. There would be some things to work out, though.

One issue is that of helping nations at war. If French troops had succeeded in liberating Ireland from British rule in 1798, England would NOT have been very happy with France... I'd say that if you supply troops to a nation at war, it would amount to a declaration of war against their enemy. But then, what is the point of giving the troops. To prevent abuse, a solution would be to restrict this trade option to civs whith which you have a MPP.

Another big issue is the giving of obsolete troops to someone. This is thornier, as it means new ai evaluative programming. It shouldn't be that hard, though, for the computer to check what's obsolete. If I have pikemen, it should simply not allow me to trade spearmen. The principle would be, if you want help someone, you can't go halfway, you actually have to do your best to help them, or do nothing at all.

I'm not sure if it's possible to let a civ control units that are beyond its tech capabilities or resource requirements. If not, then you should have to give them the required tech or resource along with the units. So a civ that only has feudalism and no saltpeter cannot accept my musketmen unless I also give them gunpowder and saltpeter.

This would of course raise the question, what if I only had one source of saltpeter? Another thorny one. I think you would either have to disallow the gift, or make some radical change, like make strategic resources shared by civs that are in a military alliance. This is radical, but not impossible and not unreasonable. It stands to reason that, for instance, Kuwait would fuel our tanks and planes while we fight off Iraq (and then stop when we're done).

[Spiffor]

MiloMilo :
I don't think unit-trading should be as restricted as you say. During the renaissance, mercenary units were the core of European warfare, and the fact that the Swiss traded many mercenaries didn't make anyone attack the Swiss.
When you're trading units with Civs you're not MPPed with, think of it as a weapon-trade. To make money, states don't hesitate to trade weapons with others they don't expecially like.
And I think that backwards people will understand how to use a weapon, even if they're unable to design it : the Natives used firearms extensively while they couldn't build them.
About not trading obsolete units, it sure was an abuse in Civ2, but I don't think it is in Civ3, because it's now possible to upgrade these units. Instead of a rigid impossibility, these units should be greatly devaluated when you try to sell them.

But, you make a point when you say your help to others should be accounted by the AI. My idea of a solution is that a unit-trade makes your client happier with you, and its enemies more furious towards you. This way, if you trade with everybody (like the Swiss did in Renaissance Europe, like weapon-exporting countries currently do), your relations with others remain stable.

[Spiffor]

Ah, BTW, Jeff Morris stated that being loud with an idea and instulting the game repeatedly had only one consequence : to earn a spot on the ignore list.

I won't insult Civ3, since I defend it from my very first post here. This thread is rather pre-emptive action against whining : I'm sure the players in MP will dearly miss unit-trading (for reasons stated above), and it will create much much whining on the boards, like the lack of unit-stacking did.
I know it has no importance for Firaxis, but I also think the lack of unit-trading will make Civ3 lose MP popularity, if it isn't adressed.
I have many things on my wishlist, but I think that unit-trading and intelligence screen will be absolute necessities in MP. That's why I'm pretty loud about those.

[Solver]

The long post if a good once.

I think they got to either implement unit trading as Spiffor says, or at let allies stack together and enter each other's cities.

Yes, I've also feel like I want to protect allied cities in Civ 3 SP.

Question: say I'm at peace with China, and am defending Indian cities. They are at war. China attacks and fights my units in an Indian city. Should this count as a declaration of war by China against me?

[MiloMilo]

Spiffor: with regard to accountability, I accept your points, the MPP restriction is not necessary. Civs at war with who you give units to should move at least one step down; if they are furious already they should definitely go to war. Even if they are gracious I think they should become at least cautious or annoyed. (You're helping to kill their soldiers!) Also, if someone gives units to your enemy, you should have the option of going to war with them, without taking a rep hit.

I also accept your somments with regard to tech differences and superior units, but that still doesn't address the issue of resources. Sharing across an alliance is the only thing that strikes me as a way to handle it.

And finally, definitely no insulting here. W elove this game, and we're just giving input to help Firaxis make a better XP.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by notyoueither
What about the big exploit of the unit getting to move more than once per series of turns?

This would be so easy to fix. All you have to do is make sure that each unit only moves once per turn. You'd just program the computer to check "Has unit moved in turn 103 yet?" If "no" then let move. If "yes" can't move until turn 104.

[Dinner]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Ships could be teleported to the nearest city on the ocean or to the ocean square nearest to the capital. If necessary, force it to not move at all on the turn its traded to prevent the same unit moving faster than other similar units, simply because it was traded.

This is another easy fix. The traded unit remains exactly where it is instead of moving to the tradee's city.

[Carver]

If someone gave me obsolete and un-upgradeable units I would cart them off to a (production wise) worthless city and disband them. Free shields - woohoo!

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by Carver
If someone gave me obsolete and un-upgradeable units I would cart them off to a (production wise) worthless city and disband them. Free shields - woohoo!

How about, "Sir, we cannot disband our friend's soldiers!" or some such.

If you really don't want them, you don't have to accept the dubious gift of warriors in 1870.