FIRAXIS : Why unit-trading must be in

[Inverse Icarus]

another thing: i can give a "friend" some tanks without giving them the oil to make them. i can control how many tanks my enemy has

[Spiffor]

Uberkrux :
That's exactly the kind of trick I love with unit-trading. Much more freedom is given to a player, which is a plus (especially in MP)

[wrylachlan]

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

When workers are captured, they retain their original nationality, but with unit trading, the units should definitely switch nationality. If America gives helicopters to Israel, we don't consider it an attack on America when one is shot down. Nor does America have any say in what they do with them.

There is a possible exploit with MP where one civ races for tech advances while the other builds just units and trades the units for the tech. I'm not saying that that scenario should be ruled out entirely, but it would be nice to create some sort of balance.

My suggestion is this - Make a cost for training your troops to use the traded equipment. In the real world, America can give that chopper to Israel, but Israel still has to pay to train the pilots.

One mechanism might be to give barracks the ability to "Train" existing troops. Move a conscript into a city with barracks, click train, pay some gold and they are regular, do it again and you get veteran. Then make all traded units trade as two notches less than they are (Elites become Regular, Veteran's become Conscripts, and Regulars become... Newbies[1HP MAX])

If you balanced the training costs correctly, it would still be advantageous for a civ to trade for units, but it would not be overpowering to the point that civs wouldn't build any of their own units.

On a side note - if the "Training" thing was implemented, double the initial cost of the Military Academy, and units trained there train for half the cost.

[PGM]

I definitely agree with unit trading/selling and have been supporting it well since before Civ3 was released.

I don't understand why the AI can't calculate a price tag for a military unit when it's obviously capable of doing so regarding everything else in the game (workers, techs, cities, maps, luxuries, resources, diplomatic agreements).
Besides, it's realistic (for instance, USA and Russia have done it for decades) and incredibly fun. Just imagine, profiting from a war by selling units, or keeping a grip at strategical world balance by supporting your distant allies.

It must be in!

[Sava]

I agree with just about everything you said... the only thing I disagree with is the code part. You haven't seen the code, you cannot make a judgement on that based on the finished product.

[Spiffor]

Sava :
True, I got a little carried away... But I wanted to insist the AI is already able to evaluate things, and that a kind of unit-trading is already in. That's why I think unit-trading is less difficult to implement than whole new features, like airfields for example (for which the AI has to learn from scratch).

Wrylachan :
I don't think of it as an abuse... In team games, there will be specialization of players. Tech specialization (player1 searches civilian techs, player2 military), money specialization (player2 sustains treasury of player1 for techs), military specialization...
In SP, some power players already don't research at all, and buy their techs from the others. I think unit-trading is just another resource to trade in this existing trade model.

Edit : added answer to Wrychalan

[PapaLenin]

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?

There should be two ways of trading units.
One is you can sell them making them totally Indiand or other could be "lending"...like "peacekeeping" =)...So units are under your or Indian control...dunnno which one but if they are attacked - that is declaration against you...
Tell me if you understood something I just wrote. =)

[Stuie]

Originally posted by PapaLenin


There should be two ways of trading units.
One is you can sell them making them totally Indiand or other could be "lending"...like "peacekeeping" =)...So units are under your or Indian control...dunnno which one but if they are attacked - that is declaration against you...
Tell me if you understood something I just wrote. =)

I understood that part about "There should be two ways of trading units." Then you lost me.

Seriously though, I don't think "lending" units lends itself very well to the game. A trade should be all or nothing, and no UUs allowed (or they wouldn't be unique, would they).

Also, the AI should base the value of a unit not only on shields required to build it, but whether or not the civ getting the unit has the requisite tech or not (if not = unit worth more).

I also like the idea of being able to train existing troops up to veteran status at barracks (for a price). Wasn't that in SMAC? Or am I thinking of some other non-civ game?

[Spiffor]

I too would prefer unit-trading as simple and direct as possible. The concept of unit-trading is pretty simple (I give you one/some units, you give me something in exchange), there is no need to make it more complex... If we want Firaxians to implement it, we have to make it fit at best in the current diplomacy model

[wrylachlan]

Originally posted by Spiffor
Wrylachan :
I don't think of it as an abuse... In team games, there will be specialization of players. Tech specialization (player1 searches civilian techs, player2 military), money specialization (player2 sustains treasury of player1 for techs), military specialization...
In SP, some power players already don't research at all, and buy their techs from the others. I think unit-trading is just another resource to trade in this existing trade model.

I'm not sure I'd call it an out-and-out "Abuse" either, but I do think it is a problem for the following reason:

example: MP Germany and Rome vs Greece and Persia. P&G go the specialization route with Persia doing tech and Greece doing military units. Greece builds no libraries or universities, while Persia builds no barracks. By specializing they have a distinct advantage. Since Persia can concentrate solely on tech, it advances fast, and Greece churns out the military units. The problem as I see it is that this FORCES Germany and Rome to do the same kind of specialization. Otherwise they get left in the lurch.

Maybe it won't be a big deal, but I can see where unit trading could make specialization the only viable way to win an MP game, and any game mechanism wich dictates your style of play I just don't like.

[Jethro83]

I'd definitely love seeing unit trading.

I'm certain you'd all agree that it would be more profitable selling tanks to an AI civ rather than selling them the techs and resources to build them themselves. This would especially be profitable when you're selling Panzers instead (in the case that you're using Germany). If they are immensely backward, you can make quite a bit of money over the time it takes for them to get to the point where they can build them themselves (IF they actually do). Improve the AI's ability to accumulate wealth, and increase their willingness to pay good prices for your units.

As for how the system will work in MP, I don't know, don't care since I probably won't be playing MP anyway.

[Spiffor]

Wrychalan :
Sure, but it seems any resource to trade (tech, money) will create specialization, and will force those who son't want to do it however.

[ahenobarb]

Originally posted by wrylachlan


When workers are captured, they retain their original nationality, but with unit trading, the units should definitely switch nationality. If America gives helicopters to Israel, we don't consider it an attack on America when one is shot down. Nor does America have any say in what they do with them.

There is a possible exploit with MP where one civ races for tech advances while the other builds just units and trades the units for the tech. I'm not saying that that scenario should be ruled out entirely, but it would be nice to create some sort of balance.

My suggestion is this - Make a cost for training your troops to use the traded equipment. In the real world, America can give that chopper to Israel, but Israel still has to pay to train the pilots.

[snip]

Good to see there is some interest in this and a wealth of ideas. Wrylachlan, to the first point, there is a difference between man and machine. Machines are just objects, people are different.

Second, you do point out an interesting exploit, however I don't think the AI is this clever (having played against it for some months now). That is, it isn't smart enough to do it if you the player want to specialize in the science and get your best ally to do the unit production: the AI won't know what the heck you are talking about. Also, independantly the AI could never conceive of such a scheme even as I have illustrated above if you are already trying to carry half the load.

The only place that would come up is with MP and my thought is that the people playing the game should be able to do whatever they want with the system. 2 on 2 working the system sounds interesting to me.

The third point is an interesting notion, however, we haven't even been able to convince the programmers to let us trade units, much less add abstractions like training units.

PL has an interesting idea with two systems, i.e. lend units and selling them outright. At the end of lending units you get them back, selling you obviously don't.

As far as an exploit of lending units to one civ to attack your rival and not being allowed to declare war outright, well history is replete with that very scenario and I think it would make an interesting addition to civ. I prefer lending to selling the units, but it would be nice if both were in.

[Sava]

Arms trading is the biggest money maker for the US and the former Soviet Union.

[Pyrkaige]

Unit trading would be a definite boost for the multiplayer section of the game, when the expansion comes out. It would fit in nicely with the ability to trade other things, with the people involved making choices accordingly on the value of the units. As mentioned for the reasons above, if unit trading is added it should be listed as an optional switch checked at the start of a MP game; it would definitely change the strategies involved.

If this is added, it seems unlikely it would find its way into the singleplayer game. I doubt the AI involved in trading even has a concept about trading for the value of a single unit; it bases trades on the future usefulness of the tech/resource involved. This is a totally different concept from deciding "what do I build now?" which is what it does when determining whether to build another spearman, or a temple instead. The reason why the AI trades for workers is because "It wants its people back"; that has no relevance when dealing with military units from another civ.

If you look at the possible tradeable items that a civ has at any given time, the truly viable ones (not cities or gold by itself unless involved in another, larger trade) rarely amount to more than half a dozen: a tech or two and perhaps a resource, and some luxuries. If you toss military units into the mix, you're talking about potentially hundreds of trades for each civ in the game, every turn. The logistics of this would be something of a nightmare to factor in every turn.

In short, I hope this is added for MP usage, but I doubt there is very much chance it would be available for standard singleplayer games.