Unit Cost

[polarnomad]

So, 6 horse archers is then:

300/4+(6*10)/2=105G, which gets discounted to 90G if the units are all returned.

For 6 modern armors this becomes:

1440/4+(6*10)/2=390G, with a discounted price of 318G.

I don't know, perhaps if the return rebate were larger we would more likely get our troops back, and be able to recycle them with added promotions, making them more valuable to us due to longevity, and to the renter due to battle hardiness.

EDIT: Of course, the troops longevity will also very much depend on the game speed that gets chosen...

[troglodyte]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
Maintaining control is my preference. Too much opportunity for abuse gifting.

That's why I'm suggesting 2 costs:

1, our control, tell us how to move it for 10 turns.
2, it's yours forever.

Actually, I do not really see how option 1 can work at all (beyond the theory, of course) - again see my comments in the Fair usage? thread. The point is that under option 1, unless we are also at war with the clients enemy, our units could not even attack their enemies units.

Here, I refer to the game mechanics. Can we just step back one or so paces and get me on the same sheet of music as everyone else, here?

My understanding is, unless we are at war with a civ, our units can occupy the same tile or even enter their cities without harm to them or us - they just "stack". Is this how the game combat is going to work in this game? If it does work this way, then option 1 implies that we have to be at war with the clients enemies (denying us trade etc with the enemies) and then our clients have basically hired our entire civ, not just particular units - and this violates our philosophy.

Someone, please put me out of my misery and just clearly and once and for all explain the basic combat mechanics, since it just doesn't make sense to me.

[polarnomad]

The person to put you out of your misery will have to be UnO. You make good points, that leave me scratching my head too.

[Kloreep]

Basically, we have to ask for special treatment from the other civs for option 1 to work, for we do have to declare war on the civ we have a contract against. Since we've made it clear that any aggression initiated by us will be for specific contracts, it should be clear what has been hired (the units we've invaded their territory with) and is up for attacks without retribution by us, and what we regard as still sacrosanct (our own territories and the things inside them) which we will actually go to all-out war over.

This does introduce more problems in CIV than in CIII, as there are not only luxury and strategic resources we may want to trade for, but health resources and commerce-increasing Open Borders as well. We'll just have to be as self-sufficient as possible.

[rush]

IMHO, we are better off selling the units and buying them back at a discount price after the battle, then to go through the trouble of negotiating and pricing of a rental contract. In cases where customer does not have sufficient cash on hand, we can allow financing over xx months, of course with interest added.

Costing for the sale of a unit would be the hammers required to built the units converted to $ plus a profit margin (say 20%)
Any request for special capability (eg City attack) would be at an extra cost, subject to availability. The extra cost would be to compensate us for not upgrading the units when it's built.
When the unit surives the battle, the customer can return the units to us. We will pay a discounted price, say 80% of the original contract price, similar to buying 2nd hand cars, jewelleries etc. This would provide some incentive for the customer, as he gets instant cash and can raise his research rate after his battle.

One benefit to us (if we sell units) is, we can effectively provide troops to both Warring parties without them knowing

[troglodyte]

Okay, thanks Kloreep. But that doesn't solve the issue to my mind (I am an ex-soldier and not that bright so forgive me):

1: Will we be getting special treatment from the other teams?

From my browsing of their public threads, many people already think we're getting special treatment (I don't agree, but the thought is out there). On the other hand, there are many people that like the concept, so perhaps I am wrong.

2: Will the game actually work well, for them as well as us?

I assume that we are all in this to have fun, including the "opposition". While the declaring war and breaking the agreements bit is okay with me, it does mean that for 10 turns or whatever, we lose part of our client base i.e. the enemy. They will have to show admirable restraint if they allow us to pillage and attack their cities (under someone's orders) and not attack any of ours in return. BTW, the best form of defence is attack, or maybe counter-attack, so they will have to unilaterally give up part of their defence strategy by not counter-attacking our territory (they will, obviously, defend against our units). I don't see it happening, but if you have other info... so be it.

Secondly, by declaring war, we may lose the ability to sell units to the "enemy". What if they already have units and the payments are due or the units are due back, are they supposed not to use the units until the emergency is over and/or still pay us, or even return the units during the emergency? What do we do if they don't honour their agreements - if they are in the pooh they are not going to worry about annoying us by breaking agreements! Again, I don't see it happening, but if you have other info... so be it.

I think it was UnO who said that a Pirate civ may be interesting if the Merc doesn't work out. IMO, if we use the system of declaring war to the highest bidder, that is exactly what we are doing (and what the other teams may have to do with several other civs to win the game): The client basically hires our entire civ to fight. Perhaps that is what is meant by "We strive to have a large military for hire by any team", but that and the Mercenary philosophy don't really gel. We say "We will rent units..."(that implies that they will not be renting our civ, just our units in my interpretation) and it continues "...to any team willing to pay the standard cost" (so how do we rent units to both sides if we have to be at war with both of them to honour this commitment, and how the hell do they discriminate between them in the heat of battle, also bearing in mind that we cannot be at war with ourselves and the clients cannot use our units to defend/attack our units???). Mistakes and confusion charaterise all warfare, but this will take it to extremes.

Okay, I can also see the other side of the argument: What if no-one wants to buy our units, or there is an off-board agreement between all teams not to buy from us? i.e. They take their ball and go home. Yes, that is a problem, but it is one we have elected to live with. Then their hiring our civ will be fun.

While I agree that the expert mathematicians and players should debate the cost of the unit, we have to iron this out. Perhaps the team leaders (here I assume Kloreep and UnO) may have to discuss this special treatment with the other teams, because it is something that everyone should be aware of (not necesarily agree with) before the game starts.

I think that we have to gift the units and be done with it, getting them back at the end of the contract if they survive.

I am not trying to throw our blurb in the face of all (especially Kloreep and UnO who have obviously played as this team before, and I am not rying to win a debate) but I am getting a bit confused about whether it will work, whether it will be allowed, whether it actually makes sense, and whether it will be fun for everyone. If it's too difficult to operationalise in game terms, we may end up spoiling it for ourselves and the other teams.

If you all are getting p-o'd about my rambling and think I should belt up on this point, do let me know.

[polarnomad]

I think you are justified in your questions, and I am all ears.

[troglodyte]

Originally posted by Kloreep
Here's a thread explaining the factors in rushing. http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=145687 Covers both population and gold. (And it appears pop rushing is somewhat buggy, and is screwed up on speeds besides normal.)

I read this thread that Kloreep refers us to finally - not that I wasn't interested, just that I was thinking of other issues.

I don't do good maths with little bitty pieces of numbers and letters and brackets and stuff: I guess this means that I will really leave it to the clever guys to decide on the unit value and rental and all and inform us. Whoever can figure this out needs our support! I will just keep harping on the broader issues of this thread.

[UnOrthOdOx]

first, I am sorry for relative absense. Work is really cranked up right now, and the original merc team is busy atm as well.

Originally posted by troglodyte
Okay, thanks Kloreep. But that doesn't solve the issue to my mind (I am an ex-soldier and not that bright so forgive me):

1: Will we be getting special treatment from the other teams?

From my browsing of their public threads, many people already think we're getting special treatment (I don't agree, but the thought is out there). On the other hand, there are many people that like the concept, so perhaps I am wrong.

We won't ask for special treatment. We will likely get it, however, in either a positive of negative way from each team.

2: Will the game actually work well, for them as well as us?

I assume that we are all in this to have fun, including the "opposition". While the declaring war and breaking the agreements bit is okay with me, it does mean that for 10 turns or whatever, we lose part of our client base i.e. the enemy. They will have to show admirable restraint if they allow us to pillage and attack their cities (under someone's orders) and not attack any of ours in return. BTW, the best form of defence is attack, or maybe counter-attack, so they will have to unilaterally give up part of their defence strategy by not counter-attacking our territory (they will, obviously, defend against our units). I don't see it happening, but if you have other info... so be it.

They attack us on our soil, they are at war with all of us, not just the units hired. It is a risk, and up to the teams to decide how to handle it. We will respond most aggressively to an attack on our unhired units or land.

Secondly, by declaring war, we may lose the ability to sell units to the "enemy". What if they already have units and the payments are due or the units are due back, are they supposed not to use the units until the emergency is over and/or still pay us, or even return the units during the emergency?

THIS is why we need to maintain control of our units. They can't order us until they pay. Once payment is received, units are theirs for 10 turns. At the end of 10 turns, units are no longer theirs unless re-hired.

What do we do if they don't honour their agreements - if they are in the pooh they are not going to worry about annoying us by breaking agreements! Again, I don't see it happening, but if you have other info... so be it.

Well, if we're not paid, we have a bunch of nice shiny units on/near their borders up for hire. I'm assuming they were needed to attack/defend against someone, perhaps a new client...

On the rest:

We are not going to get into bidding contests. It is a messy affair and incompatible with Civ.

1, you're planning a war, you don't want your enemy to know.

We'll not be able to seek a counter bid as we cannot share any negotiations.

Yes, technical states of 'war' will need to be made. That does not neccessarily eliminate the target of Contract 001 from hiring us in contract 002 for a seperate number of troops.

Let me know if that's not entirely clear, I'm a little short on time and it may not make sense.

[Kloreep]

Originally posted by troglodyte
Okay, thanks Kloreep. But that doesn't solve the issue to my mind (I am an ex-soldier and not that bright so forgive me):

You don't sound un-bright to me; it doesn't solve the issue.

As UnO says, we won't be getting any sort of special treatment. We'll simply have to state our rules (don't attack us in our territory or we drop the merc rules vs. you) and hope this will get other teams to play ball (or rather to only do so with hired stacks we send around outside our territory ).

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
We are not going to get into bidding contests. It is a messy affair and incompatible with Civ.

You're forgetting Great People. I thought a GP auctionhouse was a great idea. But yes, there's no way to do bidding over military units.

If we're going to focus mainly on rentals for combat, maybe we could have what outright selling of units we do done via bidding? Something to consider. But actual contracts have to be done privately, definitely.

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
1, you're planning a war, you don't want your enemy to know.

We'll not be able to seek a counter bid as we cannot share any negotiations.

[inamirrordarkly]

I see one problem. For instance Civ A hires us to defend a city for them. We station our units in that city to defend against Civ B. Then Civ B hires us to attack Civ A even if there is a provision that Mercs can't fight Mercs as soon as a technical state of war exists between us and Civ A all the defending units staioned in Civ A's city will be expelled from their borders. This is why I see the need for gifting.

[UnOrthOdOx]

Yes, there may come a need on such occasions. I want to see them the exception rather than the rule, however.

[troglodyte]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
On the rest:

We are not going to get into bidding contests. It is a messy affair and incompatible with Civ.

...

We'll not be able to seek a counter bid as we cannot share any negotiations.

Yes, technical states of 'war' will need to be made. That does not neccessarily eliminate the target of Contract 001 from hiring us in contract 002 for a seperate number of troops.

My esteemed leader, it is still not clear. My question is obviously not clear as I was not talking about bidding/auctioning units in that sense at all - I agree that that will probably not work.

You'll have to put is in really plain terms for us Africans. Can we just look at this hypothetical situation (and then I will try to drop this once and for all) which is really what I had in mind:

Team A wants a stack for ten moves to attack someone (we suspect Team B). At the same time Team B wants a stack to deter someone (we suspect Team A). What do we do?

Okay, we decide that we don't care what they want to do with the units and accept both contracts. They declare war against each other (and I guess we follow suit). Team A says attack Hicksville, and Team B says defend Hicksville. Now what? There are specific things that happen i.t.o. the game mechanics.

This seems very chaotic. In UnO's comment about contract 001 and 002 it almost seems to imply that the contracts cannot run simultaneously, only consecutively. That resolves the game mechanics combat situation, but it means that Team C will know that they cannot hire us because Team D already has (although they may buy units if we want to sell them).

Cool, that may mean we can say to Team C, our contract expires in 1628 AD, and then you can hire a stack, but Team D then cannot renew their contract. That will lead to "bidding" and we violate the "We will rent units to any team willing to pay the standard cost." This situtation actually means that we can only really rent units to one team at a time if they are planning to fight.

The other teams may not realise it to start with, but after the fist situation occurs everyone will realise it. It then may actually imply that people buy an alliance with us for some turns during which we fight for them!!! Good fun for us, and it will make sense. We are neutral i.t.o. being loyal to our paymasters (do I hear the word prostitute from some other teams?).

@ Kloreep, yes auction GPs, maybe auction units if they want them permanently, and do the real fighting contracts privately - only one at a time! I agree on all fronts. If this is the solution, I'm with you.

EDIT EDIT EDIT: Sorry to inamirrodarkly and UnO, I opened to post my essay and took so long to type (between chaos at the office and telephone calls) that there had been your posts in between. It looks like mirror and trogs are both confused about the same thing. Us Africans are a bit slower with technology... Listen UnO/Kloreep, if this system is working in the other game, just say how and we can let this whole thing rest.

[UnOrthOdOx]

In the other game, the only time we have had 2 teams asking for units at the same time, we have not had the numbers to support both, and chose one.

I suspect it will mostly work the same way here.

We need units for our own defense. Given the nature of unit support in CIV, I find it unlikely we will be capable of hiring out sizable stacks to more than one team.

That said, in the event we are asked to attack a team that has hired us as defenders, we will need to gift the defending units to solve the in-game mechanics problem. These units should specifically be named "mercenary" for tracking purposes, and any misuse of the units: not returning, hiding or renaming them would be seen as a violation of our contract, and subject to our seeking reparation.

The problem with stating we will only do "one contract at a time" is that it invites a team to hire one unit solely to prevent another team from hiring us.

So, while in practice we will most likely be only taking one contract at a time, we have to be open to the possibility of multiple contracts, especially publicly, to prevent teams abusing a one contract system. Does that make more sense?

[troglodyte]

Originally posted by UnOrthOdOx
The problem with stating we will only do "one contract at a time" is that it invites a team to hire one unit solely to prevent another team from hiring us.

Ooh, very clever, I hadn't even considered that! Now I know why you're in charge!

Okay, I (finally) get it and agree with you on all counts.

I guess this was the rest of the team reading my stuff: .

Let's go make some $$$ and kick some ( )( ).