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/showthrea...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.

[Oerdin]

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.

[Oerdin]

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.

[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.