FIRAXIS : Why unit-trading must be in - Page 2

ahenobarb · June 11, 2002, 10:53

Quote:

Originally posted by Pyrkaige
...
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.

the AI doesn't know the value of a single unit because it hasn't [yet] been told the value of it and the reason the AI trades for workers is that it has been told to want workers returned (It has no sense of "people").

As far as complexity of trades, (i.e. hundreds of trades for each civ in the game) isn't that what we want -- complexity? And one doesn't have to factor in every turn what trades the AI has conducted each turn, you deal with situations, no one gets a perfect knowledge of every trade that has occured.

And if there are so many choices you can't click through every possible combination to get the best deal, then that's good too. That's called a satisficing deal in economics, there may have been the perfect deal somewhere, but it is too much trouble to find, so you pick the one the most closely resembles what you want.

In short, I have no intention of playing MP, and want unit trading in the single player version.

Anyway, I pounded this response out pretty fast and haven't re-read it, so please don't take offense. I think it's an interesting discussion.

Martock · June 11, 2002, 13:49

i do hope that at some point, unit trading will be made possible. i'm in the perfect situation now where i could make a bundle out of it AND at least help keep one of my allies alive. like the rest, i don't think it would be difficult to implement unit trading into the game. personally though, i think if it does happen, the AI should have to come pick the stuff up, fly it away, or sail it away. i never liked the teleporting unit stuff of earlier versions. i don't know though if that's possible.

Spiffor · June 12, 2002, 11:06

Well, teleporting has the merit to be simple. And with teleportation, you can sell weapons to those who aren't ROPped with you, without problem

Martock · June 12, 2002, 11:22

i definitely agree that teleporting is simple but i just never liked how it took place. i always thought it would be best if the items had to be picked up. for the simplification of the game though, i'd have no real issue if they just left it at teleportation instead of transportation.

Panag · June 12, 2002, 16:41

hi ,

unit trading should be in , also the option to give a unit , WITH or WITHOUT giving the technology

no selling , this would unbalance the game , ....

but trading , yes , example ; 50 swordman versus a tank , ....

have a nice day

Oerdin · June 12, 2002, 18:40

Selling would be great. It would give me something o do with all my extra production.

PGM · June 12, 2002, 21:00

Quote:

Originally posted by panag
no selling , this would unbalance the game , ....

but trading , yes , example ; 50 swordman versus a tank , ....have a nice day

I disagree. First of all, IMHO, if trading swordmen for tanks were to happen in a game, that would reflect a very unbalanced game as is (and forget about 50 of them for 1 tank!). Selling units wouldn't unbalance it more.

Such limitations would turn a wonderful new feature (unit marketing) into frustration (just think "espionage"...) and make unit trading somewhat rare and conditioned in a game.

Surely the formula for relative value calculation of each unit must be carefully implemented, as to prevent abuses and unbalance, but otherwise I'm sure that involving money in the deal would prove to be absolutely casual. I'm sure many people said the same having heard for the first time of paying for workers, maps, resources, devalued techs, etc., before Civ3 was released, and now all of us see that paying for anything is a normal deal.

Let's picture this:
Who would keep 50 (?), 40 (?), 30 (?) or even 20 swordmen around and suddenly trade them all for a single tank with a nation who would be willing to do so at the precise time we needed it? Why even bother with trading the tank at all??? Just keep building tanks and disband them for shields while you're not at war. Why help the other guy get rid of a prehistoric army? And if you're playing against nations that use swordmen while you have enough tanks to go around, you should already had won by now anyway. Who would go around asking everyone if they wanted to swap a tank for a group of swordmen? This would bring severe limitations to the trading model.

But... if cash were to be involved, the seller would then definitely profit from the deal, getting something that's always really useful and perfectly exchangeable: cash! (instead of swordmen).
What about the buyer? Would he have all his cash reserves drained, leading to game unbalance? I don't think so, it's just like any other deal.
For instance, buyer can set his cities to "wealth", thus collecting the money to buy the units he would have produced himself, if only he had the means and tech to do it.

Of course there's a few risks involved. But no more risks than paying everything you have in a lump sum for a strategic resource (20 turns) but being invaded the next turn by that same nation, thus disrupting the deal (ouch!).

(and no, I have never accepted deals like this... when I'm buying)

PGM · June 12, 2002, 21:03

Another thing I forgot to mention:
I think that Specific Units should not be exchangeable. Otherwise there could be some problems and bugs connected with the Golden Age concept, and remove some sense of nationalism off gameplay.

wrylachlan · June 12, 2002, 21:59

I just thought of something. Everything else you can trade for currently shows up in the diplomacy screen. If that happened with units, you would know exactly how many units an enemy has. That's not good.

Therefore I think you should only be able to use the "what would you give me for xxx" function when trading units. That way you can't see enemies units, but if they want to put them on the board they can.

OR alternatively you can see what units the other civ has the ABILITY TO BUILD, but not actual numbers. Then you can offer trades say one of my German Battleships for 3 of your Roman Modern Armor, and if the Romans don't have 3 they just reply, "Sorry, no deal" so you can't get information on their army out of them that way.

Jethro83 · June 12, 2002, 23:09

Quote:

Originally posted by PGM
Another thing I forgot to mention:
I think that Specific Units should not be exchangeable. Otherwise there could be some problems and bugs connected with the Golden Age concept, and remove some sense of nationalism off gameplay.

I agree with most units. However consider the German Panzers and American F-15s.

When I use the Americans, and want to sell a few F-15s to an ally, I think of it as selling the jet itself, as well as a simple operating manual. I'm not selling the pilot.

When I use the Germans, and want to sell a few Panzers to an ally, I'm selling the tank itself, and not the people who drive it, and operate its weapons.

However, since nobody has the same know-how of these units as their creators, if say, the Romans buy a Panzer from Germany, it should start out as a conscript (and the Hps of units should be increased), or regular, if conscript doesn't give it enough of a chance in battle. But even then, most units at that stage are built at veteran status due to the important production cities usually having a barracks in them.

I'm thinking that this might also help establish a little more balance towards the Germans and Americans, as far as their very late UUs are concerned.

As for the Golden age thing, it can be fixed.

GeneralTacticus · June 13, 2002, 02:07

A solution to the problem of the UUs would be to say that if they are sold, they turn into the unit that they replace - so Panzers become tanks, F-15 jets, etc.

Spiffor · June 13, 2002, 09:48

I'm really concerned by the simplicity of unit trading (because I badly want to see it implemented).
Here's how I imagine the imlementation :

In your column, you can see your units like that
Units
-> Washington
->-> (icon)Infantry
->-> (icon)Infantry
->-> (icon)Infantry
->-> (icon)Artillery
-> New York
-> Boston
etc.

In your partner's column, you will only see this :
Units

When you click on the "units" button in the partner's column, the AI offers something, if it wants to. It can also completely refuse, just like when you ask "what would you give for electronics ?".

Once the AI offer has been made, the bargaining table would look completely normal :

"They give :-------------------------------We give :
1000 Gold---------------------------------Electronics
Infantry------------------------------------Tank
Infantry
Artillery"

If you don't want one of these units (say, artillery), you can click on it to remove it from the bargaining table, as you would click to remove the gold.
I think it's the simplest way not to know what the AI has.

Spiffor · June 13, 2002, 09:54

On teleportation :
I think units should be teleported to the partner's capital, for the sake of the simplicity. The partner will deploy them as he likes then.
What if the partner's capital is not on water ? Well, Civ2 found a way, so I don't think it's a concern. Maybe the boat could be teleported in the first coastal city in the partner's city list ?

About UUs :
I think General Tacticus' idea is the most practical. But it may not be so simple to program (as mods make it possible a UU isn't unique and doesn't replace something existing). Maybe the simplest way is to remove the ability to trigger a GA for traded units.
But traded UUs are likely not to be a big concern : after all, I think I'll keep my mighty Panzers for myself

ahenobarb · June 13, 2002, 10:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
On teleportation :
I think units should be teleported to the partner's capital, for the sake of the simplicity. The partner will deploy them as he likes then.
What if the partner's capital is not on water ? Well, Civ2 found a way, so I don't think it's a concern. Maybe the boat could be teleported in the first coastal city in the partner's city list ?

About UUs :
I think General Tacticus' idea is the most practical. But it may not be so simple to program (as mods make it possible a UU isn't unique and doesn't replace something existing). Maybe the simplest way is to remove the ability to trigger a GA for traded units.
But traded UUs are likely not to be a big concern : after all, I think I'll keep my mighty Panzers for myself

As long as the navel gazing continues (anyone from Firaxis want to weigh in here? No? not even a Firaxis DL?), I think you should be able to trade your UU's and they remain the UU, just under another nation's control.

The example of F-15's and Panzers has already been mentioned, so I'll add the example of Greek Hoplites fighting for Persia in the ancient world (or Swiss Pikemen in the Middle Ages -- They even still guard the Vatican! Talk about the need for a unit upgrade!)

If you want to give away your unique unit, that's your business. At any rate, its the unit other civs are most likely to want, so I say it should be allowed.

As far as programming simplicity, it would be easier to just give the unit directly to another nation than add a new function call to convert the unit to its mundane equivalent. Less lines of code.

PGM · June 13, 2002, 17:22

Quote:

Originally posted by LordAzreal
I agree with most units. However consider the German Panzers and American F-15s. When I use the Americans, and want to sell a few F-15s to an ally, I think of it as selling the jet itself, as well as a simple operating manual. I'm not selling the pilot.

I don't think so. I think that as far as gameplay is concerned, 1 unit is 1 unit, no matter if it called Warrior or Battleship. In Civ3, the people who operate machinery are not considered at any time.
And allowing only some UU to be traded would unbalance the game. This has to be decided as a whole.

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

I'm really concerned by the simplicity of unit trading (because I badly want to see it implemented).
Here's how I imagine the imlementation: (...)

I could live with that.

Quote:

Originally posted by wrylachlan
I just thought of something. Everything else you can trade for currently shows up in the diplomacy screen. If that happened with units, you would know exactly how many units an enemy has. That's not good.

That's true. I think Spiffor's concept would prevent that.

Quote:

Originally posted by GeneralTacticus
A solution to the problem of the UUs would be to say that if they are sold, they turn into the unit that they replace - so Panzers become tanks, F-15 jets, etc.

That's probably the best way, I totally agree with this. It's simple, nationality would remain intact, and Golden Age problems would never arise.

Quote:

Originally posted by ahenobarb
As long as the navel gazing continues (anyone from Firaxis want to weigh in here? No? not even a Firaxis DL?)

Yes Firaxis, can you say anything about this at all please?

Quote:

Originally posted by ahenobarb
I think you should be able to trade your UU's and they remain the UU, just under another nation's control.
The example of F-15's and Panzers has already been mentioned, so I'll add the example of Greek Hoplites fighting for Persia in the ancient world (or Swiss Pikemen in the Middle Ages -- They even still guard the Vatican! Talk about the need for a unit upgrade!)

Sure, but this isn't real life, it's Civ3. And UUs are about the only way to preserve national differences. Take that away and all nations are much closer in essence. That's too grey for my taste.

Quote:

Originally posted by ahenobarb
As far as programming simplicity, it would be easier to just give the unit directly to another nation than add a new function call to convert the unit to its mundane equivalent. Less lines of code.

Right. I think this would be easy to do and would prove to be solid to gameplay.

On teleportation:

Teleport units to Capital. (after all, you can't even trade if both Capitals aren't connected).
If naval units are involved and Capital isn't connected to shore, teleport it to the costal city nearest to the place where the unit previously was.
I also think that units should only be tradeable if they are in a city at the time (teleporting units directly out of a war scene away from cities would be an abuse and unbalance gameplay).

ahenobarb · June 14, 2002, 09:05

Reading through here, there seem to be three concepts about unit trading.

1) Renting: use my x units of y type for 20 turns and give me xx amount of gold for allowing you to use them and possibly getting them killed. At the end of the 20 turns they return to my control.

2) Selling: take my x units of y type and give me $$$ or a tech or a luxury item. You keep the units forever.

3) Trading: Take my x units of y type and give my your n units of z type. I presume this would be a permanent trade?

Two and three are closely related, it's just adding units to the trading table. I prefer 1, but it's probably easier to do 2 & 3.

Panag · June 14, 2002, 15:18

hi ,

this whole idea of trading giving units , ....

why not take this further , and make a memeber of the UN to give a certain amount of units , since they are working on putting the option in , (if they are) it would be nice to go this extra further , ....

the UN units would fall under control of the AI , like the barbarians do now , when there is to much war going on , they would land nearby , ....

have a nice day

PGM · June 14, 2002, 18:24

Quote:

Originally posted by panag
hi ,

this whole idea of trading giving units , ....

why not take this further , and make a memeber of the UN to give a certain amount of units , since they are working on putting the option in , (if they are) it would be nice to go this extra further , ....
the UN units would fall under control of the AI , like the barbarians do now , when there is to much war going on , they would land nearby , ....
have a nice day

Hummm... you might have something good cooking here...

Coracle · June 14, 2002, 19:20

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Well, teleporting has the merit to be simple. And with teleportation, you can sell weapons to those who aren't ROPped with you, without problem

I've seen AI galleys and settlers teleport themselves around the map.

I want to be able to include RESOURCES in making Peace Treaties!!

Tuberski · June 14, 2002, 19:49

You are the only one so far, Coracle, to mention the teleporting units.

Panag · June 14, 2002, 20:00

hi ,

"teleporting" , ......

please explain a bit more , ...

have a nice day

PGM · June 15, 2002, 18:29

The Unit Trading topic was broached in yesterday's chat at Civ Fanatics. Maybe we can get it in a post-June patch.

Thunderfall: "will the PTW allow trading of units?"
Jeffrey_Morris_FIRAXIS: "No."

[...]

Ohwell: "is there going to be a way to give units to another civ, or lend them?"
Jeffrey_Morris_FIRAXIS: Sorry, on the wishlist.

Spiffor · June 15, 2002, 20:03

Thanks for the info ! I find it very valuable !
In fact, in the 1.21 patch chat, Soren told us unit-trading was in debate at Firaxis, because they didn't know if it was good or not.
When they say "it's on the wishlist", it means "we'd like to do this, but we don't know if we'll have the time". It's likely we won't see it soon. But it's likely we see the feature implemented eventually (in December ?). Because it seems they find the idea good, at last.

Panag · June 15, 2002, 20:07

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor
Thanks for the info ! I find it very valuable !
In fact, in the 1.21 patch chat, Soren told us unit-trading was in debate at Firaxis, because they didn't know if it was good or not.
When they say "it's on the wishlist", it means "we'd like to do this, but we don't know if we'll have the time". It's likely we won't see it soon. But it's likely we see the feature implemented eventually (in December ?). Because it seems they find the idea good, at last.

hi ,

when its on the wishlist that is good , but trying to put it in is something else , ....ones again a proof that they dont let us out in cold , at least they pay attenetion to the needs of the players .

have a nice day