 |
|
TheDarkside
|
 |
Slayer
Oct 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
Remember in Civ2 how you can give units to other civs? I really like that feature and I'm absolutely shocked its not in civ3... Right now the Aztecs are killing off the poor French with their great army of knights. Instead of creating WW1 by declaring war on the aztecs I wanted to do what America does and just ship tons of units to the French for their army to give them a fighting chance...
Last edited by TheDarkside on 07-11-2001 at 20:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cort
|
|
agree.
its weird to exclude that option, especially while extending the diplomatic issues..
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Yook
|
|
I noticed this right as I was about to go to sleep, so I'm not so sure about the ramifications or details, but...
I was talking to the Japanese. They wanted access to my Iron, and were offering me a bunch of money, some more per turn, a lot of luxuries and their map. I sniggered at them, and went to see what else I could possibly extort from them. Not that I was going to let them have access to Iron, I didn't want any samurai showing up any time soon.
Anyway, I found that I there was a new category on their side of the table: Units. I could request some of their workers.
I don't know why or how that happened, or how to make it so I could offer some of mine to them. But I think it's there and probably one of those hidden things. I'm thinking you probably have to have a unit at the border between yourself and an ally, maybe on a road/railroad, and not in a fortified position? Any ideas?
-Yook
|
|
| |
|
|
|
KingSponge
|
|
Rhode Island
Oct 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
Aye, agreed. Perhaps in a patch...
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Setsuna
|
|
This would have been a nice feature.
Much earlier in my game, I came across the English and the French. They were duking it out for control of a medium sized island (Kind of rugged oval/square shaped.)
Unfortunately for the French, they had apparently started with their backs against the wall, whereas the English had started in the center. As such, they were losing terribly. I didn't want to give them technology and money, as instead of a powerful English dominated continent I'd have a very powerful French dominated continent. Or even worse - an extremely powerful and technologically advanced English continent (You know the French would lose anyway and then trade all of their tech for 40 years (20 turns) of peace, blah!)
I didn't want to just attack England, especially since if they ended up beating the French, I'd have made an enemy of a united continent. No thanks.
Giving them some military units, whether cheap or advanced (There's no way to reverse engineer units to get technology or plans for building more is there?) would have hit the spot. Then I could have watch them pound each other silly until there was two weak powers at odds with each other. That's no threat to me. 
But in reality the English ended up killing the French, and have brought the entire continent under their iron fisted rule (Indeed, they are the only country other than myself to be a Monarchy instead of a Republic.)
Damnit.
Last edited by Setsuna on 07-11-2001 at 03:27
|
|
| |
|
|
|
adaMada
|
 |
"The Iron" Stadium, Ubergorsk, Apolytonia (C3DG)
Mar 2000
time: 00:16
|
|
I didn't notice this until now, but I totally agree... we should be able to give/get any unit (don't know how you'd want to impliment it, since a civ with hundreds of units could be a bore, and you don't want to be able to see what untis the AI has... maybe just demand "a spearman" and the AI has a choice of saying they don't have it or won't give it to you if they don't have one or something like that...
As for the workers, I think that (for a few turns after it's been taken) we should be able to demand workers back, regardless of if it's in the capital or not... if nothing else, it should count as a PR move for the nation to demand and an anti-PR move for the other nation to refuse -- in other words, demanding/refusing should hurt/help your reputation...
I'm not sure if that last part makes sense, but I hope someone understands...
-- adaMada
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dida
|
|
I agree. I was expecting this feature to be in the game. But unfortunately, it was not.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
David Murray
|
|
Definitely agree. Bump.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
cort
|
|
agreed. would be a major plus to diplomacy.
however, the benefits of unit trading to gameplay is so obvious that they couldnot have missed it (it was in Civ2 right) so if they didnot implement it i'm afraid there is something wrong with the idea.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TimTracey
|
|
But if it was intentionally left out, why isn't it mentioned in Chapter 5 of the manual.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
TheDarkside
|
|
Slayer
Oct 2001
time: 05:16
|
|
I think it can be kept pretty simple too. The AI can value units as a function on their production cost. There would have to be a value in gold to be put for a production point, but not like rush building since unit trading will not take into account the consequences and difficulty in actually rushing it.
So you sell a unit to make money, of course it's up to you- you can just give them away, or of course with a political goal in mind! 
When your country is in a jam you can attempt to buy units (which is a good way to save money vs. rush building, or if you're country is laggin in military tech so you can get an edge or at least even the playing field)
Some other quick thoughts to consider (please provide your comments!)
I. Should trade embargoes take units into account?
I would say definately...
II. Should selling units to a nation at war decreases your favor by your client's opponent?
Again, this would be logical and not hard to implement. But it would add a new facet to things the AI has to consider when you want to buy units form them...
III. Should trading units reveal techs?
Realistically, sometimes it can sometimes it can't, but my opinion is that it would make gameplay more fun if it didn't have a chance to reveal the underlying technology.
IV. What units should be available to trade? (any unit in your border, only units stationed in cities, or only units stationed in your capitol (like how workers are traded now)).
I am for any unit in a city!
Oh one thing I just thought of that would add a speed bump- the AI would also have to consider it's current situation when trading units... If it is in war- t should obviously be alot harder to purchase units from them, and also, if it's only got one rifleman stationed in it's capitol- he probably wouldnt be too smart to sell it!!
Your thoughts?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
redcloud
|
|
Perth, Western Australia
Nov 2001
time: 13:16
|
|
quote:
III. Should trading units reveal techs?
Realistically, sometimes it can sometimes it can't, but my opinion is that it would make gameplay more fun if it didn't have a chance to reveal the underlying technology.
|
I agree. The Russians sell tanks everywhere, yet the countries that buy these tanks don't necessarily suddenly have the ability to start building them themselves.
quote:
IV. What units should be available to trade? (any unit in your border, only units stationed in cities, or only units stationed in your capitol (like how workers are traded now)).
I am for any unit in a city!
|
Agree again.
quote:
Oh one thing I just thought of that would add a speed bump- the AI would also have to consider it's current situation when trading units... If it is in war- t should obviously be alot harder to purchase units from them, and also, if it's only got one rifleman stationed in it's capitol- he probably wouldnt be too smart to sell it!!
Your thoughts? |
I think you've put almost everything perfectly. :-) Go check out the thread I started on combat in general, we seem to be on something of a wavelength, but I missed this whole point of trading units. *sigh* 
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
06-11-2001 19:56
|