19-05-2003 13:10									#1
	Unit Trading - bad idea Support Apolyton, buy GURPS/ Alpha Centauri

Well count me as the lone voice against the popular idea of unit trading.

I have 2 problems with it:

1. It's one thing to be able to have a small 'mercenary force' that you can send to assist one of the AI's. But, ourtight unit trading is a bit riduculous. I know that CIV3 is a highly-highly abstracted game. But the idea of 'trading (giving away)' 40 modern armor to an AI CIV that is at war and doing this without any repercussions - is crazy. Exactly how does one explain to 250,000 German Infantrymen that they are now Mongolian Infantrymen! Even if the trade is not an outright give-away, and is a; 20 of my Cav for 30 of your Infantry type things - this still pushes the concept of 'game abstraction' to an absurd level.

2. More importantly, the AI is already dead 'stupid'. To add this particular feature to this AI would be yet another overwhelming 'Human advantage'.

As an MP option it might be an interesting idea. But in SP - no way. We humans have more than enough advantages already.

	19-05-2003 14:55									#2
	Got spare money?

I agree: unit trading only makes sense in MP, from a strategic perspective. I can only imagine abuse with respect to this ability in SP games against the AI.


Dominae

	19-05-2003 15:21									#3
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

I'm not a big supporter of unit trading (read: I can live without it), but IMHO it ads fun to the game. I once helped the weakest civ in the game (with only 1 city left) to become the 2nd most powerful after me, just for fun. "Puppet master" strategies are fun to play from time to time, for a change.

I understand if (and why) you don't like it, but since it would hurt only single player games, how would it hurt you ? You don't have to use it if you think it's an abuse.

Last edited by Tiberius on 19-05-2003 at 15:27

	19-05-2003 17:23									#4
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Ision :

It is no mystery that I am a very big fan of Unit Trading. So, let me please answer your concerns.

1.
Unit-trading, taken as a 'mercenary force' is realistic, despite being abstract. During the renaissance era, mercenary forces were of extreme importance on the battlefield, and were the most important part of the forces. For example, the Marignan battle of 1515 (between France and Italy IIRC) had nearly only Swiss pikemen fighting each other.

At that time, a few countries were specialized in being mercenaries, which was the business of a significant chunk of the population (Switzerland and some German principalties).

The importance of mercenary forces in European warfare declined as the States became more centralised and more able to mobilize troops by themselves. The States preferred to rely on their ability to raise troops rather than depending on foreign countries.

The invention of nationalism and the draft made mercenary armies totally obsolete in the West, since it was now easy to raise troops. However, weapon trading remained a juicy business, and still is today.

In today's Africa, mercenary forces continue to be an important asset in the military, even though the African countries are slowly able to raise troops by themselves. Mercenary forces are handled by private companies, some from the West (Gbagbo's Ivory Coast is rumored to use the services of a British mercenary company).

So, unit-trading is realistic, even though it doesn't represent exactly the same before and after nationalism. Before nationalism, whole units (weapons + people to operate the weapons) were traded. After nationalism, only weapons were traded. Since military units don't eat up population in Civ3, these are exactly the same from a gameplay point of view.


2.
Firaxis has done a great job to make sure the AI understands a feature. The few features that have been added in PtW (outposts / radars / airbases) are used quite adeptly by the AI.
The big interests of unit-trading can generally be understood as :
- giving some immediate help to an ally in need.
- giving some immediate help to a non-ally who is threatened by a rival
- getting money, techs, or whatever.
Of course, for the AI to understand these concepts, it will require quite some work. But it doesn't look impossible to me. After all, so far, the AI has understood tech trading, resource trading, alliances etc. I don't see unit trading being infinitely more complicated than the already present diplomatic features.

	19-05-2003 20:13									#5
	Increase Your PM Length

Also, the Soviet Union traded its weapons all the time. They didn't get huge reprecussions.

	19-05-2003 20:41									#6
	Support Apolyton

i think i would imagen it as selling them the Helmets and rifles, and maby training up some men for them.
Or building them a load of ships, or giving them some tamed horses.

	19-05-2003 21:21									#7
	Support Apolyton, pre-order Civilization IV

quote: Originally posted by HazieDaVampire i think i would imagen it as selling them the Helmets and rifles, and maby training up some men for them. Or building them a load of ships, or giving them some tamed horses.

This is how I tend to think of unit trading in the modern age - selling tanks and training. Of course even in the 20th Century you had foriegners joining other armies from the Abraham Lincoln Brigade in the spanish civil war to Americans of Kosovar dissent signing up in New Jersey to fight in that war.

	19-05-2003 21:50									#8
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

If implemented, I think there should be limitations on it (only can give X number of units per X turns to a civ, AI civs will reject terribly outdated units, etc).

I think it's more of a MP feature, though.

I'm a little uncomfortable with the idea that you could give a civ stuck in the middle ages Modern Armor and it would work as well as MA you use. If they have the tech & you're just giving them hardware, fine, but if they're really backward & you're giving them units they are nowhere near buidling themselves... well... I dunno.

-Arrian

	19-05-2003 22:33									#9
	Increase Your PM Length

How about if gifted units lost hit points or became conscripts when traded to represent re-training?

	19-05-2003 23:46									#10
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization 2

How about if they get downgraded to that civs level? i.e your MA's become Tanks. Spose they could also get upgraded if the other civs ahead of you as well. Failing that, they could remain as they are, but they're used and maintained by your own soldiers and after a set number of turns they are either re-let or returned to your civ.

	20-05-2003 00:55									#11
	Inflate your Upload Space

I think the best thing would be to have all gifted units' be regulars at best (if they were conscripts, they stay conscripts, regulars stay regulars, vets or elites get demoted to regular).

-Arrian

	20-05-2003 01:52									#12
	Lose 30 kilos (of popups)

I think making all units regular is a fine idea... it makes building units at home still a preferable option 9 times out of 10.

I don't like leasing ideas, because units die... the last thing I'd want is to get a rep hit for leasing a unit that the AI winds up killing...

I don't like the idea of automatic upgrades/downgrades as far as type of units though. If I sent MA to a civ that doesn't have the right techs, the units don't transform into tanks... it'd be weird. Civs should only be able to receive units from other civs that they have the tech for. If you want to give that medieval civ modern armor, then give them the techs too.

	20-05-2003 01:58									#13
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

I think the point about the AI not being able to use units they don't have a tech for is important.

They shouldn't be able to use it. If human players want AI to use infantry, they should give replacable parts to them too.

	20-05-2003 02:00									#14
	Suffering from ads?

True, but what im saying is that the capability would be downgraded so tanks would be the equivalent. Having said that they could just be made into regulars...

	20-05-2003 02:03									#15
	Remove this text

I don't want unit trading to be costless for the aiding player.

If you want to be able to play the puppet master thing, then, you should go and build the units you are going to give away.

If the best units the AI your helping can build are knights, then you should have to build them. If you're lazy and feel their knights are outdated, given them Cavalry by giving them the techs.

The game already disallows the use of captured units like artillery if you don't have a techs for it. It makes sense.

	20-05-2003 02:03									#16
	Tired of ads?

In civ2 that would happen wouldnt it, if you gave a backward civ an advanced unit they would automatically aqquire the required knowledge/tech for that unit.

I think this one is best left out of civ3 as it is you can already give tech and cash, if they had any sense they would spend the money on new units anyway.

	20-05-2003 02:07									#17
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization: The Boardgame

Chrisius, tech + cash, or just cash is pretty much the extent of puppet mastering in the current Civ 3 build.

I'm not entirely unsympathetic to the need for unit trading. It can be cheaper for the granter, and you are sure the AI gets the units and doesnt' squander your cash elsewhere.

One potential problem here is that the AI, if you watch their debug games, divides their units into offense and defense. I wonder how it will deal with a sudden infusion of 10 units like Guerilla, where it can go either or.

	20-05-2003 03:05									#18
	Full PM-box? Change here!

Youve probably got a point there dex, and what would it do with say 10 Artillery ?

The AI does not use this effectively any way so it would most likely leave them all in its capitol.

Id like to see the AI come at you with large stacks of Artillery and escorts to soften up your cities before attacking, but thats off topic for this thread.

	20-05-2003 03:43									#19
	Enter the AD-FREE zone

Being able to use a weapon and being able to build that weapon are totally different issues. We should be able to trade or give any weapons we have and let that civ use it. This is what happens throughout the world today. There are many countries armed with tanks that don't have the ability to build them.

True, if we went back in time to the ancient era and gave an army one tank it would probably just sit and rust. But most weapons purchases in real life include training, spare parts, and sometimes maintenance support. This could easily be implicit in Civ weapons trades. That's why if you capture arty without the tech it is destroyed, no support. But if you buy it from someone they give you the needed assistance.

	20-05-2003 03:49									#20
	Got spare money?

I think that the tech advancement that lets one build a unit, for balancing purposes, should be viewed as a basic understanding of how to use that unit. The countries that don't have the capacity to build tanks, still know what they are and how to work them - in Civ terms they "have the Tank advance."

If unit trading isn't restricted to known advances, then the player could never spend the money or time to research or buy military tradition, and still buy hordes of cav... and similar things.

For design sake, the requirement to build the unit must be met.

For civs that don't have the resource or the production base to build those units though, trading is a great - and realistic - option.

	20-05-2003 05:53									#21
	Support Apolyton, buy Civilization III: Complete

what does it matter if people abuse and take advantage of the AI???

you dont have to, if people like to take advantage of the AI, there, then there are all the more happy with their purchase.

	20-05-2003 10:39									#22
	Avatar Enlargement: We've got the solution

quote: But most weapons purchases in real life include training, spare parts, and sometimes maintenance support. This could easily be implicit in Civ weapons trades. That's why if you capture arty without the tech it is destroyed, no support. But if you buy it from someone they give you the needed assistance.

A very clear real world example of this was back in the early 70s when the US gave Libya (I think) a number of F-14s, along with the technicians and mechanics to keep them working. When Quadaffi came to power, all the US support people went home, the fighters all 'developed' little problems that kept them grounded, and not one has been used in combat, although they still have them, IIRC.

In Civ3 terms, advanced tech units could be traded like any resource, for 20 turns or until the deal is broken, when they are returned or destroyed.

Hmm, I seem to be in the wrong thread... :-]

	20-05-2003 10:58									#23
	Support Apolyton, buy Call to Power 2

maybe there can be a flag that identifies a unit as tradeable and another that indicates whether the receiver must have that specific tech. this way you can identify which units can be traded and limit those that require a more difficult tech. for example, i can always trade spearmen whether they have bronze working or not, whereas modern armor could be limited to those who already have the tech.

	20-05-2003 12:59									#24
	Put an end to popups!

My first point about unit trading was not to suggest that there is no historical precedent. However, The dynamics of this game make what is being proposed absurd and highly unhistorical. What we are talking about here are NOT small mercenary units assisting another Civ, or the sale of equipment to another nation. Unit trading on the scale being proposed is not the same as the USA selling 30 F-15's and 50 Tanks to Israel. It would be tanamount to the USA 'giving away' 250 F-15's, 1000 Tanks, 200,000 Infantrymen, ect ect... Lend Lease during WW2 was very generous, but come on! This is more than a small stretch, or minor abstracting. To allow a massive military give away to a small battered CIV at war with a dominant CIV moves the game from an abstraction to a complete unrealistic fantasy.

The only way to incorperate this into the game in a reasonable fashion would be to have severe restrictions on the total amounts allowed to be traded or given away. Perhaps no more than 5% of your total military (even this is quite a stretrch!). Also, repeated or large trades to a CIV already at War should at some point trigger a DOW by the opponent CIV's on you as a result.

Personally, I still don't like it. It just seems like a cheap exploit. If you really want to wound that other dominant CIV. Be a man, declare war.

As to the comments about the AI being able to reasonabaly handle Unit Trading - yeah right. Lets just say, thank god they created the huge AI cheat advanatages through the levels - otherwise the game would be unplayable.

CIV3 is my favorite game. Unit tradeing in a very very limited manner (with heavy pro-AI advantages) I could live with. Even in MP unit tradeing should be greatly limited. Personally, the game is great without it. Why bother.

	20-05-2003 13:45									#25
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by Ision My first point about unit trading was not to suggest that there is no historical precedent. However, The dynamics of this game make what is being proposed absurd and highly unhistorical. What we are talking about here are NOT small mercenary units assisting another Civ, or the sale of equipment to another nation. Unit trading on the scale being proposed is not the same as the USA selling 30 F-15's and 50 Tanks to Israel. It would be tanamount to the USA 'giving away' 250 F-15's, 1000 Tanks, 200,000 Infantrymen, ect ect...

There is little unrealism to that. As I said, some countries in the past have specialized in mercenarying, and almost all their forces were leased to great powers. This behaviour has stopped because the countries became able to raise troops by themselves. In today's world, we have seen that most weaponry from the Arab countries has been bought to the Soviets or to western countries, that nearly all Vietnamese weapons came from China + USSR etc. And yes, we are talking huge amounts here.
If there is a threat taht justifies selling / giving away a real chunk of the military potential, the countries can do it. But today's countries do prefer to keep their troops for themselves

quote: Lend Lease during WW2 was very generous, but come on! This is more than a small stretch, or minor abstracting. To allow a massive military give away to a small battered CIV at war with a dominant CIV moves the game from an abstraction to a complete unrealistic fantasy.

Not quite. During WW1, French and British ground forces were united under the same command (led by a French Marshall). In Civ terms, it would mean the Brits have given all their ground troops to the French, and took them back after the war.
Today, all NATO troops can be under the same command. It would mean all NATO countries basically 'give' their units to the US until the end of the war (NATO is the military structure that comes along the Atlantic Alliance). Yes, we are talking huge amounts here.

quote: The only way to incorperate this into the game in a reasonable fashion would be to have severe restrictions on the total amounts allowed to be traded or given away. Perhaps no more than 5% of your total military (even this is quite a stretrch!). Also, repeated or large trades to a CIV already at War should at some point trigger a DOW by the opponent CIV's on you as a result.

I don't think you should be limited in the amount of your military that you can trade or give to other countries. However, I agree with you that unit-trades should quickly lower the attitude of your client's enemies towards you (resulting in war if you don't take other steps). OTOH, It should quickly raise your client's attitude with you. This way, if you deal units to all warring Civs, they all remain neutral to you.
As a matter of fact, I think all trades with a Civ at war should make this civ's enemies more angry towards you, with unit-trading being the fastest angrying factor.

quote: Personally, I still don't like it. It just seems like a cheap exploit. If you really want to wound that other dominant CIV. Be a man, declare war.

I feel this precisely is a flaw in Civ3 in comparison to Civ2. In Civ2, you could pay countries to wage wars for you, and give them units so that they are more efficient while fighting your rivals. The 'puppet master' features allow for a builder strategy for those of us who prefer to build rather than to fight. Besides, unit-trading can work both ways, and if you are a warmonger, you may be able to buy your units to the AI if you need a quick (yet expansive) surge.

quote: Personally, the game is great without it. Why bother.

Because it would make the game better IMO.

	20-05-2003 13:56									#26
	Get a bigger avatar today!

quote: Originally posted by Arrian If implemented, I think there should be limitations on it (only can give X number of units per X turns to a civ, AI civs will reject terribly outdated units, etc).

quote: I think the best thing would be to have all gifted units' be regulars at best (if they were conscripts, they stay conscripts, regulars stay regulars, vets or elites get demoted to regular).

Very good ideas Arrian. These kind of limitations are pretty cohesive with Civ, and I like them. It makes unit-trading a good feature, but not an unbalanced one.

If unit-trading also pisses off your client's enemies (and pleases your client), I think these will be all the limitations we need to avoid abuses with the feature

	20-05-2003 16:02									#27
	Help yourself to an AD-FREE life

Well, IMO, we should stop arguing about history and realism and all that nonesense. Civ3 is highly unrealistic. The historically accurate portions of the game are only accurate because of conveninence. Gameplay decisions take precedence in almost all design decisions, as it should be.

Arguing about Libya, the Swiss mercenary forces, while highly interesting, doesn't really get us anywhere.

Gameplay balance and overall challenge and enjoyment tends to argue in favour of 2 things

#1) Requisite technology to build the units must be met.
#2) Unit trading cap based on a formula

A Civ without rubber but with Replacable parts can get Infantryman through trade.

It's as simple as that. Having a Civ barely able to build a rifleman having infantryman running around is a bit ridiculous and may cause AI "addiction" to the units and stunt its technology research.

	21-05-2003 02:42									#28
	Increase the size of your Attachments

It doesn't need a trading cap or a resource requirement, all the problems you bring up could be balanced by the cost and attitude adjustment. The AI wouldn't sell you techs above your tech level without a significant premium, therefore it would still in most cases be more economically viable to spend the money on science, except in a close war where you have more cash than production capability, or maybe you have lots of gold in your coffers.

As for the other way around, the problem of giving away useless units to the AI to burden it with upkeep... wouldn't the AI just disband???

And giving arms to another country to fight a proxy war, that should really piss off the country that is getting hit by those weapons.

Seriously these aren't game-breaking problems, just balance problems.

	21-05-2003 05:21									#29
	Support Apolyton buy from Amazon

quote: Originally posted by wrylachlan It doesn't need a trading cap or a resource requirement, all the problems you bring up could be balanced by the cost and attitude adjustment.

Uhhh... trading caps are required. That much we can agree on. And for practical purposes, it may be required just to make sure human players dont exploit the AI.

But if you bothered reading the post you were responding to, no mention was made of resource requirements.

Tech requirements was the topic. I simply pointed to a hypothetical scenario where unit trading would be allowed. That is, a civ with the tech but not the resource to build it. It can also be that the civs have both techs and resources to build a unit but just aren't building them fast enough and may decide to procure them from you.

	21-05-2003 06:08									#30
	Support Apolyton or Terrorists Win

I am not fond at all of tech requirement. I can see some limitations to trading advanced units to a backwards Civ (like making them concript, for example), but I fail to see the use of a tech requirement.