Commerce with armament

[rremus]

Hi,
Trading armament has always been an important part of commerce, but we don't have it in CIV like games
If we look at todays world, only few countries are capable of producing modern warfare equipment, but many countries have it. Because they BUY it!
You should be able to sell/buy units. They should be extremely profitable for the seller It's also an important part of the foreign policy.
It's true that the CIV units represent also men, not only the equipment, but I don't think we should complicate it by separating into equipment (swords, shields, guns etc) and men.
Firaxis said something about CIV3 related to civs that found a certain niche on the world trade and specialise it self. How about that civ that has specialised over the centuries in Nukes ? Just kidding.
The government type should be an important factor. Communism should encourage export of armament, while for democracies it whould be a reason for unhappines. Maybe the buyer government type should also influence this. A democracy could be happy to sell armament to another democracy, specially if is attacked by a non-democratic civ.

[Deathwalker]

Good idea

------------------
I have walked since the dawn of time and were ever I walk, death is sure to follow

[Evil Capitalist]

That would be very useful in scenarios, but I can see one flaw- the major powers are all important domestic arms producers anyway.

[Slax]

Yes, Evil, I think this would tend to make small civs weaker, and large civs stronger.

[Roman]

Just what I was thinking about... It's a very good idea.

[Dom Pedro II]

Its a fact of life. However, I don't think it should be part of the market system. If this market system is based on trade routes going from city to city between civs, armament should not be a part of it. There should simply be a market where you can sell a unit and another civ can buy it. No exportation. There are online civ-like games that already have such a system.

And I don't think it would make the bigger more powerful. On the contrary, it would allow the smaller (yet richer) civs to buy units without the hassel of production. (Of course, I think all units should be bought even when cities are producing them).

------------------
"...The highest realization of warfare is to attack the enemy's plans; next is to attack their alliances; next to attack their army; and the lowest is to attack their fortified cities." - Sun Tzu

Dom Pedro II.... aka Hannibal3

[Adm.Naismith]

It's an idea already proposed many times; use the search to find more about it.
I remember I suggested to solve the problem of units trade with a twist: sell city production, instead.

If a civ need help building a unit (or city building, or a wonder), he can ask for a certain amount of shield per turn per category (he must said if it will use shield to build armies, buildings/civil units or wonders). The two civ must agree on a payment per shield due every turn, for a time period or a total amount of shields, from a city to another city.

It will look as a kind of "capitalization" of shield in source city (with better return), while it will be added in target city like supply unit income in SMAC.

It will solve the logistics of units ferry, because the unit will be produced on target city, simulating the most common weapons trade: selling some parts, letting the final assembly and production to be done locally.

It will work without too many change to current Civ model: not bad for Firaxis developers

Comments and improvement to this suggestion are welcommed.

[Shogun Gunner]

If Civ III can handle more civilizations at once (I'm thinking twenty+) then arms exporting would be very interesting. In a seven (or less) country game it would not be as interesting.

Imagine coupling arms export with smarter AI and cool negotiations!!!

Think North Korea (leverage money or trade by giving up weapons), breakup of Soviet Union (arms all over the place), Switzerland (optimizing money, not military).

If Civ III could be developed in such a way that not every country was heading the same way (build bigger and more powerful with the same things) then it will be a more interesting game.

[Shogun Gunner]

quote: Originally posted by Dom Pedro II on 10-16-2000 02:05 PM And I don't think it would make the bigger more powerful. On the contrary, it would allow the smaller (yet richer) civs to buy units without the hassel of production. (Of course, I think all units should be bought even when cities are producing them).

I would agree...it would seem to level the playing field and give the smaller countries an opportunity in escaping the crushing power of "Economies of scale"

This would also seem to neutralize science advancement. No big deal if you don't have mobile warfare, just buy some tanks from Argentina.

[rremus]

It should be usefull in order to defend less advanced civ's. They don't have the technology to create superior armament, so they buy it in order deal with another, more advanced, civ.
Also, it can be important in order to protect your allies Now you can only offer then units as gift, not very tempting...

[UltraSonix]

quote: You should be able to sell/buy units. They should be extremely profitable for the seller

I'm sure I've mentioned this before! But adm.smith's point above is also valid - maybe buying shields is better...

As to:

quote: magine coupling arms export with smarter AI and cool negotiations!!!

The problem with this is that it'll never happen. We've raged over this before, and I just don't think it can be done...

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...

[Shogun Gunner]

quote: Originally posted by UltraSonix on 10-17-2000 04:35 AM As to: magine coupling arms export with smarter AI and cool negotiations!!! The problem with this is that it'll never happen. We've raged over this before, and I just don't think it can be done...

Is your reasoning because the software programming challenges are too tough? I just recently joined (been playing for years) so I'm sure a lot of topics have been discussed before.

I would be interested in some of the past conclusions. I find these forums fabulous!

[Shaka Zulu]

I'm very pro the idea of the small civs to catch up to the larger civs in terms of technology. (perhaps when a large civ makes an advance obsolete, then if a civ hasn't reseached the obsolete advance, it should be automatically given to them) This is at the very least, of course. I don't think any civ should be more than 5 techs ahead of second place.

The way the larger civs can maintain their advantage over the less developed nations could be (unlike technology) the fact that they have made economies of scale with particular goods, and products do not require as many shields over time.

Also, civs that have been producing a product for a long time, should be the dominate force in production of that good. eg. Boeing for USA. And other civs will rely on buying products from that nation, because it is much cheaper for them to do so than producing it themselves. ie., trading networks.

[rremus]

quote: Originally posted by Shaka Zulu on 10-18-2000 03:55 AM And other civs will rely on buying products from that nation, because it is much cheaper for them to do so than producing it themselves.

That's definetly a good ideea! Of course, as much you produce something, the cheaper it should get to produce it! This is how economy works, your workers gain more experience, specialisation occurs.

[Dom Pedro II]

quote: That's definetly a good ideea! Of course, as much you produce something, the cheaper it should get to produce it! This is how economy works, your workers gain more experience, specialisation occurs.

Well, what may be even better would be to base it on how much it cost to construct the unit. In other words, if a city has a production rate that is very high, the unit you produce should cost less on the open market allowing you to undersell opponents. It has been true all throughout history that the country that has the highest industry can sell their products for cheaper.

Of course the problem with this means that you can't just sell it and let someone else buy X number of the units available to buy. You'd have to buy that particular unit from that city.... okay, that may be too complicated. If anybody has a reasonable way of taking manufacturing into account without too much complexity, I'm all ears.

I think the simplest thing to do is just have a sort of open market where a civilization sells the unit to the market not to another civ. Then another civilization can buy a certain number of a unit. They won't necessarily get THE unit the other civ produced. The Earth: 2025 game has this, and I think it works quite nicely.

[rremus]

The ideea of increasing efficiency with specialisation can be pushed even further. Settlers could produce certain terrain improvements faster and faster as they specialise. As a trade-off, they will loose speed on producing other types of terrain improvements.

[UltraSonix]

quote: Shaka Zulu Settler Brisbane, Australia Oct 2000

Someone else who's from Brisbane! Can you please goto the off-top0ic forum (from the bottom of the page) and post a thread saying "I'm new!" - please!

quote: The ideea of increasing efficiency with specialisation can be pushed even further. Settlers could produce certain terrain improvements faster and faster as they specialise. As a trade-off, they will loose speed on producing other types of terrain improvements.

On a per-unit basis, this probably makes the game too complicated. But if you could choose to pay and do terrain-specilisations to some military unit, that might be a possibility...

quote: Is your reasoning because the software programming challenges are too tough? I just recently joined (been playing for years) so I'm sure a lot of topics have been discussed before. I would be interested in some of the past conclusions. I find these forums fabulous!

Here are topics that could be unrelated to this topic, but have dealt with in one way or another, the possible technical challenges of making the game:

*Cool AI's
*AI questions
*Which Aspect of Improvement Is Most Crucial?
*Lets Not Get Carried Away Now!
*Arguments why its nearly impossible to program an "almost human" AI.
*3-D, Will it Ruin Civ3?
*HOLD ON EVERYONE! Great Graphics Idea.
*Commando Units
*Is random maps a AI weakening factor?
*The Map.... Again
*And the biggest, largest programming-related debate of them all... Civ III Engine Proposal

older:
*CIV III as an RTS !?
*question for firaxis: the civIII engine
*Some Events.txt ideas

I can't find anything else , because most of the time, it's just mentione in passing...

------------------
No, in Australia we don't live with kangaroos and koalas in our backyards... Despite any stupid advertisments you may see to the contrary...
[This message has been edited by UltraSonix (edited October 21, 2000).]

[Shogun Gunner]

Thanks UltraSonix!!!

[Shogun Gunner]

I'm liking this idea...

If we are trying to mimic real life, then a country would never sell it's top technology, especially if it can lead to a top level military unit.

When Soviet Union/Russia sold tanks, they never sold T-62s, they sold the T-55s. Soviet Union wouldn't need second tier weaponary, but the smaller country could use it. Plus they could only afford the second tier units anyway...

This is a non-starter as we would be introducing three levels of the Armor unit. With approx 50 units in Civ II that would raise to 150!!! Too many units, too complex. It would start to become more a wargame than a civ simulation.

I would buy it if they did that however...