Unit trading!

David Murray · May 17, 2003, 10:19

Fundamentalism and disasters we know are in, but please, Firaxis, make my dream come true and let us know ... is unit trading in?

I seriously can't believe they have taken on board so many suggestions and comments and decided to incorporate them into Civilization III! They are the best games company in the world and Civilization III is the best computer game in the world! I'll be playing this game for years to come ....

Spiffor · May 17, 2003, 10:37

Direct copy / paste from the link featuring in my sig (a very old thread)

"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 many 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."

As an addendum, we can see, with the positive experience of GalCiv, that unit trading can be a nifty and elegant feature that only adds to the game, and doesn't hurt it.

Please please please please pretty please, put Unit-trading in the expansion

Louis XXIV · May 17, 2003, 11:07

We don't know fundamentalism is in

We know that a Sultanate is in, though

Azeem · May 17, 2003, 13:48

"Sultanate" is a very odd choice to include... It's just another monarchy.

Or maybe we're finally allowed to set a numerical value for corruption so govs are more differentiable?

The Templar · May 17, 2003, 14:39

Quote:

Originally posted by Azeem
"Sultanate" is a very odd choice to include... It's just another monarchy.

Or maybe we're finally allowed to set a numerical value for corruption so govs are more differentiable?

Maybe it's a monarchy with a professional civil service ala the Ottoman Empire. Of course, what government characteristic could be tweaked to represent this in the game? Communal corruption?

Panag · May 18, 2003, 07:32

hi ,

yes it must be included , with and without the technology of the unit

we should also be able to lease certain units for an x number of turns

have a nice unit trading day

Kaos XIII · May 18, 2003, 16:02

I second everything Spiffor said. The pupper-master feel is good and quite realistic (e.g. Vietnam, Afghanistan). To do battle with your main rival without declaring war is something sorely missed from Civ 2. I wish they also include the Rite of Passage for 1 Civ only. This way when you beat down a civ and let them live, you are able to park your military all over their country and begin a true occupation. Without them having the same access to your lands.

The Templar · May 18, 2003, 17:40

Speaking of deeper diplomacy, another thing I'd like to see brought back is the ability to garrison your own units in an ally's city (like in SMAC). This (1) would allow you to protect your weak friends, and (2) would discourge enemies from attacking your weaker friend for fear of pulling you into the war (assuming AI looks at this issue when deciding to attack).

Carver · May 18, 2003, 17:57

Unit trading/gifting, yes.

Also: Airbasing rights, so your planes can bomb/recon from another civ's cities and airbases.

Seabasing rights: so your ships can repair in friendly ports.

One way Rights of Passage.

I think these should be negotiated separately; having foreign planes operating from your cities is quite different from having foreign tanks roaming your countryside. One makes me a lot more nervous than the other.

Spiffor · May 18, 2003, 19:30

Quote:

Originally posted by The Templar
Speaking of deeper diplomacy, another thing I'd like to see brought back is the ability to garrison your own units in an ally's city (like in SMAC). This (1) would allow you to protect your weak friends, and (2) would discourge enemies from attacking your weaker friend for fear of pulling you into the war (assuming AI looks at this issue when deciding to attack).

This is a feature I'd love to see to. Let's just say I love teamwork and proxy wars, even in SP. It really improves the game to me

The Templar · May 19, 2003, 01:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Spiffor

This is a feature I'd love to see to. Let's just say I love teamwork and proxy wars, even in SP. It really improves the game to me

I'll definitely go with you on unit trading if it works as well as it does in GalCiv - proxy wars are so much fun. Lets them duke it out then run your panzers right over them!

BigFurryMonster · May 19, 2003, 03:03

Maybe they will allow some units to be traded (i.e. make a 'tradable' flag). For example, only for units that do not consist entirely of soldiers (catapults, tanks, maybe cavalry).

This would add an extra strategic dimension to research and to unit development.

statusperfect · May 19, 2003, 03:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Carver
I think these should be negotiated separately; having foreign planes operating from your cities is quite different from having foreign tanks roaming your countryside. One makes me a lot more nervous than the other.

cheers

Demerzel · May 19, 2003, 09:18

War by proxy was always great fun and the ability to garrison other ally's cities would be good too - along with the "demand you stop this war" option.

so much could be done to make diplomacy more fun, let's hope we finally see it...

Fosse · May 19, 2003, 10:56

It just occured to me, and I don't think I've seen anyone mention it yet...

But if they do implement unit trading, how do you think they'd handel unique units?

Specifically,

1. Would America be able to import samuri?

2. And if it did, would the unit still cause a Golden Age, since it is flagged to do so in the editor?

I would hope that unit trading is in, and the answers are 1. Yes, 2. No.

and that UU come with a premium cost.

The Templar · May 19, 2003, 12:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Fosse
1. Would America be able to import samuri?

2. And if it did, would the unit still cause a Golden Age, since it is flagged to do so in the editor?

I would hope that unit trading is in, and the answers are 1. Yes, 2. No.

Hmm

, I hadn't though of this. Might explain how Carthage got those elephants.

Perhaps trading a UU would reduce the UU to the regular unit it replaces.