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

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

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).

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.

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

As to:

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

quote: Originally posted by UltraSonix on 10-17-2000 04:35 AM As to: [QUOTE]magine coupling arms export with smarter AI and cool negotiations!!!

[/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.

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.

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.

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.

quote: Shaka Zulu Settler Brisbane, Australia Oct 2000

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.

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!

*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...