Lend Lease / Buy Units From Other Players

Http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20090607152126AAo2vrJ

In WW2, the USA gave lent Britain 50 Destroyers in exchange for something. I think that that sohuld be able to be done on AtWar. I think that players should be able to give their allies their units. I know, they can send units to helptheir allies but they can't lend them their units I think this would be a good feature, even if just optional.

Basically, players can sell and buy units from other players. (As long as they're atleast at peace.)

This is good because it makes the game more realistic, as I have shown a real example above in the link. Also, this wouldn't be a complicated feature. It'd just be a simple thing to do, how people sell countries on UN games, ect. It'd only need a bit of editing to the game, and as I said it's only optional.

This would also be good because then you could finally get rid of all your unwatned units that are doing nothing but cost me money. I have been in the situation many times where I have loads of untis that I'm not using and want to get rid of them because they're costing me money. Just the other day I had about 6 Air Transports costing me 360 of my income each turn. I wanted to get rid of them, as I'd used them for what I needed. Sure, you could just use them use attack a city. But this is a way to do it without declaring war on someone in the process. You wouldn't be able to attack neutral cities in scenarios. For example, UN Game, where the only neutral city there is the capital of Greenland.

Now, here's how it'd work:

1. A player buys units from another play. The uNits can not be in a city and must be brang out of any cities fro the transaction to take place.

2. The turn after the deal is done those units would automatically be transferred to the other player. They would stay whereever the previous player left them and the other palyer would bring them to whereever they wanted. Units wouldn't teleport themselfs to your land, because they couldn't in real life.... This would also be good, however, for example if you were China and your enemy was America, you oculd buy units from Canada and you'd then have units right next to your enemy. This has been done many times in real life, I'm pretty sure. (Obviously you could ask the seller to bring them over to your land if you wanted.)

3. Simples. Baba boom, you've got your units.

The transaction would probably take place similar to if you mixed together the 'Give Money' function and the selecting units thing in the event thing of the scenario maker. So the player would select the units he'd want to sell using a similar thing like the scenario maker and then the other player woulkd give the seller the money.

Also, as in the lend lease between USA and UK, it doesn't have to be money. The seller may just lend their allies units that they can't afford in war time, ect. As in the UN Games when you can buy countries from other palyers, the seller could sell units in exchange for land. It's up to the people.

What do you think?

P.S. No, I would not want fuel, food and have 3 capitals. This is about THIS idea, so please keep it on topic. Also, I don't think AtWar is very complex.... it's quite a simple game really, to me.

Sell units to players? sounds legit.

Support! ''Buying units'' could be pretty cool to! Like buying units from a player with low income, but loads of units.

Yeah!

It'd also finally be a way to get rid of your unwanted units that are just sitting around doing nothing except costing you money.

Yes, someone (maybe a imp-player) buy units and sell this to other players ... nice

Prispeval Lemonade, 26.02.2013 at 13:29

Yes, someone (maybe a imp-player) buy units and sell this to other players ... nice

its call trade, to give you a real life example:

China ----> USA ----> Store.
cost 1$ to make ----> buys it at 2$ ----> sells it at 3$

No just no the games fine how it is.

NO, just no, this is totally unrealistic.

Prispeval Guest, 26.02.2013 at 12:38

Unneeded complexity to an already complex game. Soon you will want fuel, and and to feed troops. And then will come let others sell me land and countries. And then after that you want to change capitals and have 3 capitals and want to buy a city and make it part of a new country! And then your going to want to be able to hijack enemy ships!!! >:P you get my point

Complex game? Not very complex to me. I would reeaally like the suggestion.

Prispeval nonames, 27.02.2013 at 08:28

NO, just no, this is totally unrealistic.

WHy are you so for realism? This game isn't all that realistic, I would prefer fun then realism.

Prispeval Goblin, 27.02.2013 at 09:44

Pupbenny didn't explain his idea to the full ...if you would buy troops from an ally ...where would does troops station?

...and now you can predict and calculate how many troops, reinforcments your enemy will have and where ...that is why i dont like this idea.

And last ...what would even be the point of buying troops from your ally ...that ally can just help you fight with does troops.

Agreed. I have edited my first post with all the details, ect.

Prispeval pupbenny, 26.02.2013 at 11:17

Basically, players can sell and buy units from other players. (As long as they're atleast at peace.)

2. The turn after the deal is done those units would automatically be transferred to the other player. They would stay whereever the previous player left them and the other palyer would bring them to whereever they wanted. Units wouldn't teleport themselfs to your land, because they couldn't in real life.... This would also be good, however, for example if you were China and your enemy was America, you oculd buy units from Canada and you'd then have units right next to your enemy. This has been done many times in real life, I'm pretty sure. (Obviously you could ask the seller to bring them over to your land if you wanted.)




by me dont know why this happened
it should be with ally's only its best not to sell troops to another player who then declares war next turn
also its unfair that china gets troops in canada just like that it should be that canada sends troops to china's countries or land and then be able to buy Canada's troops while there on china's land

Yea, i can finally sell units then and add where you can give them to nutrual if no one will buy them but yo uwill still get money

Prispeval Goblin, 27.02.2013 at 18:15

Prispeval UnIeashed, 27.02.2013 at 18:07

Yea, i can finally sell units then and add where you can give them to nutrual if no one will buy them but yo uwill still get money

Sell to neutrals?

It would be good so you wont build up your enemies army or someones army you dont really trust

I imagine it would be better if you could just give units to other players, because it might be too complex to arrange a sale of troops.

Its fine how it is! Units are not individually tracked so you can't sell them to players or neutrals! Making them sell able would mean redesigning the whole unit system which is never happening!

Prispeval Goblin, 28.02.2013 at 05:25

Prispeval UnIeashed, 27.02.2013 at 18:26

Prispeval Goblin, 27.02.2013 at 18:15

Prispeval UnIeashed, 27.02.2013 at 18:07

Yea, i can finally sell units then and add where you can give them to nutrual if no one will buy them but yo uwill still get money

Sell to neutrals?

It would be good so you wont build up your enemies army or someones army you dont really trust

No i mean sell them and let them sit out in the middle of no where no harm is done in that unlseee your a clean freak and dont like those units out there
But that way you would build up neutral countries armies, and that would bring insecurity in the game.

Imagine attacking a neutral only to realise in the battle that a country got more troops then you thought you are attacking

Citiraj:

Citiraj:

One more thing you didnt explain ...and that is how will you decide which troops are the ones you are buying?

Idk i dont like it ...i could ally some player and he could just be my arms dealer, and i dont like the fact that i could get more reinforcments then the reinforcments capacity from my cities.

I did explain that. As I said, it'd be like the scenario editer where you select the stack of troop(s) that you want to sell.

Prispeval Meester, 28.02.2013 at 01:01

Its fine how it is! Units are not individually tracked so you can't sell them to players or neutrals! Making them sell able would mean redesigning the whole unit system which is never happening!

I think it'd be simpler than you're making out. On the scenario editor, you can easily transfer units from one player to another. Sure, it's an editor, but Im sure that could probably be adapted for use in game. Also, you seem to think the game is fine how it is, so why do you go on the suggestions and ideas thread of the forums? Just curious.

Prispeval GOD 2.0, 27.02.2013 at 13:15

by me dont know why this happened
it should be with ally's only its best not to sell troops to another player who then declares war next turn
also its unfair that china gets troops in canada just like that it should be that canada sends troops to china's countries or land and then be able to buy Canada's troops while there on china's land

I don't see why it's unfair? This happens in real life. I do get what you mean, however. In a game, China could be USA's sworn enemy, and then Canada sells 50 tanks to China right in North America. A bit unfair. But it adds challenge to a game. Now, people actually have to defend there capital better. Not just go all out and use all units. And, as I said, this happens in real life. Military equipment is sold to other ocuntries all the time. An example is the HMS Eagle. A Chilean Battleship which was bought by the British in 1918. Later sunk by a German U-Boat at Malta in 1942.

As for this neutral thing you're all tlaking about.... I have no idea what it is and lost track fo what you guys were saying. But, neutral units CAN NOT be sold. You can only sell YOU'RE units.

I do not really see what is wrong with this specific idea. (The idea of selling/lending units.)

P.S. Please remember this would be an OPTIONAL EXTRA and would make games like the UN Games a bit more realistic.

Prispeval Goblin, 28.02.2013 at 10:36

Optional extra i would never use im afraid.

Yes military equipment is traded in real life ...but in AW every player can build every units from every one of his cities ...so what is the point of this idea actually?

And i dont whant players friends coming in the game just to sell them troops beyond their reinformcent capacity ...you understand what i mean: NO ONE should be able to build/buy more troops then their reinforcment capacity ...that is the reason i dont like the idea ...sorry

And i can tell you i believe this idea would bring some situations in a normal game, that i would consider unfair.

I can see actually that a friend of a person could make the game unfair. The idea of this though was so an ally could trade units to players in desperate times, for example if they've got no money, like with the USA and the UK in WW2.

Prispeval Goblin, 01.03.2013 at 11:36

Prispeval pupbenny, 01.03.2013 at 09:27

Prispeval Goblin, 28.02.2013 at 10:36

Optional extra i would never use im afraid.

Yes military equipment is traded in real life ...but in AW every player can build every units from every one of his cities ...so what is the point of this idea actually?

And i dont whant players friends coming in the game just to sell them troops beyond their reinformcent capacity ...you understand what i mean: NO ONE should be able to build/buy more troops then their reinforcment capacity ...that is the reason i dont like the idea ...sorry

And i can tell you i believe this idea would bring some situations in a normal game, that i would consider unfair.

I can see actually that a friend of a person could make the game unfair. The idea of this though was so an ally could trade units to players in desperate times, for example if they've got no money, like with the USA and the UK in WW2.

I never play scenarios so i dont really know about the WW2 game ...but if you would have the possibility to trade units free with your ally, that could lead to situation where one player could own mass troops and be in a huge minus with cash while his ally would just buy and send him troops. :/

Agreed. Maybe someday with more palnning it may work but not yet.

Prispeval pupbenny, 01.03.2013 at 11:54

Prispeval Goblin, 01.03.2013 at 11:36

Prispeval pupbenny, 01.03.2013 at 09:27

Prispeval Goblin, 28.02.2013 at 10:36

Optional extra i would never use im afraid.

Yes military equipment is traded in real life ...but in AW every player can build every units from every one of his cities ...so what is the point of this idea actually?

And i dont whant players friends coming in the game just to sell them troops beyond their reinformcent capacity ...you understand what i mean: NO ONE should be able to build/buy more troops then their reinforcment capacity ...that is the reason i dont like the idea ...sorry

And i can tell you i believe this idea would bring some situations in a normal game, that i would consider unfair.

I can see actually that a friend of a person could make the game unfair. The idea of this though was so an ally could trade units to players in desperate times, for example if they've got no money, like with the USA and the UK in WW2.

I never play scenarios so i dont really know about the WW2 game ...but if you would have the possibility to trade units free with your ally, that could lead to situation where one player could own mass troops and be in a huge minus with cash while his ally would just buy and send him troops. :/

Agreed. Maybe someday with more palnning it may work but not yet.

what about a penalty of 10%.
goblin is just butthurt, but in fact, if those units are gonna be used by your enemy attacking you, or by the allly of your enemy to invade you.
its not like your gonna make more units, for example, i have 40 units and your killing my ally, rather than using my 40 units to help him, i will give them to him, it dosnt matter who has them, their are gonna attack you anyways.

Goblin makes no sense. look, if i late join and can recruit 500 units, i am already wasting money recruiting them, if you are killing my ally, i will use them againts you, but with this idea, i can just sell him the units, is not like i am making more units, my money is gone, my reinfocements are gone.

this idea is just letting your ally use your reinforcements for a small fee. is not like i am giving free units, i am wasting money to buy them in first place, and the units will end up attacking you in a way or another.

Prispeval gwyvs, 05.03.2013 at 09:26

It should be an option that can only be enabled for scenarios,and if someone is buying units from another player the units should be 20% more expensive to prevent abuse.

Prispeval Rebake, 05.03.2013 at 12:41

what about a penalty of 10%.
goblin is just butthurt, but in fact, if those units are gonna be used by your enemy attacking you, or by the allly of your enemy to invade you.
its not like your gonna make more units, for example, i have 40 units and your killing my ally, rather than using my 40 units to help him, i will give them to him, it dosnt matter who has them, their are gonna attack you anyways.

Yes! Nice ideas guys, I really like them! :) We could do that, I think.

Prispeval Goblin, 05.03.2013 at 16:57

Prispeval Rebake, 05.03.2013 at 12:50

Goblin makes no sense. look, if i late join and can recruit 500 units, i am already wasting money recruiting them, if you are killing my ally, i will use them againts you, but with this idea, i can just sell him the units, is not like i am making more units, my money is gone, my reinfocements are gone.

this idea is just letting your ally use your reinforcements for a small fee. is not like i am giving free units, i am wasting money to buy them in first place, and the units will end up attacking you in a way or another.

Read everything before calling me butthurt and shit ...he was talking about FREE TRADE of troops among allies, and that is what i opposed.

Use your real account btw.

first of all, i agree it should have a penalty, it at least should cost 10%
but, whats the problem with free units? is not like you are getting them for free, your ally is paying.
what if i sell my troops for 5k, then my ally gives me back the money?
or i give money to my ally so he can buy my troops?
exactly, is the same stuff, your ally is using money to buy the units in first place, why to charge the units again?
if he wants to give them for free, is his problem.

Prispeval Goblin, 06.03.2013 at 11:18

Prispeval Rebake, 06.03.2013 at 10:27

Prispeval Goblin, 05.03.2013 at 16:57

Prispeval Rebake, 05.03.2013 at 12:50

Goblin makes no sense. look, if i late join and can recruit 500 units, i am already wasting money recruiting them, if you are killing my ally, i will use them againts you, but with this idea, i can just sell him the units, is not like i am making more units, my money is gone, my reinfocements are gone.

this idea is just letting your ally use your reinforcements for a small fee. is not like i am giving free units, i am wasting money to buy them in first place, and the units will end up attacking you in a way or another.

Read everything before calling me butthurt and shit ...he was talking about FREE TRADE of troops among allies, and that is what i opposed.

Use your real account btw.

first of all, i agree it should have a penalty, it at least should cost 10%
but, whats the problem with free units? is not like you are getting them for free, your ally is paying.
what if i sell my troops for 5k, then my ally gives me back the money?
or i give money to my ally so he can buy my troops?
exactly, is the same stuff, your ally is using money to buy the units in first place, why to charge the units again?
if he wants to give them for free, is his problem.

I will not say anything about buying/selling.

But free troops from your allies ...yes your ally is paying, but who is paying the maintenance of does troops if your allies send you an army you cant afford (nobody) ...and your allies could just keep sending you more and more troops you cant afford.

And ally can help you with his troops, why the need to sell them or give them away to you ...unless he is rank 3 and you are rank 10 and will use them better (but that is not fair)

war is never fair, deal with it.

Citiraj:

Citiraj:

Citiraj:

Prispeval Goblin, 06.03.2013 at 12:21

I will not say anything about buying/selling.

But free troops from your allies ...yes your ally is paying, but who is paying the maintenance of does troops if your allies send you an army you cant afford (nobody) ...and your allies could just keep sending you more and more troops you cant afford.

And ally can help you with his troops, why the need to sell them or give them away to you ...unless he is rank 3 and you are rank 10 and will use them better (but that is not fair)

war is never fair, deal with it.

I can see you have no reasonable argument ...war is never fair, but this is a game ...and war is bound to rules as well by international war laws

no, the problem is that you have no valid argument againts free troops, your only reason is because is not fair, you have no idea fron where the money and reinfocements come from? do you?

you are saying thesame argument over and over, understand.
those troops are gona be used againts you anyways.

Citiraj:

Citiraj:

Citiraj:

Prispeval Goblin, 06.03.2013 at 12:44

Prispeval Rebake, 06.03.2013 at 12:30

Prispeval Goblin, 06.03.2013 at 12:21

I will not say anything about buying/selling.

But free troops from your allies ...yes your ally is paying, but who is paying the maintenance of does troops if your allies send you an army you cant afford (nobody) ...and your allies could just keep sending you more and more troops you cant afford.

And ally can help you with his troops, why the need to sell them or give them away to you ...unless he is rank 3 and you are rank 10 and will use them better (but that is not fair)

war is never fair, deal with it.

I can see you have no reasonable argument ...war is never fair, but this is a game ...and war is bound to rules as well by international war laws

no, the problem is that you have no valid argument againts free troops, your only reason is because is not fair, you have no idea fron where the money and reinfocements come from? do you?

you are saying thesame argument over and over, understand.
those troops are gona be used againts you anyways.

I think my reason "because is not fair" is a rason good enough. And what are you talking about money and reinforcments ...if a country cant support massive army - it shouldn't have a huge army.

In a games like Total War ... if your income goes in to deficit your troops disband cuz you dont have the money to support that large of an army ...now in AW there is no such system so you can be in income deficit and still hold you army as it is. If you find your self in that situation and your allies send you their armies you would still hold massive army with possible (example) -3000 cash ...your allies free of burden to support the troops they just sent you, would gain more money another turn and could buy again a huge army that they could send once again to you even if you had -10000 cash.

Did i explain that good now? ...or do we continue this pointless argument. :/

it is fair.
look, if the guy is in debit, he can"t recruit troops. therefore he will be very dependent on his ally.

do you understand it?
as a map maker, i am telling you its balanced, the best example its Manchuria from ww2.
manchu gets too much troops at start, but at the long run he has too much land and cant"t use it because he is in debit.
and it ends up getting push back.

The question I have is where will the troops appear? Will they somehow be transported to the cap, or will they stay where they are at?

For example if the US sells troops to Britain in a WWII game will they stay over by the shores of America and Britain will have control of them from that poin on, or will they move to Britain's cap?

I think this is good Ideal. It would good Neutral player those really doesn't want to get involve the actual fighting for some reason to be able to send units to which ever side he wants to win, or to get rid of some of his units while earning a profit for his own war if there really far away and can't be used.

Prispeval NoOne, 06.03.2013 at 16:19

The question I have is where will the troops appear? Will they somehow be transported to the cap, or will they stay where they are at?

For example if the US sells troops to Britain in a WWII game will they stay over by the shores of America and Britain will have control of them from that poin on, or will they move to Britain's cap?

What about this: I sell units to someone and the start moving toward his cap(if possible), so I don't have to move and He doesn't have to move them, and can reroute them if he wants to while their moving.

No support this encourages late joining. Example, the games 50k starting fund, my enemy has almost lost. Suddenly a late joiner joins buys 500 units and sells them to him for lets say 100 cash. Now he just need to keep repeating this i would lose eventually.