Feature proposal: Strategic Unit Trading (SUT)

Have a feature request for SRGW? Post here.

Moderators: Balthagor, Moderators

SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2061
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Feature proposal: Strategic Unit Trading (SUT)

Post by SGTscuba »

I've mentioned this for previous games before but I've never bothered to actually visualise it at all. I would like the devs to add a Strategic Unit Trading (SUT) system to the game. Historically, the sale of warships to third parties was (and still is) quite extensive.

This would be used so that a nation has the choice when a unit is obsolete or unwanted to not only scrap a unit, but to put it into a marketplace of units. This would utilize a similar UI to the Strategic pool. Units could be withdrawn from the market at anytime. The AI could then potentially use this as a way of cascading units down to smaller nations instead of hoarding and deploying 1000's of units.

On the UI, you could select a country and then move the units over to the right (in the same way you assign units to the strategic pool) and then you could press "diplomatic offer" which would open the diplomatic menu, and add the units to the trade, you could then send them an offer and they would accept decline the offer in the normal way.

The player and the AI could then use this as a way of selling units for extra money.

Thanks for considering and are there any questions?

[Edit by moderator: I made your title a little more descriptive]
Attachments
SUT Pic.jpg
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
GIJoe597
Board Admin
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sep 29 2008
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: SUT

Post by GIJoe597 »

I am unclear how this would be different from the existing mechanic of trading ships?

Is not the underlying issue that the ai does not understand when to get rid of designs? It has the means already.
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2061
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: SUT

Post by SGTscuba »

GIJoe597 wrote:I am unclear how this would be different from the existing mechanic of trading ships?

Is not the underlying issue that the ai does not understand when to get rid of designs? It has the means already.
Rather than them just offering it out to their allies which is the usual, it would go out onto the world market. The advantages would be that it would temporarily remove the units from the map, which would help with performance. I *think* a system similar to this existing in SR2010 where you could sell units, but instead of a market, the UN offered the units to another state from its "pool".
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
GIJoe597
Board Admin
Posts: 2896
Joined: Sep 29 2008
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: SUT

Post by GIJoe597 »

ok
YoMomma
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 768
Joined: Jun 27 2015
Human: Yes
Contact:

Re: SUT

Post by YoMomma »

I would like such a system, especially if it makes the armies of the ai more balanced. But fact remains, first ai need to understand the minimum and maximum of troops it should have. Also ai need to understand the importance of 'embark'. I dont know why but naval locked nations like Japan and US all prefer infantry without embark trait in present games, so basicly free merchant marine kills for whoever.
Gameplay 1st
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20702
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: SUT

Post by Balthagor »

I've started a ticket on this and appreciate you starting the thread. It will need to generate a fair amount more discussion if we're going to consider adding it to the roadmap.
21641
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
smith121363
Corporal
Posts: 3
Joined: May 20 2016
Human: Yes
Location: Brownwood, Texas

Re: SUT

Post by smith121363 »

Well, I for one like the idea of being able to sell off old units. I know the USA and other countries have been doing it for a very long time.
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2061
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: SUT

Post by SGTscuba »

Nerei wrote:Typically what those countries are doing is placing orders at factories in the manufacturing countries.
Take Uganda buying Russian T-90S MBT's. I highly doubt Uganda can build such vehicles themselves and setting up the production locally is in most cases way, way too expensive to be feasible. We are likely talking billions setting up supporting industry. I remember there where claims restarting the F-22 production line would cost nearly $10B and while we can argue if that might be accurate for the US it really would be in a country without any significant aerospace industry.
On top of that the cost of each unit will likely be significantly higher. Japanese military aircraft manufacture is a good example of this.


In most cases if there are any "local" production it tends to be Ikea style knock-down kits that the recipient country then builds a "factory" to assemble. It cost a fraction of an actual production line and politicians can look good having generated workplaces and "industry". Such facilities can later be used for servicing vehicles (with imported parts).
Such factories can be ignored beyond what the game already have with traded units suffering casualties you then have to repair (and are provided the resources to do so).

I honestly do not think having a tech requirement to buying designs is a bad thing. If you already got them then we can assume you have the infrastructure in place to build the designs and if not we can assume the cost is going to into establishing the supporting industry the production of advanced military hardware requires.

Having a diplomatic option to buy factory production slots with a friendly country would go a long way to covering arms trade. The remaining part would indeed be selling finished armament.


The real restriction though is what other countries will sell you.
Ugandas T-90S order was placed before the Armata was revealed from what I remember but let us pretend it was not. Would Russia have been willing to sell their fancy new MBT with a lot of new innovations build into it to a 3rd party country like that? Probably not. You can also consider that in the past when Russia was selling M variants of the T-72 they where selling downgraded tanks.
Balthagor wrote:Or borrow, maybe for "a year".

@SGTScuba, if you find an old thread, please quote Nerei's post into it.
I think I did suggest this as part of the SUT system. You could "buy" equipment to designs too, and then they would be delivered on completion. Would mean that countries could get access to cheaper/older units even if they have gone out of stock.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
User avatar
Balthagor
Supreme Ruler
Posts: 20702
Joined: Jun 04 2002
Human: Yes
Location: BattleGoat Studios

Re: Feature proposal: Strategic Unit Trading (SUT)

Post by Balthagor »

Thanks, I've reviewed the ticket. It's still on our wishlist so the idea has not been rejected. I've added a comment about potential SR Next Gen work.
Chris Latour
BattleGoat Studios
chris@battlegoat.com
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2061
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Feature proposal: Strategic Unit Trading (SUT)

Post by SGTscuba »

Balthagor wrote:
May 06 2020
Thanks, I've reviewed the ticket. It's still on our wishlist so the idea has not been rejected. I've added a comment about potential SR Next Gen work.
Nice!
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
YaYo7
Lieutenant
Posts: 91
Joined: Feb 07 2018
Human: Yes

Re: Feature proposal: Strategic Unit Trading (SUT)

Post by YaYo7 »

SGTscuba wrote:
May 06 2020
Balthagor wrote:
May 06 2020
Thanks, I've reviewed the ticket. It's still on our wishlist so the idea has not been rejected. I've added a comment about potential SR Next Gen work.
Nice!
++ :-)
User avatar
Zuikaku
General
Posts: 2282
Joined: Feb 10 2012
Human: Yes

Re: Feature proposal: Strategic Unit Trading (SUT)

Post by Zuikaku »

I support this system especially since it will help AI a lot.
And AI really needs to know when it has enough (modern?) units.
Please teach AI to liberate and colonize instead of only annexing!
mrgenie
Brigadier Gen.
Posts: 793
Joined: Jul 08 2008

Re: Feature proposal: Strategic Unit Trading (SUT)

Post by mrgenie »

My FIRST IMPRESSION, without thinking about it in detail as I have to sleep a few nights over it to give my detailed input, and usually then I'd forget it and post it somewhat months later..

BUT, here's the first impression: I think it's a GREAT Idea!

anything that contributes to smaller nations being more competent in defending themselves is worth the development IMHO

The game, like all games on the world, is still:"at some point you're so big you can crush anyone.

Since this game is reflecting reality, in reality not even the USA and China combined could conquer the world.

You need occupation forces, other countries start handing out small arms, black market, modern countries like Japan, EU, Russia, India etc increase their weapons production and have no problems selling them to smaller countries, rebellions, etc.

In reality we also see this recently with CCP threatening countries in the pacific and Asian landmass that these countries now to get the most equipment for their bucks have their eyes on 1 gen older .

So while US, EU, etc investing in 5th gen fighter and next gen warships, etc. The 4th gen is still POTENT and DEADLY! the balances shift to favor the most advanced of course but a well trained operators with older equip can and is still deadly!

As such, yeah in the game Philippines wouldn't stand a chance against China, Japan, USA..
In reality also not of course.

But in the game it's simply said PIECE OF CAKE to conquer the Philippines..
In reality, since under Duterte PH is shopping in the USA, Israel, France, Russia getting the most for their bucks ..

China will lose a lot of they chose to invade, in the game they wouldn't lose anything since PH in the game simply doesn't stand a chance.

So yeah, I think if well implemented such a trading system might balance the game MUCH!
[UI-MOD] All-In-One viewtopic.php?f=91&t=31906
Rosalis
Colonel
Posts: 264
Joined: Sep 07 2019
Human: Yes

Re: Feature proposal: Strategic Unit Trading (SUT)

Post by Rosalis »

Its good idea until western powers buy up all the eastern equipment, because they dont have the designs, but got the money to do so. Then its very bad and defeat the purpose of having unique unit designs.

This system as proposed by the rest is too generic. Netherlands doesnt buy cw units from eastern europe, they buy very advanced AA units from USA, tanks from Germany, planes from USA, etc. etc. etc. From their allies not random nations that keep building old units.

That would be step 1, AI stop building useless 70 year old units and step 2 scrapping them. Else the number of deployed units will increase, but its basicly just lagging the game. No point in overflooding the airfields with stuff that get 1 shot.

Nations should only export their excess units. Right now not only with units but also with resources nations export old cw units to Netherlands for example and then build even worse units. Its a loss loss at that point.
SGTscuba
General
Posts: 2061
Joined: Dec 08 2007
Location: Tipton, UK

Re: Feature proposal: Strategic Unit Trading (SUT)

Post by SGTscuba »

Rosalis wrote:
May 16 2020
Its good idea until western powers buy up all the eastern equipment, because they dont have the designs, but got the money to do so. Then its very bad and defeat the purpose of having unique unit designs.

This system as proposed by the rest is too generic. Netherlands doesnt buy cw units from eastern europe, they buy very advanced AA units from USA, tanks from Germany, planes from USA, etc. etc. etc. From their allies not random nations that keep building old units.

That would be step 1, AI stop building useless 70 year old units and step 2 scrapping them. Else the number of deployed units will increase, but its basicly just lagging the game. No point in overflooding the airfields with stuff that get 1 shot.

Nations should only export their excess units. Right now not only with units but also with resources nations export old cw units to Netherlands for example and then build even worse units. Its a loss loss at that point.
The overall cost would be based on relations, so it would be a lot cheaper to buy from anywhere but the WP in Netherlands case.

I do agree that the AI should know when to scrap units if it can't sell them or cascade them down any further.
My SR:U Model Project, get the latest and post suggestions here:

http://www.bgforums.com/forums/viewtopi ... 79&t=28040
Post Reply

Return to “Suggestions - SRGW”