Because in the first example (France to Poland), Poland didn't have a navy but was at war with Germany - the transport would never have had a chance. (That and the whole "shared transport" idea sounds iffy - I don't like the idea of someone else moving my units, especially if they decide to move it over an AA gun somewhere.)Balthagor wrote:I think I understand, but I still fail to see how that is much different than what I suggested of having the sale take place immediatly but you then have to use the transports as in your example to get the new units home.
Thus having it as an option that would most likely be used in multiplayer (although I suppose you could always just move the units there yourself before selling them). I don't think that the AI will get a huge overhaul anytime soon (although I certainly have no objections should such a thing take place ), but I don't want either the single- or multi-player games to suffer because of this issue. Unfortunately the AI acts very different than a human and the way to fix it wouldn't work in multiplayer (naval blockade example again), so I think you just need to have an "AI" and "Player" option or they'll both suffer.Also, it would still end up with "packed as freight" units in your territory that you gave to the AI trying to get home because the AI doesn't bring over a cargo ship and try and sea transport them. Even worse, these "packed as freight" units will drive into enemy territory and be unable to fire. This solution, will interesting, doesn't address the problem.
That's why I don't like the shared transport idea: If anyone's going to get my planes shot down it's going to be me, dammit!Even using "non-combat" units as transports for some of these units, we would need to address the question of what if you and I have the treaty and you try and use my C-130 to transport a tank into your territory flying over my enemies territory. C-130s have not attack values so by your rule would be "non-combat" but it would get shot down and we would each loose a unit...
If the plane was going over the nation's territory it would either have a treaty to do so (and wouldn't be shot down, at least until the nation got upset and revoked the treaty) or would be at war (in which case it's fair game). If both the giver and givee of the unit were at war with the nation but didn't like the idea of combat units on their soil, you would just escort the unit to the enemy-friendly border (across Germany to the Polish border, to use the above example) and have your fighters turn back at that point until the unit was dropped off, re-escorting the fighter back later.
It's entirely possible that air units could be included in transport treaties though since they can't capture territory anyways. The only reason I thought naval units would be bad was because they could always take a port or offshore resource. I suppose the air units could always bombard the nation, but they wouldn't last very long without an airfield to land in, would they?