When an unit is in a city, and you have the ressources you need, you can evolve an existant unit in the higher level of this unit, if you have the corresponding technology.

You need to pay gold for this evolving.

But this gold cost is extremly too high, you can't afford this evolution, only to give some power points to an existant unit.
(I never did it, but do you preserve experience and experience level of the unit, when evolving?)

Reduce this gold cost, from ~100, to 50, or even lower.

You must run close to the mark on funds; I usually have plenty for that sort of thing....

I don't understand your reply.

Increase your tax revenue by cutting science and culture funding. This will allow a nice increase in your treasury, and after a few turns you should be able to upgrade your men.

... and you won't be able to make science, the science progress is currently slow, we can't afford extremly expensive things only to upgrade some points of power ...
The cost is too high for what you get.
100 gold for a simple evolution is too high.

100 gold?
Upgrades often cost 500 gold. I think that upgrades should remain about the same cost so that by the later game you're more able to afford it, rather than being scaled. I think someone said that it's scaled to production costs.

Perhaps upgrades should cost initially very little but be scaled up for each person who doesn't have the technology for the upgrade. In this way it would be easy to upgrade to your enemy's level, but your 'new super-tech' would cost a fair amount of money to use on existing units.

Units with promotions retain their promotions thru upgrades. Yes, upgrading is expensive, but I've actually found it an interesting trick because I can make a bunch of weak units then upgrade them quickly, rather than spend the longer time it would take to build them from scratch. (Depending upon game speed, this technique could save 3-5 turns, especially if you don't have a civic that allows you to rush-build). Of course, you gotta have the treasury to do it.

I've read about one trick - giving units promotions that aren't available after they've been upgraded. Cavalry, for example, allows the water-assault promotion, but gunships (Cavalry's upgrade) doesn't. So, with this trick, you could make gunships that can attack from your transports. I've not done this, but I have read about it.

- Sligo

Lol, Sligo, I do the same. Build myself a huge army of macemen/crossbowmen and headed straight for Rifling. Upgraded every single unit (including axemen and archers) to Redcoats, and then researched Construction (no tech trading)for catapults. Poor Monty never knew what hit him as I mowed him off my continent and into oblivion.

Not one single casualty. :)

Danicela, keeping the slider at the maximum sustainable science percentage is a strategis choice, not a necessity. As Sligo said, you can choose to get to a military tech sooner, and start building them asap, or you can take a little more time to get there, but be able to convert all/some of your troops immediately instead of building them from scratch.

The first option is better for science, the second lets you focus construction on buildings/wonders.

100 gold?
Upgrades often cost 500 gold

Maybe, i was talking for units around clubmen ...

Perhaps upgrades should cost initially very little but be scaled up for each person who doesn't have the technology for the upgrade. In this way it would be easy to upgrade to your enemy's level, but your 'new super-tech' would cost a fair amount of money to use on existing units.

You want to be able to upgrade to an unit that you haven't the tech for?

Like making gun men at stone age ?

No, the tech must be a pre-requirisite to upgrading, this is normal.

---

At the beginning and even after, you gain only a low income of gold each turn, and if you don't put 100% in science, you'll need 30 turns for everything....
You need like 150 science units to make a basic research ...
But you need like 100 to make a sh*tty upgrade !

I am still sure that upgrading costs are too high.

I've seen on a poll about this subject that most of the people prefered to reduce the upgrading gold cost because this is too high.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=161823

Although this can be costly its probably quite realistic. Many countries have had the problem of having to spend a fortune upgrading their armies, going to the point of bankruptcy in some cases

Uh? Maybe.. even if I didn't hear of that.
But on a Balance point of view,
The upgrading is too high.

I disagree, Danicela. A dozen turns with less research spending or cashing in a Great Merchant will usually allow me to do a bulk upgrade. There should be no "Easy Button" options. Everything should be a tough trade off.

Heh, try upgrading catapults to cannon. And why should it be cheap? Catapults and cannon have almost nothing in common except their function, so it shouldn't be cheap to such an upgrade.

... and you won't be able to make science, the science progress is currently slow, we can't afford extremly expensive things only to upgrade some points of power ...


Exactly. You can't have everything. Being a good leader is partially about making good decisions. A good strategy game presents you with the opportunity to make lots of decisions. Military units don't just magically upgrade - it takes cash (at least that's how it's represented in the game - in reality units wouldn't last 100's of years - you'd have to replace them entirely with painful frequency - but how much fun would that be...). If you want cash to do upgrades, you have to balance and/or sacrifice. Reduce science, go to war and pillage/take cities, or create a great merchant and send him on a mission. Ie, you have to make decisions. It's a good thing!

(Your upgraded units do retain promotions and some experience, and you can sometimes upgrade to a unit and retain promotions that the upgraded unit cannot get, for ex, upgrade a city raider III axeman to a rifleman)

Side note, it WOULD be nice if some wonder, tech or civic choice would slightly reduce upgrade costs (maybe a 10-20% reduction). Perhaps in the expansion...

A dozen turns with less research spending or cashing in a Great Merchant will usually allow me to do a bulk upgrade.

More than a dozen.
And do you think that a "dozen" of turns are something interesting to give 1 or 2 power points more to an existant unit ?
The cost of this thing for what you get is insanely too high.

There should be no "Easy Button" options. Everything should be a tough trade off.

Lol. :lol:
There is a difference between "easy" and "normal" and "crazely high".
The current cost is "crazely high" for what you get.
I'm requesting something "normal" and balanced, and not something overpowered and "easy".
But now upgrading is underpowered by its insane cost.
If you think that I'm someone who likes easiness, you are wrong, I like when the things are hard, but I don't like when they are too high, they must have a good medium.

Heh, try upgrading catapults to cannon. And why should it be cheap? Catapults and cannon have almost nothing in common except their function, so it shouldn't be cheap to such an upgrade.

Ok.. but how much is it hard to replace a sword by a mace ?
For this thing, we must disconsider realism, we can't set a huge cost for something that doesn't worth it.
Hundreds of gold are a too big sum for 2 points of power.

Exactly. You can't have everything. Being a good leader is partially about making good decisions. A good strategy game presents you with the opportunity to make lots of decisions. Military units don't just magically upgrade - it takes cash (at least that's how it's represented in the game - in reality units wouldn't last 100's of years - you'd have to replace them entirely with painful frequency - but how much fun would that be...). If you want cash to do upgrades, you have to balance and/or sacrifice. Reduce science, go to war and pillage/take cities, or create a great merchant and send him on a mission. Ie, you have to make decisions. It's a good thing!

(Your upgraded units do retain promotions and some experience, and you can sometimes upgrade to a unit and retain promotions that the upgraded unit cannot get, for ex, upgrade a city raider III axeman to a rifleman)

Side note, it WOULD be nice if some wonder, tech or civic choice would slightly reduce upgrade costs (maybe a 10-20% reduction). Perhaps in the expansion...

Stop with this type of reflexion please...
Replacing swords by maces is not expensive, for exemple.
We must not consider realism for it, but the game in itself, the thing is simple :
-Upgrading gives you poor advantages for a so big cost, the gold you give and the gold you need to gather to do it is too high, you don't realize the discrepancy between what you get and how much do you pay.

This might be a little off topic, but upgrading units would be better if some inherent advantages of the old unit stayed. So, if I upgraded my swordsman, it would be nice if his +10% city attack stayed with the unit. True, many later units never need advancements from earlier generations (like Macemen's +50% vs. melee) but perhaps it could turn into some extra experience once you upgrade out of a world of melee (i.e. into gunpowder).

Lately, I have found myself with enough money to upgrade. To run a decent economy (and no, not just the Financial Trait with cottage spamming) it takes time and practice. Try to always run at a surplus instead of a deficit. I used to always make that mistake, and extra money always comes in handy.

The high upgrade cost is not about to piss the human, but to help AI, as this cost is halved by 10 for it. The result is that it piss the human still :p

A 10 seconds modding issue. The prize for upgrades can be find in GlobalDefines file.

The high upgrade cost is not about to piss the human, but to help AI

This is stupid, the costs have to be balanced for all, and this cost is too high.

as this cost is halved by 10 for it.

Wtf is that ?
This is false : All have the same things, as you take the normal difficulty level, all have the same things, the cost don't vary from a player to another...
It is normal that the cost is balanced to all players...

The result is that it piss the human still

What is the point ? What you say is illogical.



A 10 seconds modding issue. The prize for upgrades can be find in GlobalDefines file.

I don't have to mod anything, this is an unbalance problem that needs to be corrected by the developpers, to make a real official balanced game.
This is absolutely not something that each one have to do, because it's not a problem for only one, see the poll about that and see the absolute truth and you'll understand that this problem has to be corrected by developpers.
Not by particulars.

Actually, I recall reading somewhere that the AI gets a discount on upgrades to reduce the amount of obsolete units it fields (remember how in previous Civs you could always find a few ceremonial spearmen in the capital, taking down your tanks?). I'm not sure what the discount is, but Salamandre is apparently claiming that the cost is reduced by a factor of ten.

Plz delete - double post

Ok.. but how much is it hard to replace a sword by a mace ?

Upgrading isn't just a matter of handing men new equipment.

'Here Alaric. Give me that rusty old sword and step into this Apache gunship. It's hammer time.'
'Örgh?'

The transition from swordsmen to macemen is the transition from Iron Age warriors to medieval men-at-arms. It represents a huge shift in organisation, tactics and doctrine. It should be expensive.

Actually, I recall reading somewhere that the AI gets a discount on upgrades to reduce the amount of obsolete units it fields (remember how in previous Civs you could always find a few ceremonial spearmen in the capital, taking down your tanks?). I'm not sure what the discount is, but Salamandre is apparently claiming that the cost is reduced by a factor of ten.

This is impossible that the AI have advantages, this is a crucial rule of strategy games to make balance between AI and Humans, and even if I took the difficulty level that says "same between AI and human".

Upgrading isn't just a matter of handing men new equipment.

'Here Alaric. Give me that rusty old sword and step into this Apache gunship. It's hammer time.'
'Örgh?'

The transition from swordsmen to macemen is the transition from Iron Age warriors to medieval men-at-arms. It represents a huge shift in organisation, tactics and doctrine. It should be expensive.

No you overestimates the cost, it's not so expensive as you think, and even if it is expensive, it is not so expensive as it is in Civ4 for ONLY ONE UNIT.
It is not so expensive.
And leave realism as it is for this part, we can obviously see that the cost of upgrade for one unit is huge, in comparison with the incomes of different sources.

If you don't want pay the cost just disband the old unit and build a new one.

If you don't want pay the cost just disband the old unit and build a new one.

No...
The thing is that the cost is too high and should be reduced.
There are no other issues.

There is no issue at all.
you want a new, more powerful unit in one turn? pay.
You don't want to pay? Build a new unit.

Just to be clear, how much do you think would be a fair price for an upgrade?

There is no issue at all.

The issue is to reduce the cost.

you want a new, more powerful unit in one turn? pay.
You don't want to pay? Build a new unit.

You don't understand that this doesn't depend on me, this is something bad balanced, the developpers have to fix this.

Just to be clear, how much do you think would be a fair price for an upgrade?

The half of the current upgrade cost.

I've seen on a poll about this subject that most of the people prefered to reduce the upgrading gold cost because this is too high.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=161823

That poll got 13 voters. Hardly a reliable source when messing with the game.

Leave upgrading as it is. Halving the upgrade costs will take all the decision making out of it. I like to not be able to everything. It makes my playing of it worthwhile. Having enough gold to run normal science and upgrade your Axemen to Grenadiers is ridiculous. Say you have the choice of lowering your science by 20% to cover upgrade costs. There's a decison. Halve the upgrades, and no, it isn't normal, it's too easy.

That poll got 13 voters. Hardly a reliable source when messing with the game.

13 is enough to represent the common wish, I know that the cost are too high and I didn't have the time vote, and I'm not alone.
This is not a mess but correcting a game unbalance.

Leave upgrading as it is. Halving the upgrade costs will take all the decision making out of it. I like to not be able to everything. It makes my playing of it worthwhile. Having enough gold to run normal science and upgrade your Axemen to Grenadiers is ridiculous. Say you have the choice of lowering your science by 20% to cover upgrade costs. There's a decison. Halve the upgrades, and no, it isn't normal, it's too easy.

Ok maybe half of current cost is too big, but what is clear, is that the upgrade cost is insanely too high.
There is a difference between easiness and hardness, the current system is hard, I want something to be "normal", not to be easy.
Even with a lowered cost, you won't have enough gold for all, but now, this is just impossible to upgrade units, 1 unit and you have no gold left, the gold needed is too high in comparison with the different incomes.

13 is enough to represent the common wish, I know that the cost are too high and I didn't have the time vote, and I'm not alone.
This is not a mess but correcting a game unbalance.

Auspicious as it may be, thirteen is a very small number. It's too small to be considered statistically significant given the high number of people who play cIV.

Yes but it can be considered as a representative population of the common wish.
But it's true that 13 is not enough.
I'll make a poll to know the opinion of more members.

When an unit is in a city, and you have the ressources you need, you can evolve an existant unit in the higher level of this unit, if you have the corresponding technology.

You need to pay gold for this evolving.

But this gold cost is extremly too high, you can't afford this evolution, only to give some power points to an existant unit.
(I never did it, but do you preserve experience and experience level of the unit, when evolving?)

Reduce this gold cost, from ~100, to 50, or even lower.

i agree with you, upgrade costs are somewhat high, how about a three teir cost system like this:

cheap: within owned city
moderate: in terratory but not city
expensive: in enemy terratory but connected to trade route(roads/rivers/coastline)

i agree with you, upgrade costs are somewhat high, how about a three teir cost system like this:

cheap: within owned city
moderate: in terratory but not city
expensive: in enemy terratory but connected to trade route(roads/rivers/coastline)

This doesn't always work because you might be upgrading a grenadier to a tank, and you need aluminium but in a enemy territory you don't have it so you can't upgrade. This is usaully the case.

One thing I noticed is that if the costs for the AI and human are exactly equal, and neither side gets any bonus stuff, the human is always at an advantage. It might be due to creativity, intuition, and risk-taking. I don't really know.

Anyways, for upgrading, I think it should be something that is so hard that you typically don't do it. Upgrading is something you do when you just so happen to have the cash, or you are in a warmongering mood and reduce culture/research in order to fund the upgrades really quickly. Whenever I was determined to upgrade my armies, I was usually able to do so relatively easily. If I wanted to. Usually I keep the older, obselete units because they can still hold their own somewhat, and I can just use a bare handful of new units for a short while to back them up. When I start getting out-numbered on the battlefield is when I feel it necessary to upgrade to more advanced units.

Upgrading units shouldn't be a so big thing to do, this is quite normal (you get only 1/2 power points), and shouldn't be expensive.

Why shouldn't it stay as it is? It's not broken in any way. Whenever I wanted to upgrade, I was able to. I just had to WANT to do it enough to do it. However, many times, it isn't necessary. There has to be an incentive NOT to upgrade. There needs to be a reason, in the game, that makes upgrading a bad thing to do. The high monetary cost is that reason. It's a decision-making process with two options, both of which are equally viable. Choosing not to upgrade can be helpful in some cases, while choosting to upgrade can be helpful in others. Making it cheaper to upgrade makes it so that upgrading becomes the preferred choice, when it shouldn't be.

Furthermore, the high cost of upgrading makes it a re-balancing of power. It means that if two countries, one with a large army and one with a small army, research a new tech at the same time that obseletes their units, they now have a re-balance of power that gives the smaller country a fighting chance again. It can recover. If it has the funds necessary it can upgrade its small army, and even make a bunch of new units with the advanced tech. Meanwhile, the larger country might be in a financial problem as a result of building up its huge army in the past, and might lag behind in upgrades/etc. This way, the powerful army becomes weaker and gives someone who is lagging behind a chance to recover and become more powerful.

The upgrade costs are too expensive for the poor things you get.
In all games upgrades don't cost so much.
Upgrades shouldn't be a so big thing which cost a lot.

If it's so poor, then why upgrade? I'll be honest, I don't find it worth it to upgrade in some cases too. That's the main point methinks. Make it so that it is expensive enough that people will, in some cases, decide not to upgrade. It's all about decision-making and weighing each option for its cost and benefit. You still haven't explained why they shouldn't be expensive.

We should be able to upgrade without an insane cost.
You shouldn't have to make so big decisions about this, upgrading shouldn't be a so hard thing to do, upgrades should be a more common thing.
They shouldn't be expensive because you gain only poor advantages when you upgrade, and you lose all your gold, for almost nothing.

This doesn't always work because you might be upgrading a grenadier to a tank, and you need aluminium but in a enemy territory you don't have it so you can't upgrade. This is usaully the case.

this is why, in my post i mentioned that while in enemy terratory they need to be connected in some way to your civilizations "trade route" in other words if their not connected to by road coast or river to the resource you control, they cant upgrade

We should be able to upgrade without an insane cost.
You shouldn't have to make so big decisions about this, upgrading shouldn't be a so hard thing to do, upgrades should be a more common thing.
They shouldn't be expensive because you gain only poor advantages when you upgrade, and you lose all your gold, for almost nothing.

You keep saying this. Why is it inherently good to be able to upgrade your army?

I keep saying this because you don't understand.
You should be able to upgrade your army because the advantages given are weak.
You shouldn't have to pay mass gold for poor things.

The advantage given are not weak at all.
First, you keep a good share of your experience,
Second, you keep all your promotions, with same combo that are almost like a cheat (like upgrade a city raider III maceman to rifleman, that normally should not have this promotion (I think those are the units, but I'm not sure)
You don't have to waste time building and moving the more technological advanced unit to replace the old ones, i.e Imagine you just conquered a enemy city on another continent with almost some old units and you discover i.e. rifling. With things as are now you have two choices
a) you could build some green riflemen in the cities in your home continent and send'em by sea to the freshly conquered city wasting precious turns that the enemy could use to re-organize.
Or b) pay some money and have a full experienced, combat ready rifleman in the middle of the action in a single turn.
If that was even cheap then it would not be a choice at all, it would be not ther right thing but the only thing to do to upgrade all you old units at the moment the new technology/resources was availlable.
Or another example, the AI send ship loaded with troops near some cities were you have only some obsolete units, lets say axemen against cannons, do you reallly thinks is a weak advantage being able to convert these axemen in riflemen only spending money? If you ask me, it is probably even too powerful.

Indeed. The upgrade from one unit to the next is pretty useful. If they made it any cheaper than it is now everyone would do it all the time. However, the intention of the upgrading ability was to be something you had to make a choice over based on the situation. The cost has to be high enough that in some cases you would upgrade and in others you would not, based on what your objectives and priorities are. Again, if they were any cheaper, everyone would do it, and that's bad. The advantages given are too strong to make them cheap enough that everyone upgrades. The fact that you do not want to upgrade due to the high price shows that the game is working correctly.

The advantages aren't enough powerful to justify a so big gold cost.

The advantages aren't enough powerful to justify a so big gold cost.
Please explain your reasoning. You might be on to something, but any argument needs sound reasoning to back it up. Again, the cost is supposed to be high enough that upgrading isn't worth it in many cases. In other words, if the cost is higher than the advantages in certain situations, that's a GOOD thing. The key is that in other situations, it is worth it. Basically, as long as the cost is high enough that upgrades won't happen often, but low enough that they happen sometimes, then it's balanced. However, if you have evidence that upgrading never happens, then maybe there's a problem.

You obtain only poor advantages for a too big amount of gold :

For exemple, you want to upgrade a warrior to swordman.
=> It costs 85 or 115 I think.
Will you spend all your money (you don't have more at stone age, you have ~100 only if you found tribe villages that gives you money..) to put someone who has 2 up to 6 power for ALL your gold?

It's too expensive for what you get.

If you have swordmen you are not at stone age.

I meant the same

if you want money to upgrade, raise your taxes and you'll get all the money you need.
Yes, this will lower your science but it is meant to, you can't be strong economically, militarly AND scientificaly, not without a lot of work, there must be a deficit somewhere, with cheaper upgrades one could have a strong science, a strong military and a lot of money without need to work for it.

This is not the point.
Upgrades cost too much even if you reduce science rate.
But for what you get, only some power points, this is too expensive.

Duh. Danicela, it is supposed to be too expensive in some cases. In others it isn't. It's all about comparative costs. Don't think of it in terms of the fixed gold rate. Instead, think of it in terms of comparative advantage. Is the extra science or the stronger military more valuable? If your victory hinges on scientific development, then you won't upgrade. However, if your victory hinges on upgrading your military (or at least some of your military) and science isn't as important at the moment, you will upgrade. The idea is to make it expensive enough that you will not upgrade in many situations, but in some cases where the comparative advantage is such that upgrading is more valuable than the gold lost, you will upgrade. The advantages will never be the same from one situation to another, even when the gold price is the same and the strength bonus is the same, one person may decide to upgrade and another not based on their path to victory and the other outside circumstances.

Duh. Danicela, it is supposed to be too expensive in some cases. In others it isn't. It's all about comparative costs

It's so expensive that it is always too expensive.

Is the extra science or the stronger military more valuable? If your victory hinges on scientific development, then you won't upgrade. However, if your victory hinges on upgrading your military (or at least some of your military) and science isn't as important at the moment, you will upgrade. The idea is to make it expensive enough that you will not upgrade in many situations, but in some cases where the comparative advantage is such that upgrading is more valuable than the gold lost, you will upgrade.

You should be able to do both, upgrades give poor advantages, and needing to pay so much attention at this and so much science rate reducing and so much spending for these raggish things is an aberration.

The advantages will never be the same from one situation to another, even when the gold price is the same and the strength bonus is the same, one person may decide to upgrade and another not based on their path to victory and the other outside circumstances.

Maybe the advantages that upgrades can give can vary from a situation to another, but in absolute, upgrades give too weak advantages to justify a so huge cost.

You keep mentioning that upgrades give a poor advantage, but I find the difference between a Warrior and an Axeman, or Infantry and Mechanized Infantry, to be pretty significant. If it was proven that nobody ever, under any circumstances, upgraded, then the feature could be considered unbalanced.

Upgrading a strength 1 warrior to a strength 5 swordsman is nothing to sneeze at. Neither is upgrading a tank to a modern armor (28 ==> 40) and Infantry to Mech Inf (20 ==> 32). That doesn't sound like a poor advantage to me. Every upgrade has a signifigant strength assocciation with it.

You keep mentioning that upgrades give a poor advantage, but I find the difference between a Warrior and an Axeman, or Infantry and Mechanized Infantry, to be pretty significant

This is too expensive despite the differences..
And they aren't a so big difference..
Will you spend all your gold to upgrade only 1 unit for giving "some" advantages?

If it was proven that nobody ever, under any circumstances, upgraded, then the feature could be considered unbalanced.

You shouldn't have very good reasons to upgrade, upgrading should be something more free, because it's not a major thing to do.

Upgrading a strength 1 warrior to a strength 5 swordsman is nothing to sneeze at. Neither is upgrading a tank to a modern armor (28 ==> 40) and Infantry to Mech Inf (20 ==> 32). That doesn't sound like a poor advantage to me. Every upgrade has a signifigant strength assocciation with it.

Not when you lose all your gold for only 1 unit, this become too expensive, gold is hard to earn in comparison to the huge cost of one upgrade.

---

Edit : Please answer here instead of this outdated topic :

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=170260

This is too expensive despite the differences..
And they aren't a so big difference..
Will you spend all your gold to upgrade only 1 unit for giving "some" advantages?

In the Warrior > Axeman scenario, you get a 150% boost in base strength and an additional 50% bonus against the ubiquitous Melee class of units (that's 50% of the new base strength: The bonus is bigger than the original base strength) at the cost of a small City Defense bonus that's obsolete with Archers anyway and X gold (note that Axemen cost 130% more than Warriors). To balance this equation, X has to be pretty large.

You shouldn't have very good reasons to upgrade, upgrading should be something more free, because it's not a major thing to do.

As I pointed out above, upgrading is pretty major. In the late game, it's not so much (Infantry > Mech Infantry is only 60% Strength boost and AA capabilities; note that Mech Infantry costs only 43% more than Infantry), but you have more gold on hand by that point

Not when you lose all your gold for only 1 unit, this become too expensive, gold is hard to earn in comparison to the huge cost of one upgrade.

You shouldn't be losing all your gold just to upgrade one unit: If that's so, you probably need to have a better money-making strategy. Now, in the early game, upgrading a Warrior to an Axeman is a nasty blow to your reserves, but as I noted above, it's a pretty big improvement.

Edit : Please answer here instead of this outdated topic :

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=170260

A topic is only "outdated" when people stop replying to it. This topic continually remains near the top of the page, while that topic hasn't been posted on in over a week. Besides, this is the "Ideas & Suggestions" forum, specifically designed for discussing the merit of game details and how to change them (alright, technically it was designed as a wishlist for cIV, but it was specifically not closed for the above reason). The GD forum can serve that purpose, too, but it's more for tips, complaints, comments, and general, well, discussion.

I don't understand you Danicela.

First you want a gunpowder resource introduced into Civ 4 to add an extra "challenge" element to the game (in your thread back in March), now you're complaining that expensive upgrading is too difficult.

It's a high-cost/high-reward decision. Is that challenging enough?

I kinda see both sides to this arguement. Mid to late game, we should have plenty of gold so that a 110 for an upgrade doesnt bankrupt us. Both in the early game, I know I'm lucky to have even 80-90 gold so at best I can usually only upgrade a single unit. But if I want to upgrade more, I simply turn off science for a few turns until I get the desired amount of gold. On the flip side, I tend to build tons of crossbows and longbows. Upgrading them to rifles is 170/200 as I recall, or maybe that was to muskets. In either case, by then I have much more gold and can usually upgraded all units. But I think that costs should be based on the eras of the 2 units. So upgrading within the same era would be a straight difference between the cost of the 2 units. But going up an era might be double, 2 eras quadrupled, 3 eras octupled(?). Going from longbow to mech inf should be substantially more than 500ish.

Edit : Please answer here instead of this outdated topic :

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=170260



---


In the Warrior > Axeman scenario, you get a 150% boost in base strength and an additional 50% bonus against the ubiquitous Melee class of units (that's 50% of the new base strength: The bonus is bigger than the original base strength) at the cost of a small City Defense bonus that's obsolete with Archers anyway and X gold (note that Axemen cost 130% more than Warriors). To balance this equation, X has to be pretty large.

It doesn't explain the huge gold cost.
It's too big despite your explainations.
You underestimates the big amount of gold needed.

As I pointed out above, upgrading is pretty major. In the late game, it's not so much (Infantry > Mech Infantry is only 60% Strength boost and AA capabilities; note that Mech Infantry costs only 43% more than Infantry), but you have more gold on hand by that point

When you have only 1 unit slightly upgraded and that you lose all your gold, this is not "pretty major", but too expensive.

You shouldn't be losing all your gold just to upgrade one unit: If that's so, you probably need to have a better money-making strategy.

The gold I get is superior to the medium, I earn good in comparaison with other civilizations/cities/places, and although i'm in a good position, the gold needed is enormeous for what you get.

Now, in the early game, upgrading a Warrior to an Axeman is a nasty blow to your reserves, but as I noted above, it's a pretty big improvement.


Upgrading 1 unit (and getting "some" power) is not a so big advantage when you have ~7 units.

A topic is only "outdated" when people stop replying to it. This topic continually remains near the top of the page

It depends.
Here, as I created another topic of that and after this one, with a poll, and in a better forum, this newer topic makes this one outdated.
I said outdated in the sense of that this topic is obsolete in comparison with the other.

that topic hasn't been posted on in over a week

?

Besides, this is the "Ideas & Suggestions" forum, specifically designed for discussing the merit of game details and how to change them (alright, technically it was designed as a wishlist for cIV, but it was specifically not closed for the above reason). The GD forum can serve that purpose, too, but it's more for tips, complaints, comments, and general, well, discussion.

The other forum is better because there are more people on the other forum than this one.
This topic, as you say, is for remarking that something is unbalanced.
I've made the other topic with a poll and in another better forum and it's newer, so please, answer to the other topic because this one is obsolete.

I don't understand you Danicela.

First you want a gunpowder resource introduced into Civ 4 to add an extra "challenge" element to the game (in your thread back in March), now you're complaining that expensive upgrading is too difficult.

It's a high-cost/high-reward decision. Is that challenging enough?

The first thing has nothing to do with the other.
Gunpowder was because it's better because it was in Civ3 and for other reasons (see the topic)
Upgrading is unbalanced because you get only poor things for the huge gold you pay.

Mid to late game, we should have plenty of gold so that a 110 for an upgrade doesnt bankrupt us.

No, you don't have more 300 or 400, you can't upgrade much with it.
And this is not the point.

I know I'm lucky to have even 80-90 gold so at best I can usually only upgrade a single unit.

Yes, the cost is too big.

But if I want to upgrade more, I simply turn off science for a few turns until I get the desired amount of gold.

You shouldn't have to do that for something pitiful.

Upgrading them to rifles is 170/200 as I recall, or maybe that was to muskets. In either case, by then I have much more gold and can usually upgraded all units.

Yes, so your science is in late, to make all these gold.

Going from longbow to mech inf should be substantially more than 500ish.

Gold doesn't rain from the sky.


------

Edit : Please answer here instead of this outdated topic :

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=170260

Danicela, have you ever done Game Theory, or taken a Political Science or Economics class? The stuff you learn in those classes pretty much covers the reasoning for why the upgrade costs are as they are right now. No one wants the easy way out. Being able to have an extremely high science rate AND be able to upgrade your entire army to the most powerful units of the time period is ridiculous. As is demonstrated in Game Theory and Political Science, leaders need to make tough choices. It's either A or B or both, and when it is both, it ends up being less of A and less of B than if he chose just one. In other words, if you choose to upgrade, your science will suffer, and if you choose science, your army suffers. You can't have both doing well. You can't concentrate on both at the same time. Make the tough choice. It's like choosing one of two evils. Obviously, you HAVE to choose an evil. You can't avoid it. It's just a question of which you want.

Game Theory, or taken a Political Science or Economics class?

I've done both.

for why the upgrade costs are as they are right now.

No.
Why they should be so expensive?
Your arguments are good, but the cost is so high that no arguments can explain it.

one wants the easy way out.

For the Xth time, I don't want the easy way, I hate easiness..
And this has nothing to do with easiness, I just want something medium, currently it's very hard insane.
I want something balanced, not unbalanced on the easy side, nor unbalanced on the hard side. (as it is now)
And you can't say "no one" because see the poll and you'll see that there are more people that want to reduce big gold cost than people that want to keep madness.
I just want something normal.

Being able to have an extremely high science rate AND be able to upgrade your entire army to the most powerful units of the time period is ridiculous.

I know, but there is a difference between this, and that it should be.
The gold needed is too high, you don't want to understand it.
The science rate shouldn't be so much reduced for only poor advantages for only 1 unit.

leaders need to make tough choices. (...) Make the tough choice.

This is out of subject.
You shouldn't have to make "tough choices" for something that is almost ridiculous.
The costs are so high that you can't do anything.

It's either A or B or both, and when it is both, it ends up being less of A and less of B than if he chose just one. In other words, if you choose to upgrade, your science will suffer, and if you choose science, your army suffers.

You are making a choice between a thing that is very important and that is already in late in comparison with the years, and a thing whose importance is very lower.
You shouldn't have to make a choice for upgrading.
Upgrading is not a so big thing as you think.

You can't have both doing well. You can't concentrate on both at the same time.

Tribe villages, pillages, and city capturing should give good bonus for this.
But with this, you can't upgrade 1 unit, you should be able.

It's like choosing one of two evils. Obviously, you HAVE to choose an evil

One thing is important and the other not.
So one should cost more than the other.
But the less important cost more than the important ~~

You can't avoid it.

You should be able.

It's just a question of which you want.

One shouldn't attack so much the other.

danicela, have you noticed that you seem to be the only one who feels that this is a big issue? i mean, some others have stated that maybe it's a bit high, but everybody seems to be coping quite easily. i regularly upgrade some of my units. in order to do this, i turn down my science. you seem to be the only one who doesn't realize that compromises must be made. how high are your science and culture sliders anyway? let me guess, 90% science, 0% culture? i bet i'm close. and you complain that science is too slow to turn down your slider? well i got news for you, if you turn up the game speed, it'll go faster, but then you'll have to upgrade your units more... it seems you just can't win, huh? good thing the rest of us can.

If you don't want the easy way out, then why reduce the gold costs to make it easy?

danicela, have you noticed that you seem to be the only one who feels that this is a big issue?

False, see on the poll (where you should have posted), many people fast answered to the call.

i mean, some others have stated that maybe it's a bit high, but everybody seems to be coping quite easily

Everybody seems not to know that they are losing their gold for poor things in comparison with the sum given.
And it's not the question.
And you are already in late in the science, you can't afford 0% for X turns, you can't.

you seem to be the only one who doesn't realize that compromises must be made.

Not for something so low interesting.
And this doesn't explain the cost.
The compromise is too high.

how high are your science and culture sliders anyway? let me guess, 90% science, 0% culture? i bet i'm close.

The gold cost is too high any way.
Even if I reduce it, it's not enough.
And it's not the question : In an absolute order, this is too expensive.

well i got news for you, if you turn up the game speed, it'll go faster, but then you'll have to upgrade your units more...

This is not a question of speed...
You don't know what you are talking about.
You are out of subject.

and you complain that science is too slow to turn down your slider?

Yes, science are already too in late compared to years, so we can't afford to turn down the science rate.

it seems you just can't win, huh?

This has nothing to do with this.
I just say something about gold cost.
There is not anything else.

good thing the rest of us can.


False : More of the half of players agree with me.
I can win too.
You just don't realize what you are talking about.

then why reduce the gold costs to make it easy?


You didn't read my post => I've told that I don't want easiness but something of normal difficulty.
Currently, gold costs are set to very hard.
I just want to balance what is unbalanced.

-

Answer on the other topic please.

You didn't read my post => I've told that I don't want easiness but something of normal difficulty.
Currently, gold costs are set to very hard.
I just want to balance what is unbalanced.

The formula for the upgrade cost is:

25 + (cost in hammers of new unit - cost in hammers of old unit)*3

So basically you're paying the cost of rush building the difference in production costs of the two units, and adding 25. I can't see how this is unreasonable. If you reduce the cost any further it'll be cheaper to buy the old unit and then upgrade it to the new than to buy the new unit outright. If anything it seems very cheap. Consider upgrading a longbowman to a mech infantry. Currently this costs significantly less than buying a mech inf outright. Why should this be the case? None of the longbowman's skills or equipment are of the remotest use, so why should it cost any less to upgrade this obsolete unit than to buy one from scratch?

Yes, science are already too in late compared to years, so we can't afford to turn down the science rate.

Firstly the ingame "year" is not relevant to where you set your science rate. What's relevant is where you are in tech compared to the other civs.

Secondly everything should be a trade off. You're getting a major boost in military strength, so you ought to pay for it somewhere.

Thirdly, it's perfectly possible to lower science rate substantially for a while if you're about to go to war, and I've done it on numerous occasions. In any case I've never needed to drop the science rate for more than half a dozen turns for a complete upgrade of a totally obsolete military.

So, Danicela, what do you think of the concept of unit upgrade costs?

Answer on the other topic please.

danicela... YOU STARTED THIS THREAD!!!! and since nobody agrees with you, you drag up some old thread that has a post where 42.5% think it's high, 40.83% don't think it's too high, there's 3 options for undecided for some reason, and no option for "the price is too low"? this is your absolute truth? your logic continues to astound. well, now that mr cynical has explained the cost, you're down to 2 arguments: "the cost is too high" and "you don't understand, the cost is too high". and if you had read the thread that you're trying to divert this one on to, you would have seen that i did post! 3 times! i told you about the AI upgrade bonus on easy levels! and if you didn't want people posting on this thread why did you start it 2 days after you started the other one anyway?

edited for spelling

He did this with the Saltpeter (ie we need MORE challenge with a gunpowder resource) argument too. It just gets to a point where you don't want to logically back up your statement for the 5th time.

Please answer here instead of this outdated topic :

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=170260


---


The formula for the upgrade cost is:

25 + (cost in hammers of new unit - cost in hammers of old unit)*3

So basically you're paying the cost of rush building the difference in production costs of the two units, and adding 25. I can't see how this is unreasonable. If you reduce the cost any further it'll be cheaper to buy the old unit and then upgrade it to the new than to buy the new unit outright. If anything it seems very cheap. Consider upgrading a longbowman to a mech infantry. Currently this costs significantly less than buying a mech inf outright. Why should this be the case? None of the longbowman's skills or equipment are of the remotest use, so why should it cost any less to upgrade this obsolete unit than to buy one from scratch?


You don't gain gold as well as you gain hammers : Gold is much more rare than hammers. And gold is needed for research & for (-X/turn). Hammers aren't reduced by anything.
This is unreasonable because it costs too much to give all in only one turn, you can't earn so much, and this is a loss to give so many money for so poor advantages.
That's normal that the already built unit costs less than to build another one..

Firstly the ingame "year" is not relevant to where you set your science rate.

Your science advancement should be normal for each year.
(1600 => gunpower
1920 => tanks
1950 => nuclear
..)

Secondly everything should be a trade off. You're getting a major boost in military strength, so you ought to pay for it somewhere.


This is not a major boost..
You don't have enough money.
It should cost less.

Thirdly, it's perfectly possible to lower science rate substantially for a while if you're about to go to war,

You shouldn't do it for too many years and a big science rate lowering for what you get in exchange...
It makes you in late in comparison with years.
I understand that it should be a science lowering, but not so much, the cost is awful.

In any case I've never needed to drop the science rate for more than half a dozen turns for a complete upgrade of a totally obsolete military.

That's clear too much for what you get, you should reduce less, upgrade costs are too big.

So, Danicela, what do you think of the concept of unit upgrade costs?

The way you upgrade is good, but it's far too expensive.

danicela... YOU STARTED THIS THREAD!!!!

And I have abandonned this, I started a new one, now this one is closed.

and since nobody agrees with you

more than the half players agree with me.

you drag up some old thread

It's better, newer, and better placed than this one.

where 42.5% think it's high, 40.83% don't think it's too high

The evidence is still here : There are more people that think that "costs are too big" than people that think that "costs are good as they are".

there's 3 options for undecided for some reason

These are the "aberrant data" as it is called in physics.

and no option for "the price is too low"?

LOL !
I have thought to put it, but as I thought that it would be very st*pid to think that, I didn't put it.
And even, It's normal I didn't put it, because the question is : "do you want to reduce?" => So if you don't want to reduce (both "let it as it is" and "upgrade costs are too low") go in the "No" answer.

this is your absolute truth?

?

your logic continues to astound.

Why?
There is nothing strange or bad here.
Just normal.

the cost is too high" and "you don't understand, the cost is too high".

False, you don't read my arguments, I have given reasons why costs are too high, too.
And even, this doesn't need any discuss.
It's too big.

and if you had read the thread that you're trying to divert this one on to

You are wrong, I don't try to do anything you say on me, this is false.

you would have seen that i did post! 3 times!

?

i told you about the AI upgrade bonus on easy levels!

What do you want with that ?
When AI does have upgrade bonus ?
This has nothing to do here.

and if you didn't want people posting on this thread

Because this post is obsolete.

why did you start it 2 days after you started the other one anyway?

You don't understand.
I have posted this firstly, but I have abandonned this, and I have posted another : better, newer, better placed.
It was just a guy that upped this buried topic, and now everybody is talking here, instead of the true post about this theme.

He did this with the Saltpeter

Saltpeter has nothing to do with what I'm doing here.

we need MORE challenge with a gunpowder resource

that wasn't the really reason.

It just gets to a point where you don't want to logically back up your statement for the 5th time.


No ..
There are things that need to be left.
You don't understand what is being made here.


---


Please answer here instead of this outdated topic :

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=170260

You don't gain gold as well as you gain hammers : Gold is much more rare than hammers. And gold is needed for research & for (-X/turn). Hammers aren't reduced by anything.
This is unreasonable because it costs too much to give all in only one turn, you can't earn so much, and this is a loss to give so many money for so poor advantages.
That's normal that the already built unit costs less than to build another one..

Out of interest, do you think that rush building with gold is too expensive? What you're suggesting would leave upgrading vastly cheaper than rush building, which would make no sense, and it is widely viewed in the strategy forum that rush building with gold is already too cheap.

Your science advancement should be normal for each year.
(1600 => gunpower
1920 => tanks
1950 => nuclear

Irrelevant as I've said. It is where other civs are in the tech tree that matters, not some arbitrary date that doesn't even scale properly across the different game speeds. (To any Firaxians reading, can we please have a Civ with just a turn number instead of a date to get rid of these silly realism arguments).

This is not a major boost..
You don't have enough money.
It should cost less.

Please explain why, instead of just stating your arbitrary opinion repeatedly in the face of logical argument. I've never had much trouble finding money for upgrades, and it is laughable to claim that it is not a major boost. Consider one civ with archers and another with riflemen. Who's going to win in a fight? Are you seriously claiming the civ with the riflemen doesn't have a major advantage worth paying for.

That's clear too much for what you get, you should reduce less, upgrade costs are too big.

Will you stop just arbitrarily stating this, and explain why, preferably backed up with some numbers. "It's clear" does not constitute a logical explanation.

False, you don't read my arguments, I have given reasons why costs are too high, too.
And even, this doesn't need any discuss.
It's too big.

You've offered "Gold is much more rare than hammers", which is factually wrong. Gold is much more common than hammers to the extent that a 3:1 conversion rate is extremely generous. Consider, you can't get more than about 6 hammers per square, and usually much less. However you can get 8 commerce from a square, and there are many other sources of gold like trading, shrines etc.

You've offered an argument tied to the date system, which is irrevlevant (and in any case it's a rare game for me where I don't hit the end of the tech tree by 1850, and I ALWAYS upgrade).

You've stated that gold is used for other purposes: correct. Hence there is a trade off to be made, for a major military advantage (drop the rubbish about it not being much of an advantage, it's a huge advantage to have even one step more advanced units due to the way the combat system works).

All your other 'arguments' have merely been to state that the cost is too high and should be lower, which is not an argument. There, I've dealt with all those, so can you back up your claim it is too expensive with a proper argument?

more than the half players agree with me.

Mathematically false, since the undecided votes are not in agreement with you. In any case two votes out of a hundred would be statistically meaningless even if it was just those two options.

No ..
There are things that need to be left.
You don't understand what is being made here.

I really don't understand what you're saying here. I have every sympathy with those who complain that you ignore logical argument repeatedly and just restate your opinion though.

Please answer here instead of this outdated topic :

Sorry, but I need to refer to the posts in this thread, so I can't migrate across to the other one. It'll make no sense to suddenly have people quoting something from a different thread, and in any case the other thread doesn't seem to have anything that adds much to the discussion. The poll results have already been discussed over here, and that's the only thing worth referring to from there. Perhaps you could ask a mod to merge the two?

it is us, who should have sympathy with you, mr. cynical, as i get the impression from browsing some of danny boy's other threads that you've been trying to teach the blind to see for a little while now. i've just met the guy and my headache is already pounding. i mean, who starts a thread stating that the music must be made louder? i mean, can you not figure out how to turn up the music? danicela feels that he should open the box and the CD should have his picture on it, and the game should be exactly as he envisions. shame on firaxis for not hiring him on as a creative consultant! then his dream of not having to change 1 word in notepad to open the debug mode would have been a reality. but i've digressed from the topic, danicela, where do you figure that You don't gain gold as well as you gain hammers : Gold is much more rare than hammers. ?
have you ever built a cottage? you do know that they evolve into gold making monsters given time, right? there's no hammer equivalant to this kind of gold production. even a gold mine gives you more gold than any 1 square gives you hammers! you're wrong. hammers are rarer and more valuable than gold. also, you're selective process of responding to fragments of sentences with rambling responces, yet not responding to the bulk of the argument grows tiresome. mr. cynical gave you the explaination of the cost you requested, but the numbers weren't in your favor, so you chose not to answer that part of his reply. you tell me to post on a thread where i had already posted, and information that supported your cause no less, and then when i refer you to those posts, you reply with "?", great tactics my friend. i accurately guess your science slider numbers, indicating that maybe i know the root of your problems, and you reply:
The gold cost is too high any way.
Even if I reduce it, it's not enough.

well, as i said, it's enough for most. your poll is up to 120 votes, and i'd say it's neck in neck, not decisive in any way, especially given the still small number of voters, although i'm aure you'll disagree, since you said
13 is enough to represent the common wish,
a statement that, i believe, speaks volumes. anyway, besides the fact that as we've determined, the poll is skewed towards your wishes (it would only be stupid to include opposing views in your poll if you wanted to insure that no one voted against you), the poll is also irrelevant! the vast majority of civ players choose to either pay the cost to upgrade or build new units, and don't think it's an issue. the evidence is that both the threads you started on this subject have a combines total of around 1500 views, mostly doubles, i'm sure, because of all the linking, whereas theres plenty of threads with 4000, 8000, even 266,791 views! all those people didn't think enough of the issue to open the thread! sounds like a solid "i don't care of these things" vote to me. i'm beginning to think most of the views on these polls are from the danicela fan club anyway, not people who are concerned about the cost.

Reserved for future use.