View Full Version : Upgrading ... again


Giaur
Apr 15, 2007, 12:51 PM
First of all I want to say that I am very disapointed of the previous voting results.

So here we stand ...

We want to upgrade archer to longbow. The cost is 95 gold.
Our city produces 10 hammers per turn.

We produce wealth for almost 10 turns.

In that time we could produce 2 fresh longbows ...

Is it fair?

I am really mad and I do not understand why any patch solved this issue yet. However I saw that results defended current upgrading cost. So the question for people who voted: "Upgrading should not be changed." ... What is your strategy in that case? Do you prioritize commerce, not hammers?

Well ... I played some open games on this forum and I was not behind with commerce. There are writeups, you can check it. So tell me why I am angry on current upgrading system?. Not mentioning about the fact that upgraded unit is left with only 10 exp.

edit: And insane fact is that being lame in tactics is useful, cause you lose plenty units but it does not matter. Your units do not have more than 10 exp. If you are good at tactics your units have enormous experience and upgrading hurts. So I guess being good must be punished :[

oyzar
Apr 15, 2007, 12:54 PM
yeah upgrading is very strange and is bascailly never doable in the early game, while in the lategame it cost bascailly nothing. One advantage is that it doesnt make it so easy to turn commerce directly into hammers through upgrading. I dont see why this shouldnt be doable though. Upgrading should be fixed so its equal to hammer cost or something(35 gold from warrior ot axeman for example).

Snaaty
Apr 15, 2007, 01:37 PM
hm... ...dont know if cheaper upgrades would be better... ...my overall strat right now already relies heavily in upgrading... ...building chariots or harchers, generating 2 GM... ...upgrading about 20 of them to cavallry

In most cases, my building capacity would allow to whip/build even more cheap units. If upgrading would be cheaper, I would even have more cavallry in the end

Im winning wars already very easy with the actual uprading (cost) system up to high levels... ...if upgrading would be even cheaper... ...poor AIs

svv
Apr 15, 2007, 01:38 PM
It's not too instructive to compare the number of turns it costs to build a unit with the amount of money you'd get by "building" wealth. Using hammers for wealth is meant to be incredibly inefficient, so it is not meant to give you a good return (unless maybe you've got a city with wall street/bank/marketplace/grocer all set up. You're supposed to be making your money from commerce/specialists/shrines/taking it from somebody else.

As for the "unfairness" of the upgrade cost - Dude, it's a game. If you don't like it, mess with the code or get another game. You're actually lucky you get to upgrade at all. I mean, taking a bunch of guys that are veteran archers and paying something to turn them into just as experienced machine gunners - that's a pretty sweet deal.

pigswill
Apr 15, 2007, 01:43 PM
The first poll didn't give you the result you wanted so now you're running another one? :confused:

Or is it that the feedback wasn't enough for a significant sample? :confused:

Giaur
Apr 15, 2007, 01:50 PM
It's not too instructive to compare the number of turns it costs to build a unit with the amount of money you'd get by "building" wealth. Using hammers for wealth is meant to be incredibly inefficient, so it is not meant to give you a good return (unless maybe you've got a city with wall street/bank/marketplace/grocer all set up. You're supposed to be making your money from commerce/specialists/shrines/taking it from somebody else.

As for the "unfairness" of the upgrade cost - Dude, it's a game. If you don't like it, mess with the code or get another game. You're actually lucky you get to upgrade at all. I mean, taking a bunch of guys that are veteran archers and paying something to turn them into just as experienced machine gunners - that's a pretty sweet deal.

Good point about specialists dude ;)

Giaur
Apr 15, 2007, 01:51 PM
@pigswill ... your sentence is just trashy :lol:. No comments. That's all you can do?

Giaur
Apr 15, 2007, 01:57 PM
@svv: However specials are not better. 3 gold points is nothing. You can work this time a mine (4 gold).

btw. Win on Deity with these numbers and you are the man. On deity stronger military is needed and it means more money for upgrading.

Binky123
Apr 15, 2007, 02:00 PM
I think one of the reasons that upgrading is so expensive is that it INSTANTLY produces higher level units. When you build 2 longbows that takes time.

I'm not really sure if this justifies the high cost though.

Lord Olleus
Apr 15, 2007, 02:05 PM
@Giaur, stop saying dude.

The formula for upgrading units is (difference in hammers * 3) + 20 gold. As wealth converts hammer to commerce in a 1:1 ratio, your far worse off. At the moment, its only worthwhile to upgrade very experienced units, or ones with promotions which would other wise be unatainable. Having a dozen CR3 redcoats is very ... interesting. The units that I can't afford to upgrade are either used for happiness during HR, or are used as canon fodder.

I agree with you that its kind of stupid though. I would rather be able to keep my entire army, but if you make upgrading any cheaper, it will actualy become more profitable that gold rushing, which is stupid. I would quite like to see a system where you can reinvest the hammers to build a new unit. Say you want a longbowman, and at the moment you have an archer. You would begin to build a longbowman, as per normal, and then you would move the archer to that city and 'upgrade' the unit. This would destroy the archer, 75% of its hammer cost would be added to the longbowman, and when the longbowman is finished, its has all the promotions of the archer. That way, upgrading would be like building a unit from scratch, but a lot faster and without loosing promotions.

pigswill
Apr 15, 2007, 02:08 PM
Non-trashy comment on upgrades.

One reason for upgrading is that if you've accumulated cash you can double or treble the power of your units instantly (useful if you're planning an invasion or even an AI stack arrives outside your city protected by a CG2 archer (instant CG2 rifle without whipping)).

Another reason is giving units promotions they wouldn't have 'naturally', CR infantry being the obvious example.

These are potentially powerful options. Maybe the reason for the current upgrade cost (25 + 2*hammer difference iirc) is to balance these out.

Giaur
Apr 15, 2007, 02:15 PM
Lord Olleus: If you convince me, dude. By far you brought no reasonable args ...

Take my apologies for calling you "Dude". The link for you, there is exactly what you are saying about.

http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=213295

edit:
pigswill: 20 + 3*hammer unfortunately.

Giaur
Apr 15, 2007, 02:34 PM
@Snaaty: I upgrade permanently too, cause game is inbalanced here and there. But that does not change anything. The problem is - YOU HAVE TO UPGRADE UNITS. World is simple when you are peaceful builder (I believe it's word about you). But for a warmonger upgrading is expensive (it's word about me).

Giaur
Apr 15, 2007, 02:40 PM
Warmonger (warmgonger or whatever):
Building 2 axes automatically means that you won't build marketplace in that time. And it strikes your economy. In the long run it means you have to fight with numbers. If you are a good player (as I am), you can avoid these problems. But if you are a good player (as I am) you lose few units and many units are waiting for upgrading. So what shall I do then ... Disband? Skills should be helpful ... but it's only vicious circle.

Snaaty
Apr 15, 2007, 02:55 PM
@ Giaur:

Well, in that point you are right... ...Im a peacfull builder at heart... ...but usually I do one war almost every game which involves upgrading:

...chariots/harchers to cavallry...

I think its OK concerning the costs, because at lower costs it would simply be too easy

...

The rear occasions I went for domination (at least in vanilla, in warlords I never finished a domination attemt so far (not even on emperor... ...always was to lazy to do a huge endgame-battle):D... ...perhaps I manage to finish my actuall game (where Im trying domination again) I did a second big wave of upgrading:

...tanks to moder armors...

again the costs are OK, when upgrading would be cheaper, then it would be again gamebreaking

...

When you are a warmonger who is constantly in a war, things might be different... ...but then again its just fair/OK/realistic to have some old units running around (and only upgrade the best units), because you will burn enough gold for warfare and upkeeping

P.S.:

Just checked your link, the upgrade old units for hammers in cities with barracks seems great/realistic/fair

pigswill
Apr 15, 2007, 02:58 PM
Giaur:It sounds like you play a warmongering style succesfully so for instance you'll have yourself a dozen CR3+ axes, when maces become available your axes become obselete, if you could upgrade axes to maces cheaply then you could continue warmongering quickly and win the game earlier. Therefore current upgrade costs slow your game down.
Maybe its a builder/warmonger balance issue?

oyzar
Apr 15, 2007, 03:06 PM
Snaaty the mid and lategame upgrades are not that bad... its the early game thats the problem. You will never ever upgrade any ancient or medival units cause it is just not worth it...

popejubal
Apr 15, 2007, 03:30 PM
The formula for upgrading units is (difference in hammers * 3) + 20 gold. As wealth converts hammer to commerce in a 1:1 ratio, your far worse off. At the moment, its only worthwhile to upgrade very experienced units, or ones with promotions which would other wise be unatainable.


...or when you hit a major technological breakthrough (i.e. Modern Armor) very late in the game when you are ready to head into a major conquest phase. Just run 0% science and 0, 10 or 20 percent culture for a couple of turns and all of the armor units that you still have from previous wars now have their attacking power more than doubled.

So, for just two turns of 0 research, you can crush an AI empire. I'd say that's a fair price. If upgrading were equal in cost to hammer difference, that would be just sick. We'd be doing stupid things like pillaging our own copper mines and then pushing out as many warriors as humanly possible immediately before hooking up the copper again and mass upgrading for cheesy wins in the rediculously-early game.

Remember that gold comes from your entire empire. Hammers come from individual cities. Being able to turn an entire empire's commerce directly toward military might is inappropriately powerful

Steppin' Razor
Apr 15, 2007, 05:04 PM
I've always thought of managing my economy to pay for upgrades as part of the overall strategy involved in playing. Yes, upgrading can be expensive, but having an army full of promoted cutting edge units the turn after you discover a new tech is worth the price, especially if you have a military tech advantage.

Sending a great merchant on a trade mission can help quite a bit, as can lowering the tech slider for a few turns. I usually try to put aside an "Oh s*%t" fund to upgrade defenders ahead of an unexpected attack and then only spend to upgrade those units that truly need it.

Giaur
Apr 15, 2007, 05:35 PM
I am not talking about ridiculous change like 1gold -> 1 hammer. I am talking about lowering the price a bit (15-25%). I won't be upset if lower upgrading cost will be bound with the trait too ...

edit: I could mod the game, but it would be quite uncomfortable for me, especially I am playing few SG's.

Welnic
Apr 15, 2007, 06:34 PM
It's not too instructive to compare the number of turns it costs to build a unit with the amount of money you'd get by "building" wealth. Using hammers for wealth is meant to be incredibly inefficient, so it is not meant to give you a good return (unless maybe you've got a city with wall street/bank/marketplace/grocer all set up. You're supposed to be making your money from commerce/specialists/shrines/taking it from somebody else.
...


If you are building wealth then the only modifiers that matter are ones that increase hammer production such as forge, factory, etc. The buildings that multiply gold don't have any affect.

cabert
Apr 16, 2007, 09:56 AM
You wanted opinions, here is mine :).
Upgrading should be banned totally, for the player and for the AI.
How do you convert a bow to a rifle, anyway?

I can see a small retribution in hammers or gold (probably gold) for disbanded units being brought in after currency, to allow you to get rid of old units.

Sure, you'll mourn those veterans, but I just don't see how a guy who learnt to destroy city defenders with his mace suddenly knows better to thorw grenades at city defenders, while other grenade launchers never can learn this.

axident
Apr 16, 2007, 10:05 AM
I would quite like to see a system where you can reinvest the hammers to build a new unit. Say you want a longbowman, and at the moment you have an archer. You would begin to build a longbowman, as per normal, and then you would move the archer to that city and 'upgrade' the unit. This would destroy the archer, 75% of its hammer cost would be added to the longbowman, and when the longbowman is finished, its has all the promotions of the archer. That way, upgrading would be like building a unit from scratch, but a lot faster and without loosing promotions.

Civ2 used a system where you could disband a unit within one of your cities and get half the shields back, which you could then spend on buildings or units within that city.

Bradlius
Apr 16, 2007, 10:36 AM
.... I just don't see how a guy who learnt to destroy city defenders with his mace suddenly knows better to thorw grenades at city defenders, while other grenade launchers never can learn this.

For me upgrading's not really about retraining with a new weapon or tactic, it's about maintaining an esprit de corps. Take the U.S. Seventh Cavalry. Created during the US Civil War, they fought in the Indian Wars in the late 1800's including a huge defeat at the Little Big Horn under Custer. They fought in the Mexican War, then in the Pacific during WWII. By then they had converted to a tank unit, and during Vietnam, they added helicopters to their arsenal. It's not quite exactly upgrading as Civ would have it, but the unit adopted modern weapons and tactics while maintaining a special esprit de corps that would certainly qualify as an upgrade, enhancing the unit's abilities and demoralizing its opponents.

OTAKUjbski
Apr 16, 2007, 04:43 PM
How do you convert a bow to a rifle, anyway?

That thought is a little too linear, imo. You're not converting a bow to a rifle. You're converting a bowman to a rifleman.

The form and philosophy of firing bows and guns are virtually identical -- it's just their technological distance that makes it seem strange.

Similarly, you don't convert a horse to a helicopter. You convert a ground cavalryman to an air cavalryman. The formations and tactics are virtually identical ... you're just putting the man on a different mount.

Now Maceman to Grenadier ... absolutely no correlation. I have no clue how to link those two schools of combat.

Otherwise, I agree with 90% of the posters in this thread about the cost of upgrading being absurd.

--------

I think an alternate manner of upgrading based strictly on :hammers: should be added to CivIV:

A Military Academy enables a city to devote its production directly towards paying the difference in :hammers: necessary to upgrade a particular unit.

So, if you want to make your Maceman into a Mechanized Infantry in a city pushing 125:hammers: into military units, ( 200 - 70 ) / 125 = 2 turns to upgrade.

This may seem cheap compared to the current system, but because the unit has to be IN the city with the Military Academy, it makes it impossible to upgrade right outside enemy territory a turn before crossing the border. I think this is more than enough balance to at least make it worth looking into. IMHO.

Lord Olleus
Apr 18, 2007, 12:20 PM
Considering that quite a lot of people agreed that it made more sence to upgrade units with hammers rather than gold, I made a mod comp (http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=5341586) which does just that.