C3C Unit Upgrade costs

Longasc · Sep 1, 2004

Hello!

What do you think about the unit upgrade cost formula?

Some examples:

Mounted Warrior 3.1.2 (30 Shields) to Knight 4.3.2 (70 Shields)
Cost: 120 Gold

Tank 16.8.2 (100 Shields) to Modern Armor 24.16.3 (120 Shields)
Cost: 60 Gold

Leo's Workshop halves the costs.

What do you think -> I got the feeling, MW -> Knight is too expensive, and Tank -> Modern Armor a no-brainer, too cheap.

Correction: Tanks -> MA is 60 gold.
Formula is shield difference x3.

thetrooper · Sep 1, 2004

Longasc said:
Hello!

What do you think about the unit upgrade cost formula?

Some examples:

Mounted Warrior 3.1.2 (30 Shields) to Knight 4.3.2 (70 Shields)
Cost: 120 Gold

Tank 16.8.2 (100 Shields) to Modern Armor 24.16.3 (120 Shields)
Cost: 30 Gold

Leo's Workshop halves the costs.

What do you think -> I got the feeling, MW -> Knight is too expensive, and Tank -> Modern Armor a no-brainer, too cheap.

The upgrade formula is certainly(?) based on the shield cost.
MW-K: 30-70 shields - 120 gold.
T-MA: 100-120 shields - 30 gold.
If it is based on shield cost, this makes sense. But I agree - no-brainer since
you should have plenty cash in the modern age.

What about the 10 gold cost for knight-cavalry (w. Leo). That is a cheap transition...

Arathorn · Sep 1, 2004

Tank to Modern Armor is 60 gold without Leo's. Possibly a no-brainer but not always.

I think the upgrade prices are quite reasonable. At least as reasonable as the shield costs. I don't always do all upgrades (I leave pikes for a LONG time, as they're a better bang per shield or per buck than musketmen and similar to rifles), but the cost is well in-line with the cost of doing it any other way.

Arathorn

Longasc · Sep 1, 2004

I found the militaristic trait to be less powerful than others:

cheaper barracks, higher chance of unit promotion.
How about reduced upgrade costs, too?

Would halving upgrade costs PLUS Leo's (just imagine) just be TOO GOOD?

dgfred · Sep 1, 2004

I try for Leo's in EVERY game :mischief:

. I know other paths might make me
a better player, but I must have it :crazyeye:

. I hate paying full cost for
upgrades the ENTIRE game :mad:

. Most games I either build it or capture
it

.

SesnOfWthr · Sep 1, 2004

I don't mind the upgrade costs, it makes you think about which units you really need to upgrade. There has been several games where I won't upgrade units in my core at all, until they come under attack. Of course I preferred the Vanilla costs, but I think the Conquests costs are probably more appropriate.

There are also examples of 0g upgrades, like a Gallic Sword to a MDI. Both cost the same 40 shields, so you just choose to swap one attack for one movement. Upgrades like that always seemed strange to me.

Longasc · Sep 1, 2004

Yeah, especially because I would prefer the Gallic Swordsman over the Medieval Infantry anytime. Too bad that one cannot build them anymore after the discovery of Feudalism.

SesnOfWthr · Sep 1, 2004

Longasc said:
Yeah, especially because I would prefer the Gallic Swordsman over the Medieval Infantry anytime. Too bad that one cannot build them anymore after the discovery of Feudalism.

Well, that's not entirely accurate. If you haven't triggered your GA, I believe you can keep building them until you do.

gunkulator · Sep 1, 2004

Militarism is probably the weakest trait. Half price on improvements that are already dirt cheap? That's not much of an advantage. Quicker promotions are nice but you need to be constantly at war to get the advantage.

dgfred · Sep 1, 2004

SesnOfWthr said:
Well, that's not entirely accurate. If you haven't triggered your GA, I believe you can keep building them until you do.

If you can hold off your GA until Feudalism :eek:

. That is hard
to do, I usually have to use the Gallics to :hammer:

the AIs WAY before
then :blush:

. I love to upgrade a few anyway because they look sooooooo
good

.

Justus II · Sep 1, 2004

dgfred said:
I try for Leo's in EVERY game . I know other paths might make me
a better player, but I must have it . I hate paying full cost for
upgrades the ENTIRE game . Most games I either build it or capture
it .

You know, you could always let a neighbor build it, then "borrow" that city when you need to upgrade. :lol:

I had a game where the Egyptians had built it, not quite on my border but not too far in, but at the time I was maintaining them as a buffer state against someone else. When the time came for massive upgrades (Replaceable Parts, IIRC), I sent a small stack of cav to seize the Leo's city, upgraded 50+ units (pikes, muskets, and some cannons), saving a couple thousand gold, then gifted the city back to Cleo for peace.

Dreadnought · Sep 1, 2004

I always try get Leo's. If I don't I go berserk. [pissed]

--not really-- Just send about 100 knights/cavs to get it...mostly disband them afterwords

tomart109 · Sep 5, 2004

Longasc said:
Formula is shield difference x3.

Another example, from Mesoamerica Conquest:
Spearman 1.2.1 to Palace Guard 1.3.1
Cost: 120 Gold!? :eek:

Archer 2.1.1 to (fancy bird bowmen) 3.1.1
Cost: 120 Gold!? :eek:

A bit excessive for better arrows, perhaps? The combat difference is minor.

IIRC, wasn't the formula x2 all through Vanilla and PTW?

IMO, this was probably the worst decision in all of C3C. I hate it!!!!!!! :mad:

Longasc · Sep 5, 2004

This is why I am not happy about the formula, too, tomart109.

It is an easy way to calculate such costs, but I would prefer more reasonable cost tables for the epic game at least.

This also has some impact on gameplay: Neither human or AI can now upgrade almost instantly all units. There were some good reasons for making upgrade costs higher, like preventing warrior armies that suddenly upgraded to swordsmen after iron and stuff like that, but well, I have my gripes with the upgrade costs, too.

But after all, we probably do not get any more fix for really more pressing issues with C3C, so we will have to live with it and hope for Civ4.

I still hope that they fix the really major bugs left in C3C, so this was just a bit complaining, as this issue is not really as gamebreaking as AI not using armies, annoying things like the sub bug and so on...

Gainy · Sep 5, 2004

I think the upgrade costs are fine, otherwise it would be too easy. But:

I found the militaristic trait to be less powerful than others:

cheaper barracks, higher chance of unit promotion.
How about reduced upgrade costs, too?

That is one of the best suggestions I have ever heard regarding Civ3 :thumbsup:

Theoden · Sep 5, 2004

It can be set in the editor so no big trouble about it.
I agree completely about the upgrades being too high in ancient times and very low in the modern times.
What would be better would be to reduce upgrade cost and then add an increasing modifier for upgrading through ages (e.g. musket to rifle)
that way it wouldn't as unbalanced as it is now.

C3C Unit Upgrade costs

Longasc

Deity

thetrooper

Misanthrope

Arathorn

Catan player

Longasc

Deity

dgfred

Sports Freak

SesnOfWthr

True Believer

Longasc

Deity

SesnOfWthr

True Believer

gunkulator

Emperor

dgfred

Sports Freak

Justus II

General Staff

Dreadnought

Deity

tomart109

Perspicacious

Longasc

Deity

Gainy

Guest

Theoden

Deity

Similar threads