Giaur
War Dancer
Should upgrading be cheaper? Vote and hope the creators will do something about that.
P.S. Wrong Forum, forgive me :/
P.S. Wrong Forum, forgive me :/
Upgrading
- Thread starter Giaur
- Start date
Early in the game it's too expensive. Elevating a precious CR-promoted axeman to a mace costs a full turn's income, more or less. It's not usually worth it. Maces->Grenadiers can be worth it on a limited scale, for highly-promoted units only. Later (e.g. Rifles->Infantry) it's trivial, and perhaps too cheap.
peace,
lilnev
peace,
lilnev
Dirk1302
Deity
I don't have problems with the upgrading costs, if upgrading costs for Axe to mace get down i believe the human player will walk over the Ai. Even with the Ai getting huge upgrade discounts and having more units in the first place the human player wins most battles.
binhthuy71
Emperor
Paying for upgrades is one of the things that a Great Merchant is good for.
Upgading cost for human is balanced. It based on idea that cost to upgrade should be the same like to buy.
3 GP/shield.
Yearly in the game, Vanilla early versions, buyig cost was too low, creading a huge inballance in favor of commercial civs and only one strat, cottage spamming. Who need production if one can buy shields cheaply?
3 GP/shield.
Yearly in the game, Vanilla early versions, buyig cost was too low, creading a huge inballance in favor of commercial civs and only one strat, cottage spamming. Who need production if one can buy shields cheaply?
PMabey
Warlord
The problem IMO is that the computer get huge discounts on upgrading. That should be toned down.
Lord Parkin
aka emperor
What exactly are the AI discounts, by the way? Does anybody know the percentage?
Regardless, if the computer didn't get those bonuses though, the human players would simply walk all over them. Attacking cities defended by Archers in the medieval age is trivial, just as attacking Longbows in the industrial age makes for a cakewalk. The discounts are what make the AI even semi-competitive with the human in as the game progresses.
Regardless, if the computer didn't get those bonuses though, the human players would simply walk all over them. Attacking cities defended by Archers in the medieval age is trivial, just as attacking Longbows in the industrial age makes for a cakewalk. The discounts are what make the AI even semi-competitive with the human in as the game progresses.
I agree with that; it's better now this way than doing what he mentions above repeatedly as in previous versions (which isn't entertaining for quite as long as one might suspect
). I feel the costs are reasonably balanced IMHO, and agree with the AI getting a discount as well personally.(Settler - Deity (and as below it is the percent they pay, not the discount, of course))
iAIUnitUpgradePercent 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5
(handily in excel format (extracted from XML file) located here.)
RomanHoliday
Kibitzer
- Joined
- Oct 29, 2005
- Messages
- 59
You know what I have always wished? That I could get a city to build an upgrade. Sometimes a superproductive city could pump out a new unit faster than I could save up for the upgrade ... and I want my exp intact.
I agree with that; it's better now this way than doing what he mentions above repeatedly as in previous versions (which isn't entertaining for quite as long as one might suspect
(Settler - Deity (and as below it is the percent they pay, not the discount, of course))
iAIUnitUpgradePercent 45 40 35 30 25 20 15 10 5
(handily in excel format (extracted from XML file) located here.)
You need to remember, that on deity AI payes 5% of human upgrade price on top of it 60% discont on building units.
So, on deity AI pays only 2% upgrade price human does for the same unit.
You need to remember, that on deity AI payes 5% of human upgrade price on top of it 60% discont on building units.
So, on deity AI pays only 2% upgrade price human does for the same unit.
Oh, wow; I hadn't even realized that its cost discount would factor in as well (although now that you point it out, it does make sense). Good call; thanks!
Edit: Here are the unit cost percentages, again from Settler to Deity, in case anyone is interested:
iAIUnitCostPercent 100 100 100 100 95 90 85 80 60
Galileo44
Great Scientist
And that 2 percent is if they upgrade once, what if it is and Infantry that came from an archer? Then it is 4 upgrades: archer-->Longbow-->Musket-->Rifle. Thats .6*.05*.05*.05*.05 = .000375%! Then again, a human would never waste money upgrading the same unit 4 times.
binhthuy71
Emperor
Certainly not all units but, if I happen to have units that are heavily promoted in the early game then I do upgrade them. Now that West Point requires a Str 6 unit to build some of the oldtimers come in handy when upgraded.
Panda
Metal head
Yes, especially when you consider how often an elite unit with +90% chances of winning an encounter die.
johncross21
Warlord
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2006
- Messages
- 178
Yes
I don't like disbanding units but its not usually economic to upgrade them. Although sometimes vetrans are the only way to capture a city without huge losses
I seem to recall that in earlier versions of CIV there was a small bonus in from disbanding units
I don't like disbanding units but its not usually economic to upgrade them. Although sometimes vetrans are the only way to capture a city without huge losses
I seem to recall that in earlier versions of CIV there was a small bonus in from disbanding units
Softnum
Warlord
Quagga
Former Dictator
Put your sliders to 0%. Upgrade your veteran units. Return your sliders to their previous positions. Yes, you slip a little on technology, but technology must be put to work (quickly) to be of use. This is the way to do it.
The only rub is that when you upgrade, any units with XP > 10 get their XP set back to 10. So, if you have a unit that's at 16/17, you probably want to wait to get one more XP before the upgrade.
Unless you're in an emergency situation, I would not upgrade units that have fewer XP than those you build fresh. An exception would be for things like Maces with City Raider. You can't get that promotion with a newly-built Grenadier, so upgrade is the only option.
Quagga makes very good points on this, IMHO. Also, if you keep expanding/conquesting at a healthy pace, you can use a fair amount of lower-experience nearing-obselescence units as garrison forces along the way, and as such not have to upgrade or disband them (when defending larger areas with obselete troops though, it can be a good idea to keep a bit of reserve gold on hand for emergency upgrades, IMHO).
Also, regarding disbanding yielding production, you are completely correct (Civ3 did for sure at least; can't recall for 2 but I want to say that it didn't). It was kind of nice, but ultimately proved exploitable unfortunately, just so you know - in the late game, it was (a fair amount, IIRC) more efficient to rush projects by building units in core cities and shipping them to remote holdings to disband than it was to actually rush-buy the production with gold the 'proper' way.
Softnum - could be less with Flanking or Tactics.
