Should everyone* upgrade† to everything‡?

[MacGyverInSpace]

A few thought's at FFH's tech tree, attempt at specialization and unit upgrades, inspired in part by Is the Nature/Archery tree too weak? thread.

FFH's tech tree is supposed to encourage technology specialization, but, even if you want to dedicate your civilization to arcane studies, are you really going to leave that level 10 unit as a strength 3 warrior? Perhaps this is one of the decisions -Whether to break tech course to capitalize on existing military experience or continue your current research path into the ether or the utmost commune with nature.

On the other hand, maybe that warrior (*or other non-world/special units) should be able to upgrade to a hunter. If he can learn to use a bow, why not learn how to travel light and handle animals?‡(or other common current tier+1 unit) †Sure, he might have to be scripted to lose a couple promotions (hey, maybe even a couple levels and even keep his xp?) .Upgrades of this nature would surely be costly and have a level requirement - how else are going to equip, supply, and convince an adept to join the ranks of these warriors with their combat 5? Surely they'll hinder his arcane studies, being level 10 already and all...


So, what are everyone elses opinions? Personnaly, I'm leaning toward the way it is now, but yell loud enough, and we can have both - the least popular as a mod mod. How does this play out in Multiplayer? Do you tend to lose early experience units too early to upgrade anyway? Is it ever worth it to upgrade an old experienced unit instead of snagging your beastmaster? Does anyone go anywhere else but the metals/melee line?

 

[A_Hamster]

A good game should have decision points. If any unit could upgrade into any other unit (provided you have the tech requirements and cash), it makes things too easy. For example, by upgrading experienced Scouts to Horsemen, you lose the option to upgrade to Rangers or Assassins (my preferred choice for the rare experienced Scout). That's a sacrifice based on short-term and long-term considerations. If I've a mid-game or late game "out" to turn that Horseman into a Shadow, there's no sacrifice: I can get a short-term edge and still get the benefit. So in my opinion, my answer to your question is "no." However, I'm sure others feel differently, and of course, you can mod the game to your own taste.

 

[MagisterCultuum]

I don't think it is possible to change the cost of an upgrade based on what type of unit is upgrading to what. Upgrade costs are based on the difference between unit costs. I also don't think it is possible to add level requirements that only apply if the unit is from a different unitcombat.

You could of course get around those issues by makign them "upgrade" though spells.


I'm not a big fan of the proposal. For one thing, it detracts from the uniqueness of my "And Now For Something Completely Different" spell, which allows Grigori Heroes to revert back to adventurers and upgrade to something else.

 

[MacGyverInSpace]

Nice name. Yeah, I figured. When I started writing my post - or thought experiment - I felt more and more that it was not-so-good idea. But then I had it written and figured someone else might get something out of it.

 

[Caradoc]

I do enjoy having units with interesting upgrade paths, like Harlequins do. I wouldn't go so far as to have any-to-any, but each Civilization might have something unique. Disciple units would be a good line to liven up.

 

[Nikis-Knight]

There is some options already. Warriors can go to archers or axe/swordsmen, and scouts can go horsemen or hunters. So I think it's probably pretty good as is, even though you have to decide early on in the units life and stick with it.