(2-51c) Counterproposal: Increase the gold cost of upgrading units by 50%

[Siddorm]

Counterproposal to https://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/2-51-proposal-units-lose-xp-on-upgrade.680806/

In my opinion, the gold cost of upgrading units is much too low in relation to the benefits (since upgrades are instantaneous and promotions are inherited). Upgrading currently almost always feels like a no-brainer; hence my proposal.
Amended on December 13th: Originally this proposal was "double the gold cost of upgrading units". However, after careful consideration of the comments related to this proposal, and in light of the possibility that various other proposals might pass, I have decided to amend this proposal to an gold cost increase of 50% instead. This thread title has been amended accordingly.

Moderator Action: Clarification: Current base cost for unit upgrades is equal to the Production cost difference between the upgraded unit and the current unit. So, if the current unit costs 20 Production and the upgrade costs 60 Production, the current upgrade cost will be 40 Gold, and the increased upgrade cost would be 60 Gold. - Recursive

Clarification (December 21st): This (counter)-proposal is different to the original proposal and all of the other counter-proposals because it focuses solely on the gold cost of upgrading units. Nothing would change except that the gold cost of upgrading each unit would be 50% higher than it currently is.

 

[alchx]

In the early game, this will be an unbearable burden for everyone. Instead of 40 gold for upgrading to a spearman or archer, pay 80 each for an income of 4-6 GPT without caravans. The city's manufacturing capacity is also weak to mass-produce new units and dismantle obsolete ones.

It seems to me that the main problem is the significant difference in combat strength and damage dealt/received by units of different generations. There is no transition period.

 

[phantomaxl1207]

I think this change would make affording units for defense in the earlier stages of the game much too costly. Perhaps increasing the cost of late game units would achieve a similar desired result to this proposal.

 

[Rekk]

Build new ones, then. One of the way to slow down peaceful runaways is to force them to spend time on military or face extinction.

 

[pineappledan]

I prefer this over removing XP

 

[AndreyK]

Even now, upgrading units before Imperialism, cost about 70% of purchasing a new unit, in Industrial. And I don't want to be pushed to taking Imperialism more than now.

 

[Rekk]

And you get a unit that is much better promoted than one that you purchase.

 

[ma_kuh]

Maybe it shouldn't be upgrade costs increased, but adding a cost for each promotion? Maybe the Barracks line compensates this slightly by reducing upgrade costs as well, to account for the free promotions you get?

 

[CppMaster]

Maybe it shouldn't be upgrade costs increased, but adding a cost for each promotion?

That's a cool idea and it makes sense flavor-wise. You pay more for better units.

 

[azum4roll]

Note that once we get the gold problem back in control we wouldn't have infinite gold to do everything.

Maybe it shouldn't be upgrade costs increased, but adding a cost for each promotion? Maybe the Barracks line compensates this slightly by reducing upgrade costs as well, to account for the free promotions you get?

This discourages gaining a promotion before upgrade. Also I guess you meant adding a cost for each level?

 

[CppMaster]

This discourages gaining a promotion before upgrade.

Depends. An earlier promotion may be way more valuable than the difference in gold.

Also I guess you meant adding a cost for each level?

Yeah, that makes sense, so free promotions are actually free.

 

[Siddorm]

I appreciate all of your comments on my proposal. I feel comfortable with my proposal in its current form, so I am thinking that I will simply wait and see how things go.

 

[CppMaster]

I appreciate all of your comments on my proposal. I feel comfortable with my proposal in its current form, so I am thinking that I will simply wait and see how things go.

Yeah! @ma_kuh could make a counter-proposal with his idea.

 

[ma_kuh]

Also I guess you meant adding a cost for each level?

Yes, definitely. I wasn't thinking about the promotions you can get for unit-specific and civ-specific sources.

 

[rkkn]

Upgrading currently almost always feels like a no-brainer

and shouldn't it be?
Upgrading requires going through the tech tree. It takes a lot of science to get to the point where you can upgrade a unit. The game is structured such that you should always make use of your new tech whenever you can. I don't see the problem.

 

[CppMaster]

and shouldn't it be?

Well, that's the debatable part I prefer meaningful decisions instead of no-brainers. There is a reason why upgrading costs.

 

[pineappledan]

The only way to make this a meaningful decision is to undercut the fun of having legacy units. This whole debate is predicated on taking a fun thing like elite units that you upgrade through the eras, and making it more costly and less good so that they compete more with new units.

What's fun about that? Meaningful decisions shouldn’t come at the cost of fun; they should be the fun. I find this whole debate on what exact way we could make upgrading units more painful for players wholly misses the mark.

The only tolerable proposal on this topic I have seen is this one which simply increases the cost of upgrading units. At least that's not proposing some entirely separate set of rules and calculations, or additional XP or CS maluses.

 

[Rekk]

The only tolerable proposal on this topic I have seen is this one which simply increases the cost of upgrading units.

(Which is this proposal)

To me, the result and goal of this proposal is that the player will spend more production on units.

When everything costs the same, you prioritize upgrading your most experienced units (the fun units). You get to keep your elite core, but you will have to look at your economy and decide whether you have enough gold to upgrade your low experience units or whether you should make use of your newer military facilities to get a new up-to-date unit to go alongside your core.

The design direction of 90a doesn't want you to have an elite core (although the increase in cost is mostly meaningless, where it's only at max level where a unit will cost double to upgrade) .

 

[Siddorm]

I have updated the title and first post of this thread as follows:
'Amended on December 13th: Originally this proposal was "double the gold cost of upgrading units". However, after careful consideration of the comments related to this proposal, and in light of the possibility that various other proposals might pass, I have decided to amend this proposal to an gold cost increase of 50% instead. This thread title has been amended accordingly.'

 

[beginner_]

And you get a unit that is much better promoted than one that you purchase.

not always true if you had little wars going on and it's an early unit you upgraded 2-3 times before. Now you have more polices like the one from autocracy and brandenburg gate and a new unit will have more XP.