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

I was trying to double check the upgrade price in a recent game, and I wasn't quite able to figure out the exact formula currently used.
It seemed like it was about:
:c5gold: cost = [:c5production: new unit] - [:c5production: old unit] + 10:c5gold:

I wasn't sure if Epic cost scaling was messing with it at all. At any rate, it seems like having the gold cost match the gold difference rather than production difference would make more sense, right? It would remove a fake production increase from using older units, which isn't very intuitive. And it seems to be at least part of the sentiment that upgraded units are too much better than new units.
 
Last edited:
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.
So build a new one, then.
 
If the problem is late game veterans being too strong, then why would you make upgrades cost more throughout the game? Stagger the increase throughout the eras and/or individual unit lines. There's no need to make upgrading archers in classical break the bank if the problem is level 10 god-infantry in modern.
I'm not convinced this is a problem that needs fixing at all, mind you, but the solution should at least target where the actual issue is instead of the whole damn game.
 
If the problem is late game veterans being too strong, then why would you make upgrades cost more throughout the game? Stagger the increase throughout the eras and/or individual unit lines. There's no need to make upgrading archers in classical break the bank if the problem is level 10 god-infantry in modern.
I'm not convinced this is a problem that needs fixing at all, mind you, but the solution should at least target where the actual issue is instead of the whole damn game.
There are other proposals that address "veterans being too strong" and related concerns. My proposal is different in that it proposes that upgrades would cost more throughout the game. This is based on my view that upgrading units is almost always a no-brainer because the gold cost of upgrading is too cheap in relation to the benefits.
 
There are other proposals that address "veterans being too strong" and related concerns. My proposal is different in that it proposes that upgrades would cost more throughout the game. This is based on my view that upgrading units is almost always a no-brainer because the gold cost of upgrading is too cheap in relation to the benefits.
Ah, sorry, these proposals are kind of running together.
 
@Siddorm could I convince you to change this from a relative cost increase ("+50%") to making the formula based on the :c5gold: gold costs of units rather than :c5production: production costs? I think this is a fairer way to apply the increase, and amounts to roughly x2 cost (since generally gold > production costs for units are around 50%). I know you lowered this from x2 previously, but after thinking about the current state more, I think your initial guess was correct.

Pre-building units and being able to upgrade them for cheaper over-all cost than buying them when they unlock seems like it hits this problem more directly, and a +50% cost increase would still leave units cheaper to create in this way.
 
@ma_kuh Thank you for your suggestion, which I believe makes sense. However, I do not want to change my (counter-)proposal again after all these discussions. You have understood me correctly in that my proposal is not just about the inheritance of XP and promotions, it is also about things like:
  • pre-building units, moving them to convenient places on your territory and then upgrading them immediately and (in my view) cheaply; and
  • upgrading numerous units in the same turn.
 
Last edited:
Proposal sponsored by axatin.
 
I have just now added a clarification to my original post (regarding the distinction between upgrades and promotions).
 
Top Bottom