(2-51d) Counterproposal: Make gold cost of upgrading units based on level

[ma_kuh]

Counter to:

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

Rationale:
The original proposal aims to curb high powered units from earlier eras overshadowing new units from later eras. It does so by applying a broad x2 multiplier to all unit upgrades. This proposal seeks to target the problem group with these cost adjustments: highly promoted units.

Proposal:
Increase gold cost of upgrading a unit by 10% per level. (This increase stacks additively with other modifiers, e.g. Imperialism.)

Consideration:
Pathfinders level up really fast. This change would make it more expensive to upgrade them to scouts, further increasing the divide between getting an Ancient Ruins weapon upgraded Scout or not.

 

[rkkn]

this is infinitely more reasonable

 

[nekokon]

I like this idea the best among all proposed ideas. Simple and effective.

 

[Voremonger]

How is this intended to stack with modifiers from e.g. Imperialism? Is it going to stack additively or multiplicatively?

 

[azum4roll]

I wonder if +10% is enough hindrance for upgrading highly-promoted units. Also does it stack additively with upgrade discounts?

 

[rkkn]

I wonder if +10% is enough hindrance for upgrading highly-promoted units.

well it should not be something that will make you want to avoid upgrading even though you have gold, or avoid getting promotions. that would be dumb. just needs to be an appropriate cost

 

[Rekk]

Upgrading currently almost always feels like a no-brainer

This is the reason behind the proposal. The point is to limit the number of units that are going to be upgraded. Does this counterproposal achieve that result?

In fact, what is the rationale behind this proposal?

The proposal must explain its reasoning; the intended effect(s) of the change. This doesn’t need to be long, but it does need to be present, so the community understands your goal.

 

[nekokon]

To discourage the practice of farming for tons of high level units throughout the ages. You can still upgrade low level units with relatively cheap extra cost, but it will cost a lot more to upgrade high level units thus you're discouraged to level grind your whole army and only keep a few high level ones.
Numbers can be adjusted (10% per promotion from level at first, can change later), but the idea is better/simpler and at the same time more selective (to counter only what's exploitive rather than everything even low level units) than other suggestions.

 

[Rekk]

So this proposal wants to limit upgrading high level units?

 

[nekokon]

More like limiting grinding for a bunch of high level units since upgrade is still essential/prioritized. Players are free to choose either to use small army of high level modern units, or big army of low level modern unit, or big army of high level old units, or a mix of anything above. We only need to prevent the op case: a big army of high level modern units.

 

[Voremonger]

More like limiting grinding for a bunch of high level units since upgrade is still essential/prioritized. Players are free to choose either to use small army of high level modern units, or big army of low level modern unit, or big army of high level old units, or a mix of anything above. We only need to prevent the op case: a big army of high level modern units.

This proposal would likely not be that effective at reducing the strength of leveled-up units though. The big power spike happens mostly at 100 XP which would only increase upgrade costs by 40% (assuming multiplicative stacking). Quite honestly even at double the current upgrade costs the only thing that would change in my calculation would be how much gold I'd need to save up for when I unlock the tech that grants the new unit. I think unit upgrades are simply too infrequent to have a large impact on finances, especially when using Imperialism and Autocracy which grant a reduction to unit upgrade costs.

 

[CppMaster]

So this proposal wants to limit upgrading high level units?

yes.

 

[nekokon]

This proposal would likely not be that effective at reducing the strength of leveled-up units though. The big power spike happens mostly at 100 XP which would only increase upgrade costs by 40% (assuming multiplicative stacking). Quite honestly even at double the current upgrade costs the only thing that would change in my calculation would be how much gold I'd need to save up for when I unlock the tech that grants the new unit. I think unit upgrades are simply too infrequent to have a large impact on finances, especially when using Imperialism and Autocracy which grant a reduction to unit upgrade costs.

We have different standards on what is considered op units, and mine is up to lv 7- 8 or higher (2 or more tier 4 promotions stacked)
Be reminded that AIs have bonus xp for units that easily gave them full army with tier 4 promotions AND they have bonuses for unit production. Players need an edge (high level units) to fight against them, we just don't want that edge to become too powerful (full army of high level units).

Numbers can be adjusted if you think this isn't enough to make an effect. Ideally if we can make upgrade cost scale with unit's level it's easy to use power as multiplier so that each early level (1,2.3...) would increase the cost less than each later level (7,8.9...), something like 10% * unitlevel^1.2 * basecost. That way cost for upgrading high level units is increased exponentially while cost of upgrading low level units stay reasonable.

 

[Stalker0]

Be reminded that AIs have bonus xp for units that easily gave them full army with tier 4 promotions

Not my experience on Immortal (maybe its different on deity). Sure I see AI units with range or logistics....but not the "full army". enough that I look for them and have to factor them in, but its not like I'm fighting some invincible super army of all highly promoted units.

 

[ma_kuh]

How is this intended to stack with modifiers from e.g. Imperialism? Is it going to stack additively or multiplicatively?

I'd say additively, but I really don't have a horse in this race. Multiplicatively makes other modifiers stronger, but I don't know if they need to be (and it probably doesn't matter that much).

Mostly I proposed this idea because I was asked to in another thread. If someone with stronger convictions wants to take over this idea, I'd be happy to withdraw this counter-proposal. I'm still on the fence whether adding costs to upgrading is the right way to "deal with" high-level units at all; I'm not sure I'd vote for this.

OP amended: clarifies that the cost increase stacks additively with other modifiers.

 

[Voremonger]

I'd say additively, but I really don't have a horse in this race. Multiplicatively makes other modifiers stronger, but I don't know if they need to be (and it probably doesn't matter that much).

I would agree that additively is the better approach but I think it's also the approach that is less intuitive. Since by the time upgrade cost reductions kick in players will already by using armories and military academies the actual reduction they get on unit upgrade costs would be lower than what the descriptions would suggest.

 

[ma_kuh]

What other cost reductions exist? How do they interact with each other?

 

[Zakuzelo]

What is the problem that these proposals are trying to fix? Experienced units are very strong, high-level units are better than low-level ones, the player is rewarded for keeping individual units alive, all this sounds like things working as intended.

 

[ma_kuh]

In a nut shell, I think this is one of many ideas aimed to reduce the disparity between AI units (which aren't kept alive as well, so they lose promotions) and Human units. The original proposal wanted to double upgrade costs, I guess to reflect the increased value of earlier units which can accrue promotions? I suggested in that thread that: if the value of promotions was the problem, then the cost increase should be tied to promotions, not just a flat x2. So I made the counter-proposal to at least make the cost increase targeted.

This is all predicated on the assumption that increasing the gold value of upgrading units will help ... I don't know, put more gold pressure on civs that are constantly in wars I guess? Maybe there's a soft incentive to gift away your units to CS instead of upgrading them? I think it's basically just an attempt to tax the Human player, but it's a very scatter-shot approach to the problem.

 

[nekokon]

Not my experience on Immortal (maybe its different on deity). Sure I see AI units with range or logistics....but not the "full army". enough that I look for them and have to factor them in, but its not like I'm fighting some invincible super army of all highly promoted units.

Maybe not "full army" but a large portion, some exaggeration to emphasize my point. Usually not your peaceful neighbor whom you can steamroll early, but some successful warmongers further away or the runaway civ in another continent after they gobbed their neighbor. It's a rare sight if you also play peacefully and try to just win purely through peaceful means (and give up the win if you can't make it in time like a few of your recent games, instead of calling a faraway war which is the most effective method)