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

[Siddorm]

My rationale for my proposal is “upgrading currently almost always feels like a no-brainer”.

 

[CppMaster]

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.

Yeah, all of this not changed by the proposal. It'd just make upgrading unit more costly, so there is a decision if you actually want to do this. I agree that currently it's a no brainer.

 

[pineappledan]

I like this less than simply raising the gold cost of upgrading units broadly.

The one major abuse I see with upgrading is pre-building the older, cheaper units, then mass-upgrading as soon as the new tech has unlocked, and deploying the recently upgraded force. This is most typically seen with an archer rush, where players pre-build slingers in anticipation of the calendar tech. If any of these proposals is actually about addressing some sort of perceived abuse of mechanics, and not just punishing players for upgrading units for the hell of it, then it should address this behaviour, and scaling the gold cost on unit levels in no way does that. If anything it seems to be a scalpel change to punish human player enjoyment while keeping an actual exploit intact.

 

[KlHannibal2]

My rationale for my proposal 2-90 is “upgrading currently almost always feels like a no-brainer”.

Should upgrading not be a no-brainer? Do we want to get a ranged cannon by early fighting, but then decide to not upgrade it and instead disband it and produce 2 new field guns? Personally, I don't find the second course of action an attractive gameplay mechanic.

 

[axatin]

I sponsor this

 

[Recursive]

Proposal sponsored by axatin.