[DLL] (7-NS) Unit upgrades damages unit to 1 HP

[Anarcomu]

Maybe this :

• Units need (strictly) more than 50 HP to be upgradeable
• Units loose 50 HP on upgrade

Both restrictions are potentially reduced with wonders/policies/etc.

 

[pineappledan]

Maybe this :

• Units need (strictly) more than 50 HP to be upgradeable
• Units loose 50 HP on upgrade

Both restrictions are potentially reduced with wonders/policies/etc.

Why not just "Units lose up to 50 HP on upgrade"?
A hard limit seems harsh. Just need max(50, currentHP-1)

Sure, upgrading super damaged units means they will technically lose less HP, but you are also taking the risk of them being sniped at 1 HP

 

[Stalker0]

Why not just "Units lose up to 50 HP on upgrade"?
A hard limit seems harsh. Just need max(50, currentHP-1)

Sure, upgrading super damaged units means they will technically lose less HP, but you are also taking the risk of them being sniped at 1 HP

well we are trying to make upgrading slower....should we just require a unit to be fully healed before upgrade? We have that code from unit gifting, could use it here if again we want to increase the difficulty of upgrading without impacting the overall cost.

 

[pineappledan]

Yes, but outright blocking upgrades until a certain condition is met is not necessary to accomplish the goal of merely slowing down unit upgrades and adding a bit of risk to the process of rearming.

 

[Rekk]

well we are trying to make upgrading slower....should we just require a unit to be fully healed before upgrade? We have that code from unit gifting, could use it here if again we want to increase the difficulty of upgrading without impacting the overall cost.

Requiring that a unit be full health before upgrade, then reducing its health after upgrade is a very weird process.

 

[hokath]

Another option is the "enemies nearby" flag that prevents you from, e.g., disbanding captured civilians.
So a way to make upgrading harder would be no upgrades when enemies are nearby.

 

[Rekk]

Another option is the "enemies nearby" flag that prevents you from, e.g., disbanding captured civilians.
So a way to make upgrading harder would be no upgrades when enemies are nearby.

I don't think upgrading in the middle of a war is the problem that is trying to be solved here.

Based on previous conversations, the issue is that upgrading is a 1 turn ordeal. This proposal alleviates this issue in two ways:
1. Healing back up from upgrading takes several turns, extending the base time to upgrade before the unit is useable.
2. Players are disinclined to upgrade everything at once because it leaves them vulnerable to a war declaration, extending the overall upgrade period.

 

[hokath]

Ok, sure. The middle of a war upgrade is the part I could understand, though I have no issue with it myself.
If it's really the 1 turn part people don't like then I'll just come out and say I don't share the sentiment.

 

[N.Core]

Maybe this :

• Units need (strictly) more than 50 HP to be upgradeable
• Units loose 50 HP on upgrade

Both restrictions are potentially reduced with wonders/policies/etc.

I like the first one, but I think a 50 HP reduction is not enough for units who has more than 100 HP.

This is a change for one of the core mechanics of the game and we should not change it dramatically. Reducing 1 HP is ridiculous since any event that can do damage to them will kill them.

I would say change it to reduce 50% HP of the unit instead.

 

[Stalker0]

I would say change it to reduce 50% HP of the unit instead.

Yeah I feel like we are way overcomplicating this. If people think 1 hp is too aggressive, that's fine. Lets just pick a % and go with it. 50% is fine by me. But we don't have to get fancy with this.

 

[azum4roll]

Lets just pick a % and go with it.

Or agree that upgrading isn't too easy and pick none of these

 

[Stalker0]

Or agree that upgrading isn't too easy and pick none of these

of course, voting no is always an option!

 

[ma_kuh]

I still think there's an unaddressed problem with using HP as the timer for unit upgrades. It's true, if you're the tech leader and being aggressive, you'll have to blunt your attack to cycle out a few hero units for a time. But a defender will not have that luxury. If they self-nuke their army, they'll die immediately.

So in the situation where you're behind on tech, manage to just catch up and are ready to mount a heroic comeback... you literally can't. Aggressors can choose to pull back and upgrade, defenders cannot.

On top of that I still think the AI is likely to have trouble (again mainly on defense) choosing when not to upgrade in front of enemies. The 50% variant of this proposal is better in this regard, but I still have doubts.

 

[pineappledan]

Easier to modernize while on the attack than while on the defense. Can just as soon call that an intended consequence. Defenders have lots of homefield advantages already, so if turtling is seen as too optimal by players then an upgrade penalty is a valid way to address that.

Note that this would be just as true for any other form of upgrade penalty, like a debuff.

 

[ma_kuh]

I suppose that's fair, but I see it as contrary to the stated rationale:

Rationale: Upgrading your units is a powerful effect that gives players with a military science lead a strong ability to dominate their foes right after a big discovery.

If the tech leader needs a handful of turns to heal up and press their advantage, the tech trailer also needs a window to make the transition. Only now the tech leader has patched up their forces and started to move in while the defender's new tech is just coming online. Any unit they want to upgrade needs to hide away from combat for a few turns first.

Also I'm just realizing if we use HP as a cost for upgrades we'll have free HP-gain on promotion, but HP-loss on upgrade. I don't really know what to make of that, just thought it was funny.

 

[CppMaster]

Also I'm just realizing if we use HP as a cost for upgrades we'll have free HP-gain on promotion, but HP-loss on upgrade.

Yeah, you're right. Maybe heal on promotion doesn't make much sense. If upgrade cost HP then why not promotions?

 

[pineappledan]

Seems like a nice bit of symmetry

 

[Rekk]

Yeah, you're right. Maybe heal on promotion doesn't make much sense. If upgrade cost HP then why not promotions?

You would also need to have promotion-saving force-enabled.

 

[Stalker0]

Yeah, you're right. Maybe heal on promotion doesn't make much sense. If upgrade cost HP then why not promotions?

I'll just note that is a much bigger impact to combat than the change to upgrades. promotion healing is a key part of the combat game, I have often made certain attacks knowing I will get a healing bump at the end. This is ESPECIALLY important for early game city attackers, who often need that extra hit of HP to keep a siege going.

 

[CppMaster]

Seems like a nice bit of symmetry

More like asymmetry

You would also need to have promotion-saving force-enabled.

Ok, I'm fine with that

I'll just note that is a much bigger impact to combat than the change to upgrades. promotion healing is a key part of the combat game, I have often made certain attacks knowing I will get a healing bump at the end. This is ESPECIALLY important for early game city attackers, who often need that extra hit of HP to keep a siege going.

You can also plan for upgrades, because you know then you'll have tech so you can plan when you want to have higher CS.