Choose your upgrade

[Abaxial]

A problem I have found is this - at some point in the game you have researched infantry, but you still have both musketmen and swordsmen in play. Now you want to upgrade those old swordsmen, but you are critically short of oil. You should be able to choose to at least upgrade them to musketmen, which would be an improvement, but you can't, so they are stuck as swordsmen even though you have plenty of nitre.

It wouldn't be so bad if there was an intermediate infantry unit between the guys with muskets and those consuming oil (even though they are not mech), but the principle remains.

 

[Chefofrats]

This is just another quirk of the whole concept of unit upgrades. One idea I've had would be to scrap manual upgardes altogether in favour of a system where you could divert your resources to gradually improve units of a certain class with technological progress. So you start the game with a warrior armed with a wooden or stone club. You develop iron working. In stead of stockpiling resources and then spending them a single time on an upgrade, why not have the possibility to channel resources towards a gradual upgrade of the existing warrior, giving a slow increase to the unit's combat value? Your 28 strength warrior would slowly upgrade to 36 strength. That would be more historically accurate, it would allow for more flexible use of resources, and it would serve to mitigate the consequences of technological progress - no longer would a fresh swordsman, retrained overnight to use iron arms, be able to annihilate a warrior.

I also find it rather annoying how the game ignores history on the importance of steel and rifling. Historically, both steel weapons and armor, and rifled barrels were such huge improvements over less sophisticated technologies that not having it reflected in the game seems an oversight. I know the developers had this idea to simplify unit progression, but why do this so a-historically?

 

[Icicle]

I still say Infantry shouldn't cost oil and should be available to build all game. Letting the AI spam them at least would give them a better chance late game and it could represent basically sending in the national guard/local militia when you have no other options. Or if that's too fancy make a Conscript unit that's slightly weaker.

 

[Stilgar08]

If you don't want to upgrade (or can't) do you think it would be good if you could use your old units for new ones getting built, passing their upgrades to the new units?
eg. you have a swordsman and built a musket because you don't have enough oil for infantry. If you produce it in an encampment (encampment buff ) you can move your swordsman there and have his production value added to the musketman. The new musket in that case already possess all promotions the swordsman had before...
The more I think of it the more I like the idea Although I know it won't happen...

 

[Victoria]

You should be able to choose to at least upgrade them to musketmen

That would be like commissioning a unit of musketeers in this age woudn't it? seems as weird as the bad mechanic.
The issue is the oil is not flowing. They seem intent on keeping Oil scarce, after all it is valuable for oil power plants but most importantly tanks.
I still personally think infantry should drop it

 

[cvb]

keeping Oil scarce, after all it is valuable for oil power plants but most importantly tanks.
I still personally think infantry should drop it

Or tanks double it - tanks are strong, quick & Thirsty. For every tank unit you can maintain 2 infantry units - your choice.

.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

Or tanks double it - tanks are strong, quick & Thirsty. For every tank unit you can maintain 2 infantry units - your choice.

In the Modern/Atomic Era (say, 1890 to 1950 CE?) infantry used a tiny fraction of the 'Oil' that armor and mechanized units used. Since I've just been researching and writing about it, the figures are fresh in my mind: in 1941 a German Panzer Division (Tank Unit, if you will) used 220 cubic meters of fuel to move 100 kilometers. A German Motorized Infantry Division used 100 cubic meters to move the same distance, and an Infantry Division used 6 cubic meters. Comparatively, a 'foot' Infantry unit of the same size used less than 10% of the fuel/oil required by motorized or armored units.

And to keep a 'Lowest Common Denominator" Resource-Free unit in every Era, Infantry should be Resource Free - like Warriors, Spearmen and Pikemen in earlier Eras. It makes sense from both historical and gameplay perspectives, a situation that rarely applies in this or any other game, it seems. . .

 

[cvb]

in 1941 a German Panzer Division (Tank Unit, if you will) used 220 cubic meters of fuel to move 100 kilometers. A German Motorized Infantry Division used 100 cubic meters to move the same distance, and an Infantry Division used 6 cubic meters.

I'm uncertain, what your consequences are. Tank Unit use 2 Oil, Motorized Infantry 1 Oil and Infantry No Oil maintenance? Ie. 3 unit types in this era instead of 2?

My suggestion sticks with the given 2 units in the Modern Era and I prefer from a gameplay PoV to double Oil maintenance for Tanks over removal for Infantry (to intensify the intended Oil scarcity). Because the AI cannot / will not be able to handle this, I'm looking forward to implement that only for the human player anyway. So the Human can pursue to overcome his own (extra) scarcity, but not benefit from (extra) scarcity of the AIplayers.

.

 

[madeirabhoy]

If you don't want to upgrade (or can't) do you think it would be good if you could use your old units for new ones getting built, passing their upgrades to the new units?
eg. you have a swordsman and built a musket because you don't have enough oil for infantry. If you produce it in an encampment (encampment buff ) you can move your swordsman there and have his production value added to the musketman. The new musket in that case already possess all promotions the swordsman had before...
The more I think of it the more I like the idea Although I know it won't happen...

I used to like, was it civ IV or Civ III that when you dispanded a unit inside a city it contributed production to whatever you were building.

 

[Leucarum]

One possibility could be to remove infantry oil consumption when they are garrisoned in a city or encampment. That way you could mobilize for an ongoing cost but keep a standing army around.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

I'm uncertain, what your consequences are. Tank Unit use 2 Oil, Motorized Infantry 1 Oil and Infantry No Oil maintenance? Ie. 3 unit types in this era instead of 2?

My suggestion sticks with the given 2 units in the Modern Era and I prefer from a gameplay PoV to double Oil maintenance for Tanks over removal for Infantry (to intensify the intended Oil scarcity). Because the AI cannot / will not be able to handle this, I'm looking forward to implement that only for the human player anyway. So the Human can pursue to overcome his own (extra) scarcity, but not benefit from (extra) scarcity of the AIplayers..

Primary purpose was to show that between 'ordinary' Infantry in t his period and 'Tank' Units the difference in oil consumption was better than 30 to 1, making the case for a 0 Oil consumption for Infantry units.
As to including an "Upgrade" of Infantry to Motorized (Tank-Movement) Infantry, I'd love to see that as a Technical Upgrade similar to the system used for the GDR, but I don't expect it.

The other point about the entire Resources system is that the game now confuses Building costs with Maintenance costs in Resources. That's because they seem to be trying to have each Unit only have 1 type of Resource attached to it for either or both, and that makes no sense: The cost to produce tanks (or infantry weapons, for that matter) was Steel/Iron and Power for the heavy industry required for engines and chassis and infantry heavy weapons (which in the Atomic Era included light antitank guns, light artillery and heavy mortars), but almost no Oil unless it was firing the industry. The Maintenance Costs are almost entirely Oil (for the motorized units) and Ammunition, a cost whose scale is almost entirely missing from the game. IF the game were showing that accurately, Artillery would require almost as much Resource per Turn to maintain as was required to build the unit in the first place: 1/3 of the industrial capacities of Germany, USA and the Soviet Union went into ammunition in WWII, and that included massive quantities of Steel (shell bodies), Copper (cartridge casings), Cotton (explosives) and Nitrates (more explosives). Of course, that would probably be too much expansion of the Resource system for the game, but it indicates just how much is being left out of the Resource discussion and its implementation in the game as it stands now.

 

[AsH2]

..

The other point about the entire Resources system is that the game now confuses Building costs with Maintenance costs in Resources. That's because they seem to be trying to have each Unit only have 1 type of Resource attached to it for either or both, and that makes no sense: The cost to produce tanks (or infantry weapons, for that matter) was Steel/Iron and Power for the heavy industry required for engines and chassis and infantry heavy weapons (which in the Atomic Era included light antitank guns, light artillery and heavy mortars), but almost no Oil unless it was firing the industry. The Maintenance Costs are almost entirely Oil (for the motorized units) and Ammunition, a cost whose scale is almost entirely missing from the game. IF the game were showing that accurately, Artillery would require almost as much Resource per Turn to maintain as was required to build the unit in the first place: 1/3 of the industrial capacities of Germany, USA and the Soviet Union went into ammunition in WWII, and that included massive quantities of Steel (shell bodies), Copper (cartridge casings), Cotton (explosives) and Nitrates (more explosives). Of course, that would probably be too much expansion of the Resource system for the game, but it indicates just how much is being left out of the Resource discussion and its implementation in the game as it stands now.

Perhaps add Charge system there as well (and let Supply Convoy transfer charges to the front).

 

[Kwami]

And to keep a 'Lowest Common Denominator" Resource-Free unit in every Era, Infantry should be Resource Free - like Warriors, Spearmen and Pikemen in earlier Eras. It makes sense from both historical and gameplay perspectives, a situation that rarely applies in this or any other game, it seems. . .

The Warrior is the exception, though. All other Infantry class units require resources. The resource-free units are of the Ranged and Anti-Cavalry classes.

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

The Warrior is the exception, though. All other Infantry class units require resources. The resource-free units are of the Ranged and Anti-Cavalry classes.

Correct, but the point is that in every Era there should be a unit that you can "fall back on" if you are utterly lacking the Resources required for other units. That's the Warrior in the Ancient Era, the Spearman in the Classical, the Pikeman in the Medieval, and then it starts to unravel . . .

I have no problem with later "Melee" Units requiring Resources: Swordsmen, Musketmen, Infantry all require special metal-working/manufacturing skills and installations to make their equipment, and in the case of Swordsmen require much more intensive and continuous training to be effective compared to their Spearman and Pikeman counterparts. On the other hand, the "specialist" Units, like Catapults, Bombards, Heavy Cavalry, Tanks, Artillery, etc. should all have much higher requirements for both resources and Gold in building and maintenance, because they all required a lot more effort to obtain and maintain.

We've had similar discussions in numerous other Threads on these Forums, but the bottom line is that the capabilities, availability, cost, and required resources for both building and maintaining units is still skewed and results in numerous complaints about individual units and entire unit classes being OP or Useless - to take the extremes.

 

[Kwami]

Correct, but the point is that in every Era there should be a unit that you can "fall back on" if you are utterly lacking the Resources required for other units. That's the Warrior in the Ancient Era, the Spearman in the Classical, the Pikeman in the Medieval, and then it starts to unravel . . .

No, it doesn't unravel at all. The Anti-Cavalry and Ranged units continue to be resource-free until the end of the game.

 

[Sostratus]

The Anti-Cavalry and Ranged units continue to be resource-free until the end of the game.

The problem is that for some unknown reason, tanks in particular are vastly superior to every other option; AT units utterly fail in their role and making them the no resource line is a bleak prospect.
Modern Era:
Tank 80, 4 move
Infantry 70, 2
AT Crew 70, 2
Now if you get into the details of it, infantry and AT crews should be base strength 75; this would solve some but not all problems. Why they got balanced to 70 at launch is unknown to me, but it is what it is.
This leads to the following situation:
Tanks: fight infantry at +10, AT Crew at +0
Infantry: Fight tanks at -10, AT crew at +10
AT Crew: Fight tanks at +0, infantry at -10.
BTW: The cost delta between AT crews and tanks is only 20%. (400 vs 480.)
This leads to the outcome where tanks can never fight at a combat disadvantage, but infantry can; so you should basically only use oil for tanks. Plus they are extremely quick.
Someone without oil, who will only discover this in the modern era, can never beat a peer opponent with oil, because an oil unit hard counters the resource less unit line; further, you can't build artillery so you won't be taking any cities (and their associated oil fields) anyways.

 

[cvb]

The problem is that for some unknown reason, tanks in particular are vastly superior to every other option; AT units utterly fail in their role and making them the no resource line is a bleak prospect.

Bleak or not, being resource free is an advantage for AT Crew (relative to Infantry) and it fits in the pattern: "Standard Melee Units" requiring Resources: Swordsmen, Musketmen, Infantry respectively Ranged, Anti-Cavalry and Anti-Tank Units being resource free. Of course, one can do more for AT Crews.

This leads to the outcome where tanks can never fight at a combat disadvantage, but infantry can; so you should basically only use oil for tanks. Plus they are extremely quick.

Thus my proposal to double (even triple) *** the Oil maintenance for tanks. Plus tanks could receive a penalty when attacking cities / districts(?) - tanks ARE BAD in urban warfare.

(*** I see this as gimmick for the human player, the AIs should receive the Oil they "really" need for free anyway)

.

 

[Kurnn]

It always depends on your situation.
Also, since the last patch, gold isnt something you always have in abundance.......

This thread seams to be about what in stats you gain for upgrading. Sure, thats interesting to know.
HOWEVER, it depends where it is, your situation, and since last update, your units upgrades follows.

Every unit, has a use. Even Warriors, when you have access to Musceters. Upgrading is always good! If you have the gold for it.

But remember that all military units can do tons of things. Steal a worker/settler, pillage a trader, pillage land, be bait.
Or stand beside your strong unit to give it bonus.

The game is so freakin good now, that there isnt a right or wrong answer on when/if you should upgrade a unit.
Depends....on......stuff!

 

[Boris Gudenuf]

No, it doesn't unravel at all. The Anti-Cavalry and Ranged units continue to be resource-free until the end of the game.

Yes, both the Anti-Cavalry and Ranged lines unravel because from the Modern Era on their units are Pure Fantasy: separate Machine-gun and Antitank units above battalion level only occurred in one army anywhere in the 20th century: the Red Army of WWII, and even there they were small brigades (yes, the German Army also had 'antitank brigades' in 1944, but they were battalion-sized and called something bigger because by then both Hitler and the German General Staff were living in a Fantasy World).
So, as far as I'm concerned, there are no legitimate Anti-Cav or Ranged Units past Field Cannon and Pike and Shot, and frankly, shouldn't be except as UUs.

 

[Kwami]

Yes, both the Anti-Cavalry and Ranged lines unravel because from the Modern Era on their units are Pure Fantasy: separate Machine-gun and Antitank units above battalion level only occurred in one army anywhere in the 20th century: the Red Army of WWII, and even there they were small brigades (yes, the German Army also had 'antitank brigades' in 1944, but they were battalion-sized and called something bigger because by then both Hitler and the German General Staff were living in a Fantasy World).
So, as far as I'm concerned, there are no legitimate Anti-Cav or Ranged Units past Field Cannon and Pike and Shot, and frankly, shouldn't be except as UUs.

Oh, OK. So, you just don't like the names of the units. That's not really relevant to what we've been talking about, though.