Whether you call it "upgrading" or "overbuilding" the effect is the same -- it requires investment of resources. So of course this is an educated guess, but it follows that units wouldn't upgrade automatically.
I'm not sure what you mean about cities becoming towns, but the difference between a city and town is its management model, not its population... I don't think there is any maximum population limit on towns, so it should be possible to switch a city back to a town without losing any population.
Whether you call it "upgrading" or "overbuilding" the effect is the same -- it requires investment of resources. So of course this is an educated guess, but it follows that units wouldn't upgrade automatically.
I'm not sure what you mean about cities becoming towns, but the difference between a city and town is its management model, not its population... I don't think there is any maximum population limit on towns, so it should be possible to switch a city back to a town without losing any population.
Cities are an upgrade from towns, they cost money... the Transition will change cities to towns.
They haven't said that cities will KEEP their population when they go back to towns, and they haven't said it will be lost
They have said that units will be upgraded to the baseline for the new age.
The Transition may be drastic, reset all diplomacy, (lose a bunch of map info), troops sent back.... lose 1/2 of your $ stockpile, etc.
But...You get all of the base technologies of the previous age, and I can see where you would get all of the upgrades for free as well.
I haven't heard anything about Age transition converting cities to towns, so I don't know where you're getting that from, but even if that's true I still don't see how that has anything to do with unit upgrades and Army Commanders.
Translation:
4Gamer：
What happens to military units? (On transition to Age of Exploration)
Ed beach：
What happens to military units is bit different. After the age transition, all outdated units will be upgraded into basic units of the (Exploration) age, which is Men-at-arms or Crossbowmen.
There's a chance this information could be wrong - I've found a contradiction in comparison to another article. (not about this info) Still, I think you'll at least get access to new age's basic units.
I hope it will automatically rename the capital, if you change. If I'm changing from Egypt to Abbasids, I want my capital to be Baghdad not Waset, for immersion reasons. If I'm forced to rename the city myself, I will.
I hope it will automatically rename the capital, if you change. If I'm changing from Egypt to Abbasids, I want my capital to be Baghdad not Waset, for immersion reasons. If I'm forced to rename the city myself, I will.
It's not tied to age transition. Ed just said 'players can freely move their capital'. I suspect it would be not entirely free though, probably need to build a palace or finish project like Civ 4 or 6.
I hope it will automatically rename the capital, if you change. If I'm changing from Egypt to Abbasids, I want my capital to be Baghdad not Waset, for immersion reasons. If I'm forced to rename the city myself, I will.
I think the option to change/keep the name should appear. (change should probably be default) If I want an America governed from New Amsterdam, I shouldn’t be forced to rename it to Washington.
That's what I am thinking. I've not really played much at all of the newer civs since Civ IV, so there may be limitations to the number of units based on several factors but mass-producing cheap units before the age transition could be interesting, if possible. Sometimes numbers > promotions.
In IV, there was no age transition, ofc. One strat was queue holding so that if unit X was in queue it would flip over to the new unit automatically when that next upgrade tech was finished. Not exactly the same thing as this and not necessarily an exploit, but effective. Another cool thing we would do with vassals as AI in IV had much cheaper upgrade costs, is feed units like warriors to our vassals to upgrade for cheap.
Surely it depends on their stats? I'm thinking that they'll barely be stronger than units from the end of the previous age: so it's more a graphical upgrade and streamlining the state of things than a major upgrade. Although, it does mean that if you keep a bunch of warriors around, they'll get promoted to Men-At-Arms for free, even if you never paid to upgrade them to swordsmen. Possible exploit? Only if maintenance cost are low enough and you don't lose most of them during the crisis itself. Interesting? Certainly.
According to the showcase version, Egypt's UU have no maintenance - though this trait isn't listed on the official homepage.
If no maintenance is true, we have a possible exploit here.
That's what I am thinking. I've not really played much at all of the newer civs since Civ IV, so there may be limitations to the number of units based on several factors but mass-producing cheap units before the age transition could be interesting, if possible. Sometimes numbers > promotions.
In IV, there was no age transition, ofc. One strat was queue holding so that if unit X was in queue it would flip over to the new unit automatically when that next upgrade tech was finished. Not exactly the same thing as this and not necessarily an exploit, but effective. Another cool thing we would do with vassals as AI in IV had much cheaper upgrade costs, is feed units like warriors to our vassals to upgrade for cheap.
A few thoughts
1. right before the Transition is the Crisis you may be building massive numbers of cheap units, but they will probably be used to kill off barbarians/raze infected cities
2. The base unit in one Age could be cheaper than the cheapest unit you can build in the middle of the previous age (An Ancient Spearman may cost more than a Exploration Man-at-arms)***
3. It could be the units still cost $ to upgrade, but they will auto upgrade, raiding your treasury, and any unit there is not enough $ to upgrade gets disbanded.
Have we got any confirmation on exactly how Commanders can gain experience? I already heard from streamers how Commanders gain experience from battles within their vicinity, but is that the only way? Especially since some Commanders promotion abilities seem to focus on a defensive nature and parking the commander in a city for those bonuses. Maybe you can gain XP fighting barbar... I mean Independent peoples. Hopefully those aren't capped for those who prefer a more defensive game and don't want to wage warfare on your neighbors just to gain XP for your commanders. What I suspect is most people probably won't use the defensive abilities of commanders more. Or more likely they'll build 2 and try to level them both up for different purposes. But is there even going to be enough fighting to level 2 commanders up?
I've been messing around with Civ 5 lately, and it's interesting how you can't even get generals without fighting. And I never can seem to gain an admiral despite city states wanting me to get one, I'm guessing those can only be gained through naval fighting. Civ 6 wisely went away from having to fight just to gain a great general. Although it makes you wonder how they can be great if they never fought. Good move going away from that term to the word commanders.
Have we got any confirmation on exactly how Commanders can gain experience? I already heard from streamers how Commanders gain experience from battles within their vicinity, but is that the only way? Especially since some Commanders promotion abilities seem to focus on a defensive nature and parking the commander in a city for those bonuses. Maybe you can gain XP fighting barbar... I mean Independent peoples. Hopefully those aren't capped for those who prefer a more defensive game and don't want to wage warfare on your neighbors just to gain XP for your commanders. What I suspect is most people probably won't use the defensive abilities of commanders more. Or more likely they'll build 2 and try to level them both up for different purposes. But is there even going to be enough fighting to level 2 commanders up?
I've been messing around with Civ 5 lately, and it's interesting how you can't even get generals without fighting. And I never can seem to gain an admiral despite city states wanting me to get one, I'm guessing those can only be gained through naval fighting. Civ 6 wisely went away from having to fight just to gain a great general. Although it makes you wonder how they can be great if they never fought. Good move going away from that term to the word commanders.
Have we got any confirmation on exactly how Commanders can gain experience? I already heard from streamers how Commanders gain experience from battles within their vicinity, but is that the only way? Especially since some Commanders promotion abilities seem to focus on a defensive nature and parking the commander in a city for those bonuses. Maybe you can gain XP fighting barbar... I mean Independent peoples. Hopefully those aren't capped for those who prefer a more defensive game and don't want to wage warfare on your neighbors just to gain XP for your commanders. What I suspect is most people probably won't use the defensive abilities of commanders more. Or more likely they'll build 2 and try to level them both up for different purposes. But is there even going to be enough fighting to level 2 commanders up?
I've been messing around with Civ 5 lately, and it's interesting how you can't even get generals without fighting. And I never can seem to gain an admiral despite city states wanting me to get one, I'm guessing those can only be gained through naval fighting. Civ 6 wisely went away from having to fight just to gain a great general. Although it makes you wonder how they can be great if they never fought. Good move going away from that term to the word commanders.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Good move going away from that term to the word commanders.
