Delete, Upgrade, Ignore?

[snepp]

I'm totally wrong!!! When you upgrade a unit, that unit keeps all its promotions but gets knocked down to 10 XP. So it will take another 10XP to get to level 4

A couple of clarifications.

They get knocked down to 10xp IF they haven't already reached 17xp (level 4). The same can be said for units between level 4 and 5, they will get knocked down to 17xp.

Level 4 requires 17xp, not 20xp.

 

[Padmewan]

I'm totally wrong about being totally wrong! My original claim stands: that it will be harder to get more useful modern promotions with old units specialized against archaic weaponry.

 

[Skippa]

I for one, like to upgrade units as it allows me to concentrate on buildings and development of my cities but I think that Padmewan makes a good point ( which will probably have me changing my strategy a bit)

Lets look at this as a best case/worst case analysis using a unit with 10-17 xp points.

At best all of the previous promotions are still useful and the unit had no xp loss (was at 10XP at the promotion time).
Therefore they get a 4th useful promotion in 7xp points time.

At worst none of the promotions are useful and the unit had 6XP loss (was at 16xp at promotion time).
Therefore they get 1 useful promotion for 13xp points (7 +6 wasted)

We can take an optimal new unit
with barracks, vassalage and theocracy one can get 8xp points (possibly 10 with West Point?)
for a total of 2-3 promotions all of which will be useful to the unit.
Therefore
(assuming no WestPoint) in 2xp one will get a 3th promotion or
(assuming WestPoint) in 7xp one will get a 4th promotion.

Ok so now the analysis.

Given the worst scenerio for the 10-17xp unit it is always better to create a new unit (money and production issues aside) as the 1st useful promotion is at best 7xp for the 10-17xp unit and the new unit only needs 2xp.
If one uses the best scenerio for the 10-17xp unit then it is better to upgrade as the unit will have no penalty accrued to its promotion progression.

Upon looking at this I noticed two key observations (never mind that these have been brought up before in this thread and in other threads ).

1/Upgrading will most often cause a penalty
-if the unit has excess xp points past the previous upgrade mark
-if the unit has obsolete upgrades (eg archery +25% when the enemy has all gunpowder units)

2/MAKE SURE you have a barracks and the correct civics in place when you make units!

and that folks is a restrospective Civ IV analysis

ps I did not regard the Agreesive trait since it would have been applied to any old unit that was being upgraded and to any new unit that the old unit could be upgraded into. This would not be the case if a unit could be upgraded across types (eg from archer to gunpowder) but I'm not sure if that can be done.

 

[Padmewan]

Thanks, skippa, I think you got my point, although I now confess that it's a small one.

2/MAKE SURE you have a barracks and the correct civics in place when you make units!

Hence the value of the underrated Spiritual trait. With Spiritual, you can go nuts with unit creation for 5 turns (the minimum you need to stick with a civic before you can change again) and then go back to whatever you were doing. So, this thread is probably most valuable for Spiritual leaders, who have the luxury of thinking to hisself, "Hey, do I really want to upgrade this unit when I could just build a new one with 8XP right off the bat?"

 

[Skippa]

Yup, Thats about it.

The factors in this 'upgrade vs new unit' decision seem to change depending on circumstances in the game. Leader traits, the enemies military units, civics available to the player etc. If you want to have a early war then obviously a melee or archery bonus would be invaluable, but if you want to wait for a industrial age clash then it may be better to invest in combat or healing initially etc.

Thats one thing I like about this game. It seems that different strategies (unit promotions, leader traits, etc) can be both good in one situation and bad in another.

Bottom line: I don't have to play every game the same. I can mix it up a little.

 

[cleverhandle]

The point is that at major technology shifts, not only the unit but ALSO their promotions become outdated, and more relevant promotions become harder to acquire.

Yes, but there are important benefits to be had as well, if you plan properly. The Maceman is a perfect example of that. Renaissance/Early IA campaigns can be difficult to execute because the units lack a really strong unit for attacking cities. None of the units at that time (musket, rifle, grenadier, cavalry) can take the City Raider promos. That's a significant drawback, because even if you have several units specialized in different areas (Cover, Shock, etc.) a mixed stack of defenders will use the most advantageous one, effectively bypassing your specialization.

Enter the Maceman. If I have any militarisitc concerns for the next few centuries, I always build a small stack of these. With Theo/Vassalage/Barracks, you can pump out Macemen with City Raider I and II, keep them around for a while, and then upgrade them to Muskets/Rifles/Infantry, keeping those promos that would be otherwise impossible to obtain. Now you've got Rifles, for example, attacking with 20+ strength, regardless of what they're attacking. Very useful.

 

[Gufnork]

Aww, cleverhandle just beat me to my point. Some upgrades can only become available by upgrading units. Imagine a Red Coat with City Raider I, II & III.

 

[Skippa]

OK, This is what I was wondering.
Since units can cross over into other unit types through upgrades, an upgrade strategy for units can be used to make an incredibly powerful force.
This is great as it can provide more variation in the game (hopefully without being overpowered).
I'm gonna try this out to see how it works.

 

[Vosje]

Is there any benefit to deleting?

If you don't recoup any gold when you delete a unit, then why ever delete? At worst, it's one more turn an attacker has to use up before they take your city.

Because at a certain number (depending on civics), units will start to have an upkeep, which can add up. If my units aren't useful and I don't feel like upgrading them for a lot of gold (think swordsman in industrial times) they get the ban.

 

[CivMonkeyTwo]

I think upgrading could be very useful for pressing a tech lead. If you have a load of old troops round as soon as you get a tech that gives you a military edge then drop your science right down. Set cities building units and as the money rolls in you upgrade to get an attack in quick while backfilling your defenses with the units that get built.

That should minimise the time it takes for a new unit to hit the front line and a decisive military victory should easily make up for the research time lost as you will have more kick arse cities to research with.