Disband units or upgrade?

IAM

Emperor
Joined
Apr 13, 2007
Messages
1,898
Location
wish I knew
I've started hearing more about people disbanding old military units and just building new ones. Why disband? Typically I upgrade units in offensive stacks and border towns that may be threatened. So I end up with some warriors and archers guarding core cities well behind my defensive lines.
 
Because disbanding your troops and replacing them is a lot cheaper than upgrading. I used to upgrade, but since I learned that I can just replace them with newer units, I jumped right on the kill button...
 
Upgrades are not cost effective. The only true incentives to upgrade a unit would be 1. Emergencies 2. Promos they wouldn't have otherwise 3. As a stopgap means of turning commerce ---> hammers as you tech OR to rapidly assemble troops via both upgrade and production while halting tech to abuse a military advantage as rapidly as possible.

I usually run on reason #3, but if you're the vikings or can get a merchant a bunch of CR II maces or some such to rifles could be pretty strong too. Usually, upgrades are not enough on their own for emergencies ;).
 
Agree with the previous 2 posts. I never have enough cash to upgrade everything, and almost inevitably, a lot of my older units don't have enough promos to be worth upgrading anyway (why upgrade a 3 xp Axeman when I can build new Macemen with 5, 7, or 9 xp?).

That CR3 Maceman definitely gets upgraded to Grenadier, and the units with Cover get deleted after Gunpowder. Etc.
 
Upgrading is simmilar to rushbuying with US: 3 :gold: for 1 :hammers:.
Iin my last game, i invaded with 30 Infantry 3 turns after i got assembly line, 2 turns at 100% gold was enough to upgrade.
Upgrading all your garrison troops can give you a huge boost in power rating, useful for vassalizing you enemy sooner.
Warriors and Archers without promotions are always deleted and replaced by better units.
 
At least two times I have gifted my old obsolete units to a buffer civilization that was between me and the largest army civ. This boosted them up enough to stave off immediate attack, while I rebuilt my SOD. (Stack of Doom).

I upgrade those units with unique promotions - like Archers with City Garrison --> Crossbowmen --> Machineguns.

It's cheaper to build new units, but it's faster to upgrade them if you find yourself in need.
 
Warriors and Archers without promotions are always deleted and replaced by better units.


Now hold on a second... Do you delete and replace warriors/archers with modern units in "safe" areas? I don't understand that. What's the plus?

And as for deleting units. Does the majority of your 'stack of doom' not have enough promotions to warrant upgrade?

This concept sounds kind of counter productive. I'm not saying I disagree but I'm saying what?! :confused:
 
The only time I don't upgrade is if the cost is too high or I have a significant lead. If my tech has slipped behind and I'm playing catchup I upgrade. Spitting out a new army at this point takes away from my production causing me to fall further behind.
 
I seem to recall Attacko advocating a strategy where you upgrade the unit and THEN disband it. I never tried it because I couldn't wrap my head around the methodology behind it.
 
I seem to recall Attacko advocating a strategy where you upgrade the unit and THEN disband it. I never tried it because I couldn't wrap my head around the methodology behind it.

Why on earth would someone want to do that? It's just throwing your gold away for no good reason. :confused:
 
lol - attacko. Anyway, sometimes I upgrade. If I have a ton of, say, maces, trebs, and then get to grens and cannons and I want to hit a neighbour, I might go 0% research and uprgrade as fast as possible while building units too, to really hit hard and fast. It's a way of turning commerce into hammers before you get US.
 
My own rules for upgrading are similar to TheMeInTeam's.
  1. Emergencies, obviously. As in, the enemy's SoD is rumbling towards a city garrisoned by a CGI Archer, a Combat I Axe, and a Combat I Spear. Mind you, this may depend upon (a) how valuable the city is and/or (b) how easily I could recapture it. Even if I think I'll lose the city, however, I may still upgrade the units so as to weaken the enemy forces more.
  2. Promotions. These fall into two categories.
    (A) Type. If a newly-built unit can't acquire the same type of promotion, then the existing unit usually gets upgraded. Units with City Raider promotions are the prime candidates here, since Grens, Rifles, and Infantry can't obtain those promotions on their own.
    (B) Level. Any unit with >= 10 XP is a candidate for promotion, frankly, since it's nearly impossible to create units with that XP level from scratch. (Yes, I could stack settled Great Generals into my West Point city, but I'd rather spread them around; I think it's better to have several units with one more promotion than a handful of uber-promoted units.) However, I'm always wary of upgrading units with promotions that will soon become obsolete, such as Shock and Cover. I may upgrade a Combat II/Shock Axe to a Mace, but I'll almost never upgrade them to Rifles or Grenadiers, not unless my enemies are woefully behind me in techs (in which case it's probably time to move up a level!).
  3. Power Rating. If I'm pursuing a peaceful victory condition BUT I'm facing a threat from one or more aggressive civs, I may start upgrading some units in order to jack up my power rating and, hopefully, stave off a potential war.
 
I usually upgrade my stacks, as City Raider is very good on riflemen, infantry, and borderline overpowered on mech. infantry, especially with a Medic III general backing them up. Their free March promotion makes them much faster than Modern Armor. (Which I use as backup whenever the mech. infantry have less than 90% chance of victory) On the other hand, I usually disband and replace my old archers, spearmen and axemen with longbowmen, crossbows, pikemen and macemen as appropriate when I change civics to Vassalage or Theocracy.
 
Bah, suicide them all onto enemy troops! If they don't win, they deserve to die!

I only upgrade highly promoted units, like CR3 swords/maces. Most units just aren't worth it. And disbanding is wasting useful cannon fodder.
 
I use slightly different rules for upgrading, but then I play huge maps/marathon speed.
Often (in fact most of the time), I've around 20-30 cities at the time of Gunpowder. Often my continent by then, is for all intents and purposes mine, or at least peaceful by then. The main threat is going to come from overseas.

I still believe in having one mega military city, with all the settled generals, mil acad etc. This city I use almost solely for building up a very large "attacking army", all starting with lots of promotions. I do not build city garrison troops here. What I personally do, is as soon as I discover Gunpowder, every coastal city drops whatever it was doing, and builds at least 3 City Garrison Muskets. Once these are done, they'll probably (in most cases) never build a troop again until the modern era. I update them all slowly , and at suspected points where the ai will inevitably eventually attack given first priority(I've learned from experience, that sometimes your power rating just doesn't matter).

Then the "expert" troops from the mega military city, are ready in one place to launch an immediate, and probably decisive counterattack. It's just probably "playing safe", but to have all these distant cities building first 3 muskets, then 3 rifles, then 3 infantry, would mean (with often low :hammers: output), that they were building nothing else, and to have other more developed cities build troops for them, would compromise the bigger cities ability to quickly build the nice shiny new buildings.;)I'd rather they built banks and universities, while I upgrade the already built defenders.

But then it always depends upon game situation......
 
Bah, suicide them all onto enemy troops! If they don't win, they deserve to die!

I only upgrade highly promoted units, like CR3 swords/maces. Most units just aren't worth it. And disbanding is wasting useful cannon fodder.
The problem with that approach is that it can jack up war weariness on you... :eek:

I prefer to use weak, old, obsolete units in combination with Hereditary Rule to increase :). Once I switch away from HR, though, I delete those units to save on maintenance.
 
It's true that obsoleted units aren't terrible to bring along if you can afford a slightly higher maintenance for them outside borders. They can kill off damaged unit, be left as extra units on defense for garrison duty, or even be upgraded on conquest money. I really like old 2 move units, because damaged enemy units that kill off something in your stack or withdraw or whatever can be picked off while still allowing your HA to return to the stack. If you get desperate you really can just use them to damage strong defenders or whatever. As long as you didn't overbuild ridiculously it's ok to drag some obsolete troops with your main stack. A couple strong stack defenders will prevent them from being a liability most likely.

If nothing else, they absorb enemy collateral sometimes :p.
 
They can kill off damaged unit, be left as extra units on defense for garrison duty, or even be upgraded on conquest money.

Seems like using them as cannon fodder or garrison duty would be better uses. I play huge maps with 18 civs mostly so leaving behind units from a stack to garrison works well for me. By the time these units become obsolete (like a shock promoted maceman when everyone has rifles) they are far enough behind the battle lines that it doesn't matter.
 
I thing I do recommend: Build a bunch of triremes right before you get Optics, then upgrade all them to Caravels at once. It's not expensive and allows you to explore the world quickly. That's why I'm usually the first to circumnavigate the globe.

I also love to promote my city raider macemen. And don't forget units like berserkers that are born with special capabilities that they keep when upgraded.
 
Back
Top Bottom