Eliminate the unit maintenance and upgrade cost policy cards?

[Stringer1313]

I have the two policy cards (reducing unit maintenance + cut upgrade costs in half) for 95% of the game. This is not fun. I would eliminate these two policy cards and just slightly reduce upgrade costs across the board and slightly reduce unit maintenance to split the difference between having and not having these cards. Agree?

 

[Victoria]

Have you considered a different approach?
No card stays that long in my deck.
If you are fighting with a huge army then sure you may keep unit maintenance but that does not mean that's a valid approach for everyone. I will often ditch unit maintenance as a more important card is needed, I loose a bit of gold for a few turns but get a boost I need elsewhere.

I would argue losistics is a more important red card to keep in your deck.

For the mercenary 50% card.... he'll I only keep that in place for a few turns even if warmongering

 

[DJ_Tanner]

While I do think they are strong picks for cards, they do have their place and there are times when you should be weighting their pros/cons. For instance, of course the reduced maintenance is only beneficial if you have a large standing army. If you are pre/post-war and in the process of building up an army then it doesn't provide much benefit. As well, if you are not a domination focused player then the card may not have much value you to you at all. For cheaper upgrades, that card should be slotted in and out based on how close you are to a tech where you are going to use it.

 

[EgonSpengler]

Generally speaking, I prefer the Governments that give me more Economic policies and fewer Military policies, so I find the strategy with the maintenance cost cards is twofold: When not to use them, and when to upgrade from Conscription (-1 per unit) to Levee en Masse (-2 per unit).

I use Professional Army as little as possible: I save up a bunch of gold, upgrade many units at once, and then get rid of the card as soon as I can.

So yes, there is some strategy in how I use these cards.

 

[rschissler]

Since a couple of the AI problems are that it builds few units, especially in later eras, and hardly upgrades, how about giving it to the AI as a free policy card?

 

[Eagle Pursuit]

As a more peacemongery player, I have little use for any Military cards beyond maintenance discounts, upgrade discounts, and logistics. I keep the maintenance discount on full time to improve my income by that much, and I switch between upgrade and logistics as upgrades become available. Since I rarely build more than a few units at a time I don't have much love for the unit-build-cost discount cards.

 

[UWHabs]

I do like saving upkeep, but have recently been using the one that gives +1 amenity for garrisoned troops more, and I think that's a superior card. For the base cost of a scout in each city (maintenance 0), that will often be enough to either let my city grow a little bigger, or potentially move the citizens up to being happy (+5% of all yields).

I will every now and then use one of the cheaper unit builds if I, for example, am playing as England and want to rush out a bunch of Sea Dogs for 4-5 turns. But otherwise I'll rarely opt for other military cards. Even the other "economic" ones like the one that gives 1 science per military academy or seaport, I just don't see that giving enough benefit to actually be worth it.

 

[juanpavo]

how about giving it to the AI as a free policy card?

Hmm... I always assumed the AI was coded to not use policy cards. It would be an extra level of difficulty for developers to program in the choice logic, and already the AI has a set of built-in benefits. Just guessing of course...

 

[bcaiko]

The OP is correct that, especially in domination games, you're mostly running unit maintenance reduction policies. The others are just far too situational, and the reduction policy is an "always benefits." There probably does need to be a balance change - this is mostly a false choice.

 

[kaspergm]

The OP is correct that, especially in domination games, you're mostly running unit maintenance reduction policies. The others are just far too situational, and the reduction policy is an "always benefits." There probably does need to be a balance change - this is mostly a false choice.

Well put. I also think the maintenance card is too much of a default choice. Most of the other military cards are very situational, and I overall hate all cards - military and otherwise - that makes micromanaging and switch in/switch out strategies favorable, of which the 50 % upgrade card is a prime offender. I think it would be better if cards were coupled differently, so that for instance instead of one card giving lower maintenance to ALL units, then the cards that give production to certain classes also reduce maintenance to these specific classes. This would make the maintenance part less of a no-brainer and at the same time make the bonus production cards more viable (most of them are pretty naff as they are). The upgrade card needs to be seriously toned down or reworked otherwise - as it is now, it's also pretty much of a no-choice, because upgrade costs are ridiculously high without this card, which doesn't add much strategy but just favors annoying micro-management.

 

[Victoria]

It's not OP, just situational so yes, what is lacking is good red card competition.
Logistics is a perfect example, a great card, we just need a couple more

 

[UWHabs]

It's not OP, just situational so yes, what is lacking is good red card competition.
Logistics is a perfect example, a great card, we just need a couple more

Yeah, probably best would be to reduce the number of "increase production" cards, and add more situational cards like the "+4 combat against other religions" - maybe have some that are like "+7 combat in your own territory", "+4 combat on your home continent", "+4 combat in districts", "+1 move for mounted units", etc... Or even if the +production when building units card also applied to the purchase of units, I would definitely think about running them more often.

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

I try to time the upgrade card for when I'm going to be doing a buncha units.
Then pull it out, then put back.
The naval/air also get used for a bit then pulled.

 

[Victoria]

So the OP is pretty correct on one card but should be swapping the other when not upgrading?

 

[Canadian Bluebeer]

Timing is key of course.

There are times when it's in there for a long time, just due to the nature of the new units becoming available.

Also, once you start combining units, the maint costs drop somewhat, making the reducing card less valuable. (less units)
At that point, the upgrade card is more valuable.

Early on, when gold is low, cutting maint costs is nice, sometimes critical.
Then again, faster build is also important (so ya don't get kilt)

So, it all depends. What government, did you have any of the extra slots? If you can get all 12 slots, then at that point, it doesn't really matter.
with 4 wildcard slots, I'll use the GM/GS cards and that's it.
I've got enough Hansas that I don't need the GE card, don't care about the culture ones anyway, GG/GA I'll get some, but meh.
GS for eurekas and fast science, GM I want the extra policy slot and some of the amenities. GE I really want the ones for pushing wonders.

Military, I'll keep the fast build for land units, faster encampments (I always seem to have some under construction), others I'll swap about.
Political ones, faster envoys, then whatever, I'll mix that one up a fair bit.

ymmv of course.

 

[Manifold]

I use Professional Army as little as possible: I save up a bunch of gold, upgrade many units at once, and then get rid of the card as soon as I can.

Does everyone do this? Damm, I thought, I was so clever

 

[empresskiova]

I like the idea of giving the Unit Discounts a secondary effect of maintenance reduction (for those units of course)

But, all I really want is some cards that'll help Anticav and Bombards... lol

Edit: And Triangular Trade to only work on international routes. So broken lol.

 

[kaspergm]

Edit: And Triangular Trade to only work on international routes. So broken lol.

Or perhaps Triangular Trade having some sort of negative effect on happiness because ... you know ...

 

[empresskiova]

I think a happiness hit might nerf it too hard... 1 Amenity > 4 Gold and 1 Faith.

 

[LuckyAC]

I think the upgrade cost card is a good one, what the system is designed for, precisely because it's one you'd never run for long periods of time - it rewards planning and timing and micromanaging (some might say it necessitates it, which could be annoyingly fiddly to some people, but the OP disproves this)