Finding a strategic home for outdated units

[wobuffet]

I think a Disband bonus is important because the "fun to game balance" ratio is extremely high here: pretty much any piddling reward to deleting units would greatly increase the feeling of forward progress that the Civ experience is all about. Deleting a unit feels like a waste, a setback, a defeat – no other decision that the player makes in the game does this.

If "upgrade or disband this unit?" is going to be a regularly occurring decision in this game (and again, I think this is a good change), neither of those options should feel like a step backwards.

Disband buff could be abused easily by players, and we don't need that. Also, the AI should be remembered.

Hmm. How about something minor like 4 Instant Culture, +2 Culture per promotion level attained by the unit, scaled by era?

Example: You research Gunpowder, so you disbanding a Pikeman with Shock II ("level 2") to make room for a Tercio. You net 8*3 = 24 on Standard – not much, but better than nothing. For reference, in my current game where I just researched Gunpowder, the AIs and I are generating just over 200 Culture a turn.​

This could introduce a few interesting "Upgrade or Disband?" decisions per game, since now both options become a more attractive for higher-XP units.

 

[Gazebo]

I think a Disband bonus is important because the "fun to game balance" ratio is extremely high here: pretty much any piddling reward to deleting units would greatly increase the feeling of forward progress that the Civ experience is all about. Deleting a unit feels like a waste, a setback, a defeat – no other decision that the player makes in the game does this.

If "upgrade or disband this unit?" is going to be a regularly occurring decision in this game (and again, I think this is a good change), neither of those options should feel like a step backwards.


Hmm. How about something minor like 4 Instant Culture, +2 Culture per promotion level attained by the unit, scaled by era?

Example: You research Gunpowder, so you disbanding a Pikeman with Shock II ("level 2") to make room for a Tercio. You net 8*3 = 24 on Standard – not much, but better than nothing. For reference, in my current game where I just researched Gunpowder, the AIs and I are generating just over 200 Culture a turn.​

This could introduce a few interesting "Upgrade or Disband?" decisions per game, since now both options become a more attractive for higher-XP units.

See earlier: this can be abused, AND this favors the human. AI should never be encourage to disband (numbers are an important factor in AI performance).

 

[CrazyG]

Lets' compare two situations. These numbers don't factor any kind of purchase or upgrade discount, its just meant to be one example

I have 3 warriors. I could upgrade, and have 3 spearmen (cost 210 gold)
Or I could buy a spearman, and have 3 warriors + 1 spearmen (cost 190 gold or more)

The trade off is 2 spearmen vs 3 warriors. Given this choice I'll almost always upgrade.

Now, lets say I currently have 4 riflemen. I could upgrade them all to infantry, and have 4 infantry (costs 4,200 gold). You also get 600 science if you have a bank
Or I could buy 3 infantry, and have 4 riflemen + 3 infantry (costs 3,960 gold at 1 city prices with multiple cities, it will be pretty close to 4,200.

The trade off is 1 infantry, or 4 riflemen. Given this choice I'll almost always purchase, but there are exceptions, like very highly promoted unit or supply cap issues. I'm actually rethinking if some of my super promoted units need those upgrades, the difference in CS between these units isn't that big

 

[StevenV]

Hi All,

Despite my very few posts, I am a big fan of VP and silent reader of Civfanatics since CIV III.

Playing at Emperor unit upgrade/disband is always a hard decision in my games, especially when I lack of money
I have some idea to adjust this, hope you (the experienced users/modders) will also find it interesting and viable:

1. Create a hard limit for the upgrade line (eg. no more lancer -> tank) upgrade. So always you need to built up your tank force. Another example could be the wooden-steel ship upgrade...
   
2. Or in case you keep the actual upgrade line, create some "soft limit" where the unit lose some experience. (lance -> tank upgrade is still possible but cost some experience.) Reason:The soldiers need to learn the new war mechanism, and old tactics no longer valid, etc, etc, ....
3. Mainly relating to the 1st option (where over time you need to disband even the most experienced units or lost it) disbanding unit could create an artifact, especially for the most experienced. It would create some historic sword, armor, which was used by The Great Leader of XY during the battle of Z. Even ships could be artifact... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_museum_ships

Thank you for this mod and the continuous improvement.

 

[tu_79]

So I guess factoring unit level into upgrading cost is not posible?

 

[wobuffet]

See earlier: this can be abused, AND this favors the human. AI should never be encourage to disband (numbers are an important factor in AI performance).

The numbers and conditions could be scaled down until it can't be abused, I imagine.

Does the AI never run into/over the supply cap? I could see a peaceful AI player being in a situation where an obsolete unit should be disbanded.

 

[Funak]

The numbers and conditions could be scaled down until it can't be abused, I imagine.

And that's exactly how it works now

 

[wobuffet]

OK, I have a compromise proposal that nobody should hate:

• Introduce lag to Unit Maintenance, so that your maintenance costs today are tied to how many units you had 10 turns ago: essentially, newly acquired units are maintenance-free while they're fresh.
• When a unit is disbanded, you instantly receive 10 turns' worth of Unit Maintenance. This is the money you would've saved anyway, but at least you get it in a lump sum that might potentially be useful (it can be capped at something like 25% of the normal purchase cost of the unit if necessary).
• Perhaps throw in +10% per promotion level (e.g., +20% for a Shock II unit) too.

 

[Txurce]

OK, I have a compromise proposal that nobody should hate:

• Introduce lag to Unit Maintenance, so that your maintenance costs today are tied to how many units you had 10 turns ago: essentially, newly acquired units are maintenance-free while they're fresh.
• When a unit is disbanded, you instantly receive 10 turns' worth of Unit Maintenance. This is the money you would've saved anyway, but at least you get it in a lump sum that might potentially be useful (it can be capped at something like 25% of the normal purchase cost of the unit if necessary).
• Perhaps throw in +10% per promotion level (e.g., +20% for a Shock II unit) too.

Way too complicated.

 

[wobuffet]

Way too complicated.

"You start paying unit maintenance on a unit after 10 turns." is way too complicated for you?

 

[Txurce]

"You start paying unit maintenance on a unit after 10 turns." is way too complicated for you?

It's way too complicated for it to ever happen. All you'd have to do is be up to date on how Gazebo makes changes to know this. But I realize that you're not.

 

[wobuffet]

It's way too complicated for it to ever happen. All you'd have to do is be up to date on how Gazebo makes changes to know this. But I realize that you're not.

Fair enough. Thanks for the info.

 

[HalfEmptyMug]

So I guess factoring unit level into upgrading cost is not posible?

If it is, it would directly hurt the AI as they get bonus promotions to help them in combat. They could maybe be given a discount to offset it though.

Create a hard limit for the upgrade line (eg. no more lancer -> tank) upgrade. So always you need to built up your tank force. Another example could be the wooden-steel ship upgrade...

That's a really good idea, it would allow costs to be lowered while moving the tedium to major tech shifts (swords to guns and such) and would be a bit more historically accurate, but I'm not sure unit lines can be separated like this. Light Tanks and Gunships actually have to be considered "Archery Units (Mounted)" due to their unit combat roles and new lines would have to be created to define them. The AI might not handle the shifts too well either.

Also, as someone who occasionally warmongers, I think there should be a bit of a tedium when managing a gigantic army, it's the price you pay for having so many units. You can't always have quantity and quality.

 

[vyyt]

Sorry I strongly dislike the idea of disconnecting the upgrade lines - upgrading experienced units is fun. I don't want to disband my elite lancer when tanks become available.

EDIT: and I like the current system / balance the most

 

[Funak]

Sorry I strongly dislike the idea of disconnecting the upgrade lines - upgrading experienced units is fun. I don't want to disband my elite lancer when tanks become available.

Exactly, I didn't fight for months to get the current unit-lines just to see them abandoned because some people needs motivation to disband their units.

 

[StevenV]

Sorry I strongly dislike the idea of disconnecting the upgrade lines - upgrading experienced units is fun. I don't want to disband my elite lancer when tanks become available.

EDIT: and I like the current system / balance the most

True, it is fun. I always "look after" my best experienced units like babies. Especially in my current game where I playing at Japan and Samurai has some awesome unique promotion, which remain after upgrade.
However, I doubt that AI has ever consider such thing thus it is a big advantage for humans.

Would you also be against the "soft limit" when unit lose some experience/promotion when upgraded? A lancer has +2 movement because he knows how to ride a horse perfectly but why should this be carried on when it become a tank?

 

[Gidoza]

If you buy a brand new car for a million dollar, drive it for 30 years and then then try to sell it off, do you expect it to be valued at 1 million still?

I'd say it wasn't worth a million in the first place.

 

[Enrico Swagolo]

I dislike most of the ideas presented in this thread and I think all is fine how it is. If you don't want to upgrade an unit because it's not experienced enough, give it to a CS or disband for some Gold so it stops taking away maintenance. If the Gold rate for disbanding gets better, then Production into Gold transfer (25% rate) thingy will be made obsolete. Disbanding, imho, should never be a gain.

 

[wobuffet]

If the Gold rate for disbanding gets better, then Production into Gold transfer (25% rate) thingy will be made obsolete. Disbanding, imho, should never be a gain.

Have you actually looked at what deleting a unit nets you? Maybe folks don't actually know how low those numbers currently are.

A Tercio costs something like 500 to buy or 320 to produce, meaning that producing Wealth instead would earn you 25% * 300 = 80.

The unit yields 6 when deleted. I'm just asking that number to get boosted to something less pathetic like 40 (= 8% of the cost to buy it), plus maybe 2 per earned promotion level, scaled.
(I'm away from Civ; these numbers are from memory. Please correct me if I'm wrong and I'll edit, but ballpark this is what we have now.)

To use the car driven off the lot analogy from earlier in this thread, currently you buy a car for $1000 and can sell it later for... $12. I'm saying, how about $80 or 100 instead?

edit: As of the latest version, disband costs seem pretty reasonable (~25% of purchase cost). Not in the patch notes, so I'm not sure if this is a change or not, but that works for me!

 

[CrazyG]

The unit yields 6 when deleted. I'm just asking that number to get boosted to something less pathetic like 40 (= 8% of the cost to buy it), plus maybe 2 per earned promotion level, scaled.

Are you sure that is right? Units yields less if damaged when deleted. I think a warrior is worth 10 if at full health