[GEM v1.06] Unit Maintence is WAY too much

[Gorhaax]

In my Persia game, I have just come off of a Golden Age and somehow I went from +33 gpt to -14 gpt. When I went to check way the sudden drop the game states that I have -20 gpt for Unit Maintence and -4 gpt for building Maintence. The problem here is that I only have 1 immortal, 1 scout and 2 workers for units.

How does having only 4 units = -20 gpt ?

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

true, units maintenance is too high right now

 

[Gorhaax]

I think it's to do with the immortal because before the golden age I had only 2 workers and a scout and no negatives.

 

[Ahriman]

true, units maintenance is too high right now

I tentatively agree, I'm finding it very high, but I need to play more to be sure.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

1066 already brought them down a bit so it should be reasonable now

 

[Zaldron]

In my Persia game, I have just come off of a Golden Age and somehow I went from +33 gpt to -14 gpt. When I went to check way the sudden drop the game states that I have -20 gpt for Unit Maintence and -4 gpt for building Maintence. The problem here is that I only have 1 immortal, 1 scout and 2 workers for units.

How does having only 4 units = -20 gpt ?

In addition to the other answers remember that maintenance is based on unit type, not total quantity in GEM. Even so -20 seems too high.

 

[Ahriman]

In addition to the other answers remember that maintenance is based on unit type

I still find this frustrating; its optimal to not upgrade your units as long as you aren't using them because that way you pay the lower upkeep, and then instantly upgrade your army when you need to for a war. But its sad to just have the old units around. In my current game I still have chariot archers around in the industrial age serving garrison duty for the Honor policy.

This could be fixed by having unit costs vary by era, so that once I have higher tech units available I pay costs at the higher level and don't get a saving by refusing to upgrade.

 

[lordrune]

I still find this frustrating; its optimal to not upgrade your units as long as you aren't using them because that way you pay the lower upkeep, and then instantly upgrade your army when you need to for a war. But its sad to just have the old units around. In my current game I still have chariot archers around in the industrial age serving garrison duty for the Honor policy.

This could be fixed by having unit costs vary by era, so that once I have higher tech units available I pay costs at the higher level and don't get a saving by refusing to upgrade.

I don't know, I like the system as it is now - it allows flexibility with some units being more expensive, some less. And I like to have a strong standing army as a deterrent, old tech units aren't effective at that.

Not sure if this is possible with current mod tech, or if it's desirable, but perhaps upgrading could be changed so that it puts units to sleep for a number of turns? It would add a substantial risk to the 'leave upgrading until last minute' strategy.

 

[Skobrin]

I like the idea of a longer upgrade penalty, but that would make rush buying rather than actually building units even more powerful and would probably require some slight balancing on that as well. Ideally, I'd like to see a longer cooldown (or a -strength debuff for x turns) on both upgrading units and purchasing them with gold/faith, to encourage players to actually build them. That or maybe just adjust the purchase/upgrade values to be more in line with the recently adjusted gold income.

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

I'm also not a big fan of the increased upgrade costs for units, I can see the rationale and in theory I agree but I don't like how it works out in practice ( too many obsolete units )

ideally I guess the cost to upgrade should be the difference in gold costs between the two units, that seems fair.

 

[EmperorFool]

If it's only the gold costs then you don't take into account the increase XP the older unit has (usually). Of course, you also don't take into account the higher XP of new units due to XP buildings.

 

[Ahriman]

If it's only the gold costs then you don't take into account the increase XP the older unit has (usually). Of course, you also don't take into account the higher XP of new units due to XP buildings.

I don't quite follow this. You shouldn't be penalized for having high experience units; experienced units shouldn't cost more to upgrade. XP is something you earn; it should stick around.

 

[EmperorFool]

I don't mean that you should have to pay more. I'm only saying that the value of upgrading versus buying depends on the unit's XP and how much XP it would have from buildings if bought.

 

[skodkim]

Well, after playing ~150 turns with GEM 1611 and CivUP 41 I'd still say that unit maintenance is WAY to high. Playing on emperor and in the beginning of the game I couldn't even support my two combat units and one worker because I had also built a shrine and a granary.

I even had to stop picking the policy that gives you two free workers because I could see it would ruin my economy totally! Don't remember the name off the policy right now but it used to be one of my favorite early on policies.

\Skodkim

 

[[to_xp]Gekko]

I'd agree it needs to be toned down some more.

what about making workers free of unit maintenance like settlers and great people?

possibly workboats as well.

 

[Fusilliban]

In my current game I still have chariot archers around in the industrial age serving garrison duty for the Honor policy.

I'm now going to make it a goal, in my next Honor game, to keep some rookie Warriors around to police my cities with. Men with clubs and loincloths keeping order in the factories, and such.

 

[mystikx21]

My understanding is this has to do with changes in unit cost. Thal added another 40% cost to most units from VEM. As I recall warriors were 2, archers 2-3, spears 3, workers 2, back then. They should still be roughly the same (except workers) as early units haven't changed that much in cost and strength. It's possible instead of-1, the unit cost factor should be 20% higher (60-70?).

 

[Ahriman]

My main problem isn't the early game, it is the 18-20+ gold per unit for late-game units. For a decent army, unit maintenance is often over half my gold income.

 

[mystikx21]

Infantry is 19 right? Tanks are 31? Artillery is 17?

Definitely sounds like the cost bump needs adjustment from the formulas yes.

 

[skodkim]

In my experience its almost impossible to have even a few units in the very early game if you also have a couple of buildings. I was loosing about 5/turn and all I could do (without dibanding/selling) was to build improvements on river sides and those gave only 1/turn.

\Skodkim