Is there any point to obsolescence?

[TruthfulCake]

I am not sure what obsolescence offers in terms of gameplay. It seems to have been part of the game since Civ 1, but I can't quite figure why this "feature" is indispensable. Isn't it objectively better for more options to be available for players instead of imposing artificial deadlines?

I'm really quite curious what people think of obsolescence, since in my opinion the game is better off without it. Please kindly enlighten me.

 

[Buni0ns]

I would think it has more to do with the AI than obsolescence as a mechanic for the player.

 

[TruthfulCake]

Can you elaborate on that part? Do you mean that the AI would fare better with obsolescence in the game?

 

[Buni0ns]

I mean that without it the AI most probably wont upgrade. As it currently stands now we see the AI with difficulty upgrading its units. I am under the impression (this is all conjecture mind you) that the idea is to constrain the choices for the AI and therefore provide it the impetus to upgrade its units.

 

[TruthfulCake]

I think it shouldn't be hard to code the AI to put weight on units of later eras when deciding to build an army. I also think that the AI's current failure to keep its units upgraded has more to do with the new strategic resource system (needs an overhaul, IMO) than with obsolescence.

 

[Buni0ns]

I think it shouldn't be hard to code the AI to put weight on units of later eras...

I think that it shouldn't be hard to code a lot of behaviors that seem to be lacking currently, but nevertheless here we are.

An alternative theory is to act as a "gold sink" of sorts to drive player behavior perhaps. Forcing player acquisition of proper / current resources too?

 

[TruthfulCake]

I think that it shouldn't be hard to code a lot of behaviors that seem to be lacking currently, but nevertheless here we are.

An alternative theory is to act as a "gold sink" of sorts to drive player behavior perhaps. Forcing player acquisition of proper / current resources too?

On the first point, touche.

On the second point, the higher combat strength of newer units should be incentive enough. Gatling guns absolutely wipe the floor with crossbowmen, for example. The reason I wouldn't want crossbowmen to be obsolete, in Civ 5 at least, was so that I could build Chu-ko-nus or Longbowmen and upgrade them to gatling guns for the unique bonus. Without the unique bonuses, I would just make gatling guns if I could afford it.

 

[Buni0ns]

The reason I wouldn't want crossbowmen to be obsolete, in Civ 5 at least...

That's a pretty good reason right there for it.

 

[TruthfulCake]

That's a pretty good reason right there for it.

Is it though? What is bad about being able to use your uniques until late game? It's not exactly exploiting, since every civ in-game will have the ability to do so. If anything it helps civs with units that expire extremely early, like the Aztecs.

 

[RealAntithesis]

My view is that earlier units should still be available when the new unit comes along (for reasons of lower unit cost if this is an issue, special abilities that will be lost, required strategic resources not being available etc), and only become obsolete somewhat later. In World War 1, armies where still using cavalry even when tanks were being fielded (though tanks were obviously in their infancy). It would probably make more sense if the time periods in Civ6 were more spaced apart to allow for some overlap of units from different eras.

Currently, unit obsolesance doesn't really make sense. I researched the tech that gives modern tanks, and suddenly, I could no longer build the earlier tanks. I also couldn't build the new modern tanks, since I didn't have uranium. I couldn't see any uranium either since I hadn't researched that tech at that stage. I had to instead go through a few more tech advances before I could see uranium on the map, connect it to my empire, and then make tanks (the modern variety). It was a pain, and made no sense at all (my civilization suddenly lost the ability to make tanks because they researched how to make modern tanks which required a resource that they didn't know about yet (but really, historically, uranium wasn't required to make modern tanks anyway)...).

 

[TruthfulCake]

My sentiments exactly. And I was thinking of the exact same example about World War 1 too.

In general, obsolescence gimps civilizations with early unique units or without specific strategic resources.

In reality, you don't just forget how to make bows and arrows because you have machine guns.

 

[MRM]

My view is that earlier units should still be available when the new unit comes along (for reasons of lower unit cost if this is an issue, special abilities that will be lost, required strategic resources not being available etc), and only become obsolete somewhat later. In World War 1, armies where still using cavalry even when tanks were being fielded (though tanks were obviously in their infancy). It would probably make more sense if the time periods in Civ6 were more spaced apart to allow for some overlap of units from different eras.

Currently, unit obsolesance doesn't really make sense. I researched the tech that gives modern tanks, and suddenly, I could no longer build the earlier tanks. I also couldn't build the new modern tanks, since I didn't have uranium. I couldn't see any uranium either since I hadn't researched that tech at that stage. I had to instead go through a few more tech advances before I could see uranium on the map, connect it to my empire, and then make tanks (the modern variety). It was a pain, and made no sense at all (my civilization suddenly lost the ability to make tanks because they researched how to make modern tanks which required a resource that they didn't know about yet (but really, historically, uranium wasn't required to make modern tanks anyway)...).

Could not have said this better. Obsolescence may have the intention to encourage players to grab strategic ressources. But as it works now, the effect on me is more that I avoid research certain techs, because getting them means that I ( often ) shoot myself in the foot - that is a silly system

 

[TruthfulCake]

Besides, grabbing the finite strategic resources is encouraged regardless, if only to deprive other civilizations from getting them. It also helps that you gain access to stronger units than what you can build without them.

Obsolescence is the worst kind of incentive for getting strategic resources. Especially right now, when a strategic resource is revealed simultaneously as you unlock the units that require said resource, effectively making your previous units obsolete. It is basically a huge gamble to research the techs that reveal strategic resources. So right now, they are actually discouraging the revealing of strategic resources in the first place, let alone obtaining them.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

There is a big problem with obsolesence tied to a resource revealing tech.

Iron works well with this.
Research Bronze Working.....see if you have Iron...research Iron working when you are Ready for Warriors to be obsolete
( Uranium is also good...horse units don't make any non horse units obsolete)

The really bad ones are Coal and Niter...perhaps Niter could get revealed late Medieval, and Coal late renaissance

Oil isn't too bad, knights are effctively obsolete by that point anyways
Aluminum is bad, but you are only losing biplanes..(might be worth moving it earlier)

Obsolesence in general is good, although they could make it clearer (have an icon with a red slash through the obsoleted unit)...they could also make it clearer a unit needs a resource..a mini icon in the corner.

 

[MRM]

Or introduce alternate units. For example, you research advanced flight but you have no aluminum, now biplanes are outdated, but you can build an aircraft that is a little bit better then the biplane, but not so good as the version with aluminum. This alternate aircraft can not be upgraded to the aluminum aircraft. This way

- you don't loose production when you discover a new tech
- you don't loose your ability to build aircraft's when you have no aluminum, so you have no reason to avoid this tech
- you are still encouraged to search for aluminum ( stats of the alternate aircraft should be closer to the outdated version for this purpose )
- a mass upgrade exploit is not possible
- you have not so many outdated looking unites in later times

 

[TruthfulCake]

What is this mass upgrade exploit, though? Is it something that is inherent to obsolescence? Doesn't making upgrades more expensive solve the exploit without having to resort to obsolescence?

We have many workarounds proposed so far, which can work. Or we can just ditch the idea of obsolescence altogether?

 

[KrikkitTwo]

What is this mass upgrade exploit, though? Is it something that is inherent to obsolescence? Doesn't making upgrades more expensive solve the exploit without having to resort to obsolescence?

We have many workarounds proposed so far, which can work. Or we can just ditch the idea of obsolescence altogether?

You want people to have armies of the most updated units.
-immersion (why builder/trader/settler graphics update)
-you want any choices to be significant (warriors just clutter the info era build list)

This means you want people to upgrade as soon as possible.
You also want building/buying a unit to be better than building a new obsolete one and upgrading it.
Obsolecense stops that while allowing reasonable cost upgrades.

The designers also apparently want the "main" parts of your army to shift (staggered unit types..light v heavy cav, ranged v siege, melee v anticav)

Resource dependencies allow that
No Iron
Spears, Pikes
Horsemen

No Niter
Pikes
Crossbows, Field Cannons

No Coal...this is bad you are left with Privateers

No Oil
Cavalry, Gunships
(Land airbases)

No Aluminum...also bad, but you do have AA

No Uranium
Gunships
Missile Cruisers, Destroers

 

[KrikkitTwo]

What is this mass upgrade exploit, though? Is it something that is inherent to obsolescence? Doesn't making upgrades more expensive solve the exploit without having to resort to obsolescence?

We have many workarounds proposed so far, which can work. Or we can just ditch the idea of obsolescence altogether?

You want people to have armies of the most updated units.
-immersion (why builder/trader/settler graphics update)
-you want any choices to be significant (warriors just clutter the info era build list)

This means you want people to upgrade as soon as possible.
You also want building/buying a unit to be better than building a new obsolete one and upgrading it.
Obsolecense stops that while allowing reasonable cost upgrades.

The designers also apparently want the "main" parts of your army to shift (staggered unit types..light v heavy cav, ranged v siege, melee v anticav)

Resource dependencies allow that
No Iron
Spears, Pikes
Horsemen

No Niter
Pikes
Crossbows, Field Cannons

No Coal...this is bad you are left with Privateers

No Oil
Cavalry, Gunships
(Land airbases)

No Aluminum...also bad, but you do have AA

No Uranium
Gunships
Missile Cruisers, Destroers

 

[joncnunn]

The main point of obsoleting is to avoid the situation where humans would get cheaper than they should.
We have the famous Civ III Warrior -> Swordsman situation where in that game if you didn't have Iron you could still build warriors. So humans would on purpose disconnect their iron, then build cheap warriors with hammers and then reconnect the Iron to upgrade them.

 

[isau]

Now that someone (Lion King) seems to have ID'ed the source of the bug that causes early units to be much cheaper than others I wonder if we will see a shift here. Bug is discussed here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/threads/fixing-production-of-ancient-and-classical-units.604149/