Mandatory unit retirement or upgrade

[CaptainPatch]

I find it peculiar to have Ancient Scouts and Archers still active when you've advanced your game well into the Information Era. One would think that governments would disband units that have been hopelessly outclassed by the current tech. But I find that I can't bring myself to do that because A) I don't want to spend the gold to upgrade, and B) oddly enough, some units are just too damn useful in their Ancient form to give up those unit abilities. In particular, Archers and Chariots -- later, Crossbowmen -- have the indirect fire ability to shoot at thing two hexes away, and thereby not expose them to damage from adjacent enemy units. (Which WILL be the case if you upgrade to gunpowder weapons.)

How much would it screw up game balance if players were required to upgrade or disband units that were two eras behind the current era?

 

[Tarvok]

It would screw it pretty bad, given that such units exist even in the real world. For example:

Swiss Guard (halberdiers)
The Queen's Guard (riflemen?)

Those are the only two I can think of, but there's bound to be more.

Another historical fact is that unless the government is determined to keep their military upgraded (which is expensive and often unnecessary), military issue hardware is often a generation, at least, behind what is available on the open market. Often it's that same creaky old weapon they've been carefully maintaining since the last time they fought a real war, for lack of budget to buy new weapons.

Here's an idea. What if upgrading a unit had the effect of resetting it's experience to the level the local facilities (barracks, etc.) could provide? On the one hand, an inexperienced unit might get a bonus out of this. But heavily decorated elites could actually end up becoming worse, in the short run, as a result of weapons upgrades. You'd have to choose, in some cases between less experienced technologically advanced units, and highly developed elites of an earlier era.

 

[civ54lyfe]

irl, there are "Honor Guards" in militaries all over world that are outfitted in bygone era weapons. these are just honor units for pageantry type events but in theory they could go to war with these silly old weapons

so it's not unrealistic at all to keep them through the ages in a game. the people in these units might die of old age, and they simply put new soldiers in them.

 

[CaptainPatch]

The Swiss Guards now is nothing more than a Security detail; NOT a combat unit. Just bodyguards with a colorful history.

As I understand it, ALL Guard units may parade in bygone era outfits, just for the pageantry of it all. However, they also train in modern, state-of-the-art weaponry as well. When they get dispatched to a combat zone, the pageantry outfits get stowed and the modern weapons come out. About the closest thing to an exception I can think of are the Highlander Guard units' bagpipers. (Even they also have modern weapons close to hand.)

 

[Syailendra]

what actually doesn't makes sense is that you need to upgrade your troops a tier a a time.
Why do my swordsmen needs to wield longswords to be a musketmen? We should be able to skip it.

 

[CaptainPatch]

what actually doesn't makes sense is that you need to upgrade your troops a tier a a time.
Why do my swordsmen needs to wield longswords to be a musketmen? We should be able to skip it.

Heartily agree! I can see rolling the upgrade costs into one bundle -- probably prompting players to disband the unit rather than pay that hefty price. Upgrading an obsolete unit to yet another obsolete unit makes no sense.

 

[uncle bulgaria]

The only time I ever have this issue is with crossbowmen and gattling guns. I will often keep a few crossbowmen long after industrialisation as the range attack is still useful

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The archers/chariot solution is easy

Chariot Archers upgrade to Crossbows
Keshiks/Camel Archers upgrade to Gatling Guns

And weaken ranged attacks in general

 

[Shimmler]

These gentlemen would disagree with you:
http://henry.simon.net.nz/stories/2008/03/19/modern-day-bow-and-arrow-warfare-kenya/

And I don't even start posting NSFW images of other warmongering African tribesmen...

 

[Quineloe]

What exactly makes the scout obsolete anyways? I don't know a single unit that ignores terrain moving cost that doesn't require a resource. I like using 30 exp scouts with +2 vision to keep an eye outside my border. Means I can spot an approaching army 5 turns sooner. FIVE turns.

 

[fwootamala]

The U.S. will still Flys B52s, essentially built with WWII technology, a century after they were built, even though an 'upgrade' is available (B1), and an upgrade to that upgrade is available (B2). A flawed example, I know, but still...

 

[Dralix]

what actually doesn't makes sense is that you need to upgrade your troops a tier a a time.
Why do my swordsmen needs to wield longswords to be a musketmen? We should be able to skip it.

If you want to save all your money for a rainy day, then the price you pay is having to spend multiple turns to fully upgrade them when you need to fight.

As to the suggestion in the thread title, I tried replying earlier, but couldn't find the right words. So I'll just say ... No

 

[CaptainPatch]

The U.S. will still Flys B52s, essentially built with WWII technology, a century after they were built, even though an 'upgrade' is available (B1), and an upgrade to that upgrade is available (B2). A flawed example, I know, but still...

The B-52s are an isolated example. After a certain level of tech, advances are incrementally smaller as to their effects. Performance-wise, just how much of a difference is a B-52 compared to a B-1? They're both long-range bombers, but the B-1 has some defensive tweaks. Compare that to the performance difference between a, say Musketman and a Rifled Musketman. Given the opportunity, what nation would choose to put its National Defense in the hands of Musketmen when Rifled Muskets are available -- not only to themselves, but to their enemies as well?

 

[johnny_rudeboy]

I would like to be able to upgrade my units xp who are either build before I got barracks, armory, BBG etc or perhaps gifted to me by a CS or the 6 free ones you get from the Freedom ideology. You should perhaps have to move them in to your city, have them there for one turn and pay half or a third of their cost in gold or pay with hammers for half or a third of the time it would take to build them.

That way you can actually start building your army in other cities while you are constructing the BBG and speed up things a little.

 

[CaptainPatch]

I would like to be able to upgrade my units xp who are either build before I got barracks, armory, BBG etc or perhaps gifted to me by a CS or the 6 free ones you get from the Freedom ideology. You should perhaps have to move them in to your city, have them there for one turn and pay half or a third of their cost in gold or pay with hammers for half or a third of the time it would take to build them.

That way you can actually start building your army in other cities while you are constructing the BBG and speed up things a little.

Hmm. This has the seeds of something significant and appropriate. Like with the Kilimanjaro Natural Wonder, simply moving adjacent to it is enough to give a unit a training perk. Why wouldn't a unit existing for hundreds of years be able to go to any Barracks, etc. to pick up the perk that structure offers? (Not available multiple times from the same structure at other locations. One bump per type of structure.)

 

[bonafide11]

This is just an instance where you have to look past real world comparisons to see it as simply as a gameplay mechanism. Requiring players to upgrade their units or disbanding them would be a major inconvenience and would just add a headache to the game without adding any fun to it.

 

[Yzman]

This would destroy game balance. In a game where a university takes 100s of years to make, you can't get too caught up in the details of time references.

I always think of warriors in modern time as not actual warriors, but as severely antiquated weaponry.

If people had to disband old units you would never have any units. You certainly wouldn't have heavily promoted units. Units are far too expensive, take too long to build and take far too much work to upgrade for this to not destroy pacing of the game.

 

[DarthSheldonPhD]

what actually doesn't makes sense is that you need to upgrade your troops a tier a a time.
Why do my swordsmen needs to wield longswords to be a musketmen? We should be able to skip it.

Exceptional point. I've often wondered this myself.

regarding the OP, I think it's just one of those areas where attempting to recreate history in the form of a game necessitates a few blooper moments. Kind of like, "Why does that nation continue to follow the leadership of that 6000 year-old senile man?"

Also, The only time I can think of this being a notable event in history is the mandatory retirement of the samurai at the advent of gunpowder, but I'll admit I'm basing that more off of a movie than of actual knowledge of Japanese history...

 

[CaptainPatch]

"Why does that nation continue to follow the leadership of that 6000 year-old senile man?"

I've disliked that aspect of the game ever since Civ I. I've always felt it would have been better to have dynasties rather than single immortal rulers.

 

[Yzman]

But yes, one of the biggest things that has annoyed me in this game, or lack of, is upgrading units the whole way. Its silly to make me have to upgrade from one to the other, especially when there is a resource requirement. I want to upgrade my pikes directly to modern era stuff, I don't want to need horse to get to lancers just to upgrade out of it the next turn. It should upgrade to whatever is the most current tech, or at least give you the option. Costs can keep the same I just hate having to do it over 3 or 4 turns.