New Version - August 24th (8/24)

[void_genesis]

I would support the broad philosophy that upgrading units shouldn't be an automatic action in every game. While I wince at the cost for some upgrades (and agree some seem much bigger than others) I think it makes for better gameplay when you have to pause and think if something is worth doing or if another approach will have a better pay off.

On that note would it be worth considering diversifying the possible military strategies in the late game through the ideologies? To throw around some ideas- order could field bigger armies of cheaper units, autocracy could maximise attack strength or rate of experience gain for more bang for your buck, and maybe freedom could be more defensive (higher unit strength, with same attack strength).

If this could be coupled with tweaking the ideology tourism/conversion system so you usually ended up with a major division between two dominant ideologies leading to a major late game conflict (world war) it would make the build up and end game really fun. The current balance where the initial tourism leader converts everyone is a bit dull. Would it be enough to make AI that are neutral or hostile to the player pick the second most dominant ideology be enough? That way a culture victory needs not only tourism output, but careful diplomacy to avoid irritating too many AI into becoming enemies in the late game.

 

[akasha27]

It also gives you a possibility to keep an up to date army without building baracks/armories/military academies/'anything else that is required for purchasing units'.

are you able to manage crime without building those buildings at some point?

 

[Funak]

are you able to manage crime without building those buildings at some point?

Absolutely. In fact I'm saving a fortune on building maintenance as well.

Honestly I would build armories and barracks if I could, but most of the time I have other things I prioritize higher. I mean I'm usually so behind on my production that I end up delaying national college to late renaissance era (which I know is completely stupid, as NWs are better than most buildings, but they also take a lot of hammers)

 

[Finarvi]

I want to bring up one topic. I don't like ability to recall trade routes. Player can exploit it to complete CS quest or make franchise. Or even to make better trade instead of existing. I don't know if AI can think this way. It get's tedious to recall TRs and send them again to get full rewards.

Maybe we should remove this option from game but reduce number of turns that trade route exists? Or at least give Caravans and Cargo Ships new ability: Make Course which would make one course to city and go back? It would be very useful for completing quests and making franchises.

 

[Funak]

I want to bring up one topic. I don't like ability to recall trade routes. Player can exploit it to complete CS quest or make franchise. Or even to make better trade instead of existing. I don't know if AI can think this way. It get's tedious to recall TRs and send them again to get full rewards.

I've never actually used that ability, and I've used the enhanced trade thingie for a year. Always seemed kinda exploity to me.

Maybe we should remove this option from game but reduce number of turns that trade route exists? Or at least give Caravans and Cargo Ships new ability: Make Course which would make one course to city and go back? It would be very useful for completing quests and making franchises.

Not a fan of this either to be honest.

In my opinion, and I don't even know if this is possible, I would love it if the later the game goes the shorter time you'd need to be committed to one traderoute. It feels kinda weird that you're committed to a 40 turn traderoute even in the information era, where deals and trades happens instantly and can change whenever.

 

[Strigvir]

Strigvir, I feel like you're playing an entirely different game from me and everyone you debate with.

But there are people who agreed with me, so not "everyone", I am just more vocal about it. Also "you and everyone I debate with" resort to demagogy like "but units get experience! but you can delete units and rebuild them! but WC resolutions!" which don't have anything to do with unit upgrade costs.

I don't think we've shared a single experience so far. I'm using default game settings, Emperor difficulty.

You should've mentioned that from the start, instead of blaming me on playing the wrong game.

 

[Gazebo]

I want to bring up one topic. I don't like ability to recall trade routes. Player can exploit it to complete CS quest or make franchise. Or even to make better trade instead of existing. I don't know if AI can think this way. It get's tedious to recall TRs and send them again to get full rewards.

Maybe we should remove this option from game but reduce number of turns that trade route exists? Or at least give Caravans and Cargo Ships new ability: Make Course which would make one course to city and go back? It would be very useful for completing quests and making franchises.

Trade Routes already shorten their duration over time (I added that in a few months back).

G

 

[Finarvi]

That's good. But it doesn't solve problem completely.

I may try to avoid exploiting but I don't like when I can do it.

 

[Atlas627]

But there are people who agreed with me, so not "everyone", I am just more vocal about it. Also "you and everyone I debate with" resort to demagogy like "but units get experience! but you can delete units and rebuild them! but WC resolutions!" which don't have anything to do with unit upgrade costs.

You should've mentioned that from the start, instead of blaming me on playing the wrong game.

You seem to be assuming things I haven't said. I said everyone you debate with, not everyone period. And everything has to do with unit upgrade costs, nothing in this game is in a vacuum. And I didn't say you were playing the "wrong" game, I said you might be playing a "different" game.

Could you be a little less aggressive? Its difficult to take you seriously or be concerned with your grievances when you're abrasive about it.

 

[Stalker0]

You've literally just said upgrade costs are too high for upgrading all units.

I did...but also implied that was a good thing. I don't think upgrading should be the default for all units...just "special" ones

 

[Wario Mario]

I really disagree with the idea that upgrading a unit should cost MORE than buying/building a new one. Why pay 6000 gold to upgrade your old unit when you can buy a new one for 4000 and have BOTH your old unit AND a new one? I can understand the idea that upgrading shouldn't always be the right choice, but when upgrading costs more than just buying new units, upgrading is NEVER the right choice, which is just as bad, if not worse.

You can make the argument that an upgraded unit may be leveled up and better than the new unit on a one-to one basis and should cost more. The problem is, buying a new unit still leaves you with your old one, meaning you have both the new unit and the old unit. The only way upgrading would make sense is if the upgraded unit is better than both itself without the upgrade and a new unit of the same type, which really isn't going to happen.

 

[Funak]

I really disagree with the idea that upgrading a unit should cost MORE than buying/building a new one. Why pay 6000 gold to upgrade your old unit when you can buy a new one for 4000 and have BOTH your old unit AND a new one? I can understand the idea that upgrading shouldn't always be the right choice, but when upgrading costs more than just buying new units, upgrading is NEVER the right choice, which is just as bad, if not worse.

You can make the argument that an upgraded unit may be leveled up and better than the new unit on a one-to one basis and should cost more. The problem is, buying a new unit still leaves you with your old one, meaning you have both the new unit and the old unit. The only way upgrading would make sense is if the upgraded unit is better than both itself without the upgrade and a new unit of the same type, which really isn't going to happen.

Saving all old units isn't really an option, they get close to useless when they are a few eras behind and upkeep is going to eat you alive

Upgrading units allows you to keep unique promotions from your unique unit. It also allows you to keep promotions on your units which is pretty nice if you end up in war a lot, the 4th and 5th promotions are killer for most units.
However I'm not completely unsympathetic to this debate or anything like that, perhaps there should be a promotion discount policy in Honor or something like that?

 

[Finarvi]

I really disagree with the idea that upgrading a unit should cost MORE than buying/building a new one. Why pay 6000 gold to upgrade your old unit when you can buy a new one for 4000 and have BOTH your old unit AND a new one? I can understand the idea that upgrading shouldn't always be the right choice, but when upgrading costs more than just buying new units, upgrading is NEVER the right choice, which is just as bad, if not worse.

You can make the argument that an upgraded unit may be leveled up and better than the new unit on a one-to one basis and should cost more. The problem is, buying a new unit still leaves you with your old one, meaning you have both the new unit and the old unit. The only way upgrading would make sense is if the upgraded unit is better than both itself without the upgrade and a new unit of the same type, which really isn't going to happen.

Good arguments! That's why it's concerning me.

 

[Wario Mario]

Saving all old units isn't really an option, they get close to useless when they are a few eras behind and upkeep is going to eat you alive

That's true if your warriors are still around when you're buying mechanized infantry.
But if buying a new rifleman costs less than upgrading your old musketman to rifleman, you'd be better off buying a new rifleman and using your old musketman on weaker units or to soften up cities, etc. Eventually your old units would die off or be disbanded, but you net better total utility out of the money than if you'd upgraded.

Upgrading units allows you to keep unique promotions from your unique unit. It also allows you to keep promotions on your units which is pretty nice if you end up in war a lot, the 4th and 5th promotions are killer for most units.
However I'm not completely unsympathetic to this debate or anything like that, perhaps there should be a promotion discount policy in Honor or something like that?

Except the price to upgrade a level 1 generic is no different than the cost to upgrade a level 8 unique. I'm pretty sure the upgrade cost formula only takes hammer cost and science cost of the tech into account. If expensive upgrade costs only showed up on high level or unique units, then it might make sense. But you can be in a situation where upgrading your level 1 units actually costs more than buying new level 3 units!

 

[Stalker0]

The only way upgrading would make sense is if the upgraded unit is better than both itself without the upgrade and a new unit of the same type, which really isn't going to happen.

Because of 1 UPT this is not always true. While having a big army is good...there are many cases where my front line only gets certain units, and the stronger the units the better.

That said, you make some good points here.

 

[Funak]

That's true if your warriors are still around when you're buying mechanized infantry.
But if buying a new rifleman costs less than upgrading your old musketman to rifleman, you'd be better off buying a new rifleman and using your old musketman on weaker units or to soften up cities, etc. Eventually your old units would die off or be disbanded, but you net better total utility out of the money than if you'd upgraded.

Sure you can use your musketmen as cannonfodder, but they won't really be able to stand up to anything after riflemen. I'm not saying this isn't a viable strategy but at some point those muskets are going to have to either be upgraded or disbanded(unless they died first). Also I'd like to point out again the unit maintenance is a killer if you keep a ton of outdated units around

But you can be in a situation where upgrading your level 1 units actually costs more than buying new level 3 units!

And that's the prefect situation to disband your units and buy new ones. The exact logic can really be applied to anything, if your employee of several years isn't performing good enough to motivate his increased salary you can just get rid of him and hire a new straight out of school guy for cheap.

 

[Elhoim]

I do agree that some cost values are strange. For example, I have an army of corvettes and frigates. I upgraded them to ironclads and cruisers. Upgraded to ironclad was around 1600 gold, upgrading to cruiser was around 400, when in my opinion they should have had a similar value, since it was upgrading same era units to exactly the next era.

 

[Funak]

I do agree that some cost values are strange. For example, I have an army of corvettes and frigates. I upgraded them to ironclads and cruisers. Upgraded to ironclad was around 1600 gold, upgrading to cruiser was around 400, when in my opinion they should have had a similar value, since it was upgrading same era units to exactly the next era.

That's something I completely agree with, and honestly frigate to cruiser sounds way too cheap, that's around the same cost as upgrading a horseman to a knight.

 

[Gazebo]

I'm going to lock upgrade costs (at max) to purchase costs. So a unit will never cost more to upgrade than it does to buy new.

G

 

[Funak]

I'm going to lock upgrade costs (at max) to purchase costs. So a unit will never cost more to upgrade than it does to buy new.

G

Would that be the base purchase cost or the one counting number of cities?