New Version - August 24th (8/24)

[Finarvi]

I support idea for lower upgrade costs. It's strange that sometimes upgrade cost is higher than cost of new unit... And it always take some time and micro-management to recycle your army and produce/buy new. I'd rather see income lowered (and there were some changes to gold recently so it might be OK even without lowering gold income).

 

[akasha27]

I support idea for lower upgrade costs. It's strange that sometimes upgrade cost is higher than cost of new unit... And it always take some time and micro-management to recycle your army and produce/buy new. I'd rather see income lowered (and there were some changes to gold recently so it might be OK even without lowering gold income).

If that's true, I think the upgrade cost should be a little bit less than buying a new unit

 

[Atlas627]

Try to play with more than 4 cities.

I have an easier time upgrading when I play with more cities, actually.

Upgrading your unit means you keep promotions, which is better than building a new unit. On the other hand, sometimes building a new unit and keeping the old one is better than upgrading. Sometimes you want to save your money and use it for other things. Sometimes you need to upgrade the right units first to hold out long enough to afford the rest.

These are all decision points. Having difficulty upgrading your whole army is a good thing, because it creates opportunity cost.

 

[zeta]

I support lower upgrade costs.

 

[Funak]

I have an easier time upgrading when I play with more cities, actually.

Upgrading your unit means you keep promotions, which is better than building a new unit. On the other hand, sometimes building a new unit and keeping the old one is better than upgrading. Sometimes you want to save your money and use it for other things. Sometimes you need to upgrade the right units first to hold out long enough to afford the rest.

These are all decision points. Having difficulty upgrading your whole army is a good thing, because it creates opportunity cost.

This was pretty much my point. However I'm not opposed to changing some unbalanced upgrade-costs, as was also mentioned in the thread, I'm more opposed to lowering them all across the board.

 

[AuroraKet]

Never mind on that other thing. (though going into trade, offering them a city without asking for anytthing, and having it called a bad deal is funny.)

More importantly, I'll clear my cache, but I'm on here and Vicevirtuoso's new civs thread, due to a CTD I'm now getting. The question about LeaderHeadRoot was related to that.

 

[Edaka]

My humble opinion on upgrade costs: if there's a choice between upgrading your existing army or disbanding it or producing/buying a new one, you will have to spend a lot of money in order not to stay behind either way. I personally feel like being forced to open industry when waging a somewhat considerable army almost every time. Perhaps that makes actual sense, but it also limits gameplay to some extent, like Strigvir pointed out.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not against spending money, but, if anything, I think upgrading an army shouldn't be less affordable than making a new one. After all, that also kind of makes sense

I also think that not all of the unit upgrade costs are too high, just some of them are - the 'swings' as G called them. It seems counter-intuitive when a subsequent, more modern upgrade of the same unit can cost less than the previous, old one. Perhaps it would be possible to even the swings out a little?

 

[Growth]

GAME ON!
G

Just finished my other game, so I am in sync with the releases, about to start a new one with the updated version, thanks for the update.

I support idea for lower upgrade costs. It's strange that sometimes upgrade cost is higher than cost of new unit...

Cost of upgrading a cruiser to a battleship: 6950 (With barely that much promotions).

Spoiler :

Cost of a brand new battleship: 4380. (Thats a 2570 difference, more than half way there to buy a second one)

Spoiler :

Cost of having someone look into this: Priceless I don't have any opinion on the matter really, I just want to know if this is as intended.

I'll complain about the rest in the bug thread.

Have fun everyone.

 

[Strigvir]

I like the upgrade cost. It makes necessary a multifaceted development of your infrastructure.

Multifaceted development of your infrastructure = picking Industry?

Honestly, the whole point of the high upgrade cost is that your unit keeps a good amount of promotions without having to fight again over it.

The point of upgrading units is to upgrade units. Having to catch up in techs while having an army is quite a task in itself already.

I support idea for lower upgrade costs. It's strange that sometimes upgrade cost is higher than cost of new unit...

Take note that the upgrade cost scales off the production cost and isn't affected by Industry investment. So having 40% purchase discount surely can lead to these differences.

These are all decision points. Having difficulty upgrading your whole army is a good thing, because it creates opportunity cost.

Decision points = picking Industry?

 

[Atlas627]

Just finished my other game, so I am in sync with the releases, about to start a new one with the updated version, thanks for the update.



Cost of upgrading a cruiser to a battleship: 6950 (With barely that much promotions).

Spoiler :

Cost of a brand new battleship: 4380. (Thats a 2570 difference, more than half way there to buy a second one)

Spoiler :

Cost of having someone look into this: Priceless I don't have any opinion on the matter really, I just want to know if this is as intended.

I'll complain about the rest in the bug thread.

Have fun everyone.

What game speed are you playing on? Your turn count is over 1000!

While its true that the upgrade there is costing almost 1.5x the cost of building a new unit, the cost itself doesn't seem "too" high to me.

Multifaceted development of your infrastructure = picking Industry?

The point of upgrading units is to upgrade units. Having to catch up in techs while having an army is quite a task in itself already.

Take note that the upgrade cost scales off the production cost and isn't affected by Industry investment. So having 40% purchase discount surely can lead to these differences.

Decision points = picking Industry?

I do not always pick Industry and can do just fine. I quite like Imperialism for going on the offensive, Rationalism for staying pacifist, and Industry to be flexible. I really, really don't see a need to pick Industry every game.

 

[Growth]

What game speed are you playing on? Your turn count is over 1000!

Hi, I am 18 games out of 20, playing on Marathon speed. This is Marathon speed. 8 Civs, 16 CS, standard map size and resources, everything else pretty much random.

 

[Finarvi]

Another thing most of leaders have some UU that have unique abilities and you want to keep them. Recycling them wastes their potential. Lowering gold upgrade costs would help with this as well.

 

[nomad_delta]

Presumably lowering the cost of upgrading units would make doing so easier for the AI as well?

 

[Strigvir]

I didn't know about AI getting discounts, because I presumed CBP would get rid of them.
So the high upgrade cost is player-only.

 

[DrNooooo]

Upgrade costs should be higher than creating a new unit because existing units have promotions and experience that you want to keep. If you want your brand new units to be equal to the units you've been using the whole game, you have to invest significantly in EXP buildings, and even then they'll often be behind.

The game also desperately needs gold sinks, for domination to be a difficult and multifaceted rather than easy victory type, for late game policy trees to be competitive with Rationalism, and for World Congress votes that affect GPT and maintenance costs (such as Peace Accords and Sanctions) to have an impact. Making unit upgrade costs high accomplishes every single one of these goals.

 

[Stalker0]

In general I don't have any issues with the upgrade costs right now. In general I only upgrade unique units or units who have gained more promotions than I can from base units (aka 2 promotion during barracks era, 3 during armory, 4 during m. academy).

That works for me, its a drain on my gold, but one that is worth it here and there.

 

[Funak]

In general I don't have any issues with the upgrade costs right now. In general I only upgrade unique units or units who have gained more promotions than I can from base units (aka 2 promotion during barracks era, 3 during armory, 4 during m. academy).

That works for me, its a drain on my gold, but one that is worth it here and there.

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'.

 

[Strigvir]

Upgrade costs should be higher than creating a new unit because existing units have promotions and experience that you want to keep.

What does this have to do with anything exactly? Units get experience and the point of most UUs is promotions going over through upgrades.
It's like saying Stock Exchange have to reduce gpt because the previous buildings increase it.

If you want your brand new units to be equal to the units you've been using the whole game, you have to invest significantly in EXP buildings, and even then they'll often be behind.

Invest significantly = build them in one city with heroic epic?

The game also desperately needs gold sinks

There are already gold sinks. Also "sinks" implies optional use, unlike upgrades.

for domination to be a difficult and multifaceted rather than easy victory type

It is already by far the hardest victory type to achieve.

for late game policy trees to be competitive with Rationalism, and for World Congress votes that affect GPT and maintenance costs (such as Peace Accords and Sanctions) to have an impact. Making unit upgrade costs high accomplishes every single one of these goals.

What does this have to do with upgrades?

In general I don't have any issues with the upgrade costs right now. In general I only upgrade unique units or units who have gained more promotions than I can from base units (aka 2 promotion during barracks era, 3 during armory, 4 during m. academy).

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

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'.

Except you'll need to build new units anyway, regardless of the amount of your experienced units.

 

[Atlas627]

Strigvir, I feel like you're playing an entirely different game from me and everyone you debate with. I don't think we've shared a single experience so far. I'm using default game settings, Emperor difficulty. What game settings do you use?

 

[Apostremo]

Upgrade costs should be higher than creating a new unit because existing units have promotions and experience that you want to keep. If you want your brand new units to be equal to the units you've been using the whole game, you have to invest significantly in EXP buildings, and even then they'll often be behind.

The game also desperately needs gold sinks, for domination to be a difficult and multifaceted rather than easy victory type, for late game policy trees to be competitive with Rationalism, and for World Congress votes that affect GPT and maintenance costs (such as Peace Accords and Sanctions) to have an impact. Making unit upgrade costs high accomplishes every single one of these goals.

Windows 10 Upgread should be more expansive than a Windows 10 Full Version, because existent system will have software and configurations that users will want to keep. If you want your fresh installed Windows to be equal to your old system, you have to invest significantly in time to install software and configure them, and even then often the system will be behind.

Logic approved Good thing we never invested in these old units and they fell from the sky. You should teach economics!