Please fix the AI using obsolete units!

[farting bob]

You can train anybody, from warrior, settler, archer to the mighty spearman to use a gun and thus become a (maybe weak) infantry. So if you use logic, every unti should have an upgrade path to something with a gun at least, and you can take your logic further since you can train anybody to drive, and once they can drive, it is reasonable to presume some will be able to learn to drive tanks. So everything should upgrade to at least a tank unit. So 3 upgrade paths should be used. 1 for air, 1 for sea and 1 for land.

 

[apatheist]

I think, it would enhance gameplay if there exists a continuous upgrade chain because it would be easier for the AI and because it removes some micromanagement for the player.

Ok, forget realism. Does it necessarily improve gameplay? A problem with the various versions of Civ is that the rich get richer. Making every unit upgradable compounds that problem. Let's say I build a massive army of Chariots in the BC era. Being able to upgrade Chariot -> Horseman -> Knight -> Cavalry -> Tank -> Modern Armor means I have a massive army for all time. Yes, I need to pay to upgrade. Yes, I need to pay maintenance. Yes, I'll still need to expand it. That's still pretty easy. A civ that couldn't build a massive army of Chariots in 2000 BC won't have a chance of catching me, all else being equal.

There are two main upgrade dead-ends in the original Civ3: the Swordsman and the Cavalry. The Swordsman is the premier Ancient attacker. The Cavalry is the premier late Medieval/early Industrial attacker. Forcing me to rebuild my army from scratch at the start of the Medieval era and late in the Industrial era means that there's sort of a reset button on military power. It erases advantages of position, but you keep your momentum. If you're truly a strong civ, then you'll still be able to build a more powerful army than the other civs, as they have the same disadvantage. However, if you're coasting on a giant army that you built 2000 years ago, but your civ is otherwise weak, you're going to get eaten up, and rightly so. Preventing the Swordsman and Cavalry upgrade ensures that the most militarily powerful Ancient era and the most powerful late Medieval era civs aren't necessarily the most powerful in successive ages. That's a good thing.

This is actually an enhancement to gameplay. It forces you to make a tough choice. Do you put your production into Archers, which are weak, but upgradable? Or do you put your production into Swordsmen, which are strong, but expire? Some things upgrade, others don't. That variability keeps you on your toes.

 

[rickb]

Honestly I wouldn't even mind if at a certain difficulty level the AI gets to upgrade all their units *for free* as long as I don't have to see their spearmen running around in the year 2000, plus it would make it more challenging and fun as far as I'm concerned.

If Civ 4 is going to be as moddable as they're promising, you really shouldn't have a problem if the vanilla game is slightly less "hard core", more newbie friendly, and/or not exactly what you'd want. Every long time player will have a version completely customized exactly the way they want it. I mean, it's already like that, I bet not a single person in this thread has the same version of the biq file. Everyone has their own little pet peeve and I'm sure there will be plenty of things like that in Civ 4. Airlifting tanks? Ugh, that's like the first thing I change. That's one thing I find that completely intolerable and unacceptably unrealistic (yeah sure a C5 can carry a *single* MBT, but transporting whole divisions is logistically impossible), but I'm sure most people have absolutely no problem with it.

 

[Double Stack]

Just to cut in the discussion, the reason we pay gold for the upgrade is to buy all the new equipment and training require to use them within the army. Even during early modern era, many units were trained in basic swordmanship and hunting with a rifle but had to be trained to use them functioning as a real unit. Just we don't get to see the transition because we are a supernatural leader who oversee the empire rather than the gritty details of those happening.

Imagine whipping people to rush build stuff, we don't get to see the gritty gory forced labor but we get the result of it by having the chosen item built and a certain amount of cizten disappearing from our society (why would they want to leave me...can't imagine that).

Realism is in the game but it should not hinder fun gameplay.

 

[henry k c]

A fix for some problems would be upgrading cavalries to tanks. After all, modern american tank division names contain cavalry. A problem with AI is they keep their cavalry too long.

 

[Roland Johansen]

Ok, forget realism. Does it necessarily improve gameplay? A problem with the various versions of Civ is that the rich get richer. Making every unit upgradable compounds that problem. Let's say I build a massive army of Chariots in the BC era. Being able to upgrade Chariot -> Horseman -> Knight -> Cavalry -> Tank -> Modern Armor means I have a massive army for all time. Yes, I need to pay to upgrade. Yes, I need to pay maintenance. Yes, I'll still need to expand it. That's still pretty easy. A civ that couldn't build a massive army of Chariots in 2000 BC won't have a chance of catching me, all else being equal.

In my games, the modern age armies tend to be stronger not only in unit strength but also in number, so the argument is not perfect. Still, I understand your objections. I can understand why you like some balance in the relative strenght of empires. And upgrading through cash is generally cheaper then upgrading by disbanding for a refund in production and then rebuilding it into a more modern army. I guess, that you also don't like the refund in shields that one gets when one disbands units because that also helps the one with the stronger army.

Still, for me this argument is not valid because I like it when I get a STRONG opponent and I think you're right in your observations that the upgrading method helps the stronger empire. (although the strong getting stronger shouldn't happen to fast, but I like to use other methods that require less micromanagement for that purpose)

Some people in this thread also remarked that we will probably be able to mod civ4 to our satisfaction. I've been able to do this with civ3, so I think that the even better editor in civ4 will also allow that.

 

[Roland Johansen]

I'd even take it a bit further than what I see being advocated here in that I would allow units to upgrade in some cases where what they upgrade to is unbuildable from scratch. One builds the item, then upgrades it. This would be useful in scenarios in time periods where older naval vessels were rebuilt or modernised or another example being some older tanks were later modernised during the course of WW2 and were then used alongside more modern versions. I'm still learning how to mod civ3 and have not tried this yet, but I hope the editor in civ4 would allow something like this.

A very nice idea, sadly impossible in Civ 3. You can only upgrade to stuff that you can build. Lets hope that it is indeed possible in Civ4!

 

[Crayton]

Mod in a Modern Cavalry unit. (10/6/4) Horses/Iron/Saltpeter.
It won't compete with Tanks but it gives you a more viable option for extinguishing your mounted forces.