Reduce Evolving gold cost
- Thread starter Danicela
- Start date
JustAnotherUser
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 111
The advantage given are not weak at all.
First, you keep a good share of your experience,
Second, you keep all your promotions, with same combo that are almost like a cheat (like upgrade a city raider III maceman to rifleman, that normally should not have this promotion (I think those are the units, but I'm not sure)
You don't have to waste time building and moving the more technological advanced unit to replace the old ones, i.e Imagine you just conquered a enemy city on another continent with almost some old units and you discover i.e. rifling. With things as are now you have two choices
a) you could build some green riflemen in the cities in your home continent and send'em by sea to the freshly conquered city wasting precious turns that the enemy could use to re-organize.
Or b) pay some money and have a full experienced, combat ready rifleman in the middle of the action in a single turn.
If that was even cheap then it would not be a choice at all, it would be not ther right thing but the only thing to do to upgrade all you old units at the moment the new technology/resources was availlable.
Or another example, the AI send ship loaded with troops near some cities were you have only some obsolete units, lets say axemen against cannons, do you reallly thinks is a weak advantage being able to convert these axemen in riflemen only spending money? If you ask me, it is probably even too powerful.
First, you keep a good share of your experience,
Second, you keep all your promotions, with same combo that are almost like a cheat (like upgrade a city raider III maceman to rifleman, that normally should not have this promotion (I think those are the units, but I'm not sure)
You don't have to waste time building and moving the more technological advanced unit to replace the old ones, i.e Imagine you just conquered a enemy city on another continent with almost some old units and you discover i.e. rifling. With things as are now you have two choices
a) you could build some green riflemen in the cities in your home continent and send'em by sea to the freshly conquered city wasting precious turns that the enemy could use to re-organize.
Or b) pay some money and have a full experienced, combat ready rifleman in the middle of the action in a single turn.
If that was even cheap then it would not be a choice at all, it would be not ther right thing but the only thing to do to upgrade all you old units at the moment the new technology/resources was availlable.
Or another example, the AI send ship loaded with troops near some cities were you have only some obsolete units, lets say axemen against cannons, do you reallly thinks is a weak advantage being able to convert these axemen in riflemen only spending money? If you ask me, it is probably even too powerful.
Indeed. The upgrade from one unit to the next is pretty useful. If they made it any cheaper than it is now everyone would do it all the time. However, the intention of the upgrading ability was to be something you had to make a choice over based on the situation. The cost has to be high enough that in some cases you would upgrade and in others you would not, based on what your objectives and priorities are. Again, if they were any cheaper, everyone would do it, and that's bad. The advantages given are too strong to make them cheap enough that everyone upgrades. The fact that you do not want to upgrade due to the high price shows that the game is working correctly.
Please explain your reasoning. You might be on to something, but any argument needs sound reasoning to back it up. Again, the cost is supposed to be high enough that upgrading isn't worth it in many cases. In other words, if the cost is higher than the advantages in certain situations, that's a GOOD thing. The key is that in other situations, it is worth it. Basically, as long as the cost is high enough that upgrades won't happen often, but low enough that they happen sometimes, then it's balanced. However, if you have evidence that upgrading never happens, then maybe there's a problem.Danicela said:
You obtain only poor advantages for a too big amount of gold :
For exemple, you want to upgrade a warrior to swordman.
=> It costs 85 or 115 I think.
Will you spend all your money (you don't have more at stone age, you have ~100 only if you found tribe villages that gives you money..) to put someone who has 2 up to 6 power for ALL your gold?
It's too expensive for what you get.
For exemple, you want to upgrade a warrior to swordman.
=> It costs 85 or 115 I think.
Will you spend all your money (you don't have more at stone age, you have ~100 only if you found tribe villages that gives you money..) to put someone who has 2 up to 6 power for ALL your gold?
It's too expensive for what you get.
JustAnotherUser
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 111
If you have swordmen you are not at stone age.
JustAnotherUser
Warlord
- Joined
- Mar 10, 2006
- Messages
- 111
if you want money to upgrade, raise your taxes and you'll get all the money you need.
Yes, this will lower your science but it is meant to, you can't be strong economically, militarly AND scientificaly, not without a lot of work, there must be a deficit somewhere, with cheaper upgrades one could have a strong science, a strong military and a lot of money without need to work for it.
Yes, this will lower your science but it is meant to, you can't be strong economically, militarly AND scientificaly, not without a lot of work, there must be a deficit somewhere, with cheaper upgrades one could have a strong science, a strong military and a lot of money without need to work for it.
Duh. Danicela, it is supposed to be too expensive in some cases. In others it isn't. It's all about comparative costs. Don't think of it in terms of the fixed gold rate. Instead, think of it in terms of comparative advantage. Is the extra science or the stronger military more valuable? If your victory hinges on scientific development, then you won't upgrade. However, if your victory hinges on upgrading your military (or at least some of your military) and science isn't as important at the moment, you will upgrade. The idea is to make it expensive enough that you will not upgrade in many situations, but in some cases where the comparative advantage is such that upgrading is more valuable than the gold lost, you will upgrade. The advantages will never be the same from one situation to another, even when the gold price is the same and the strength bonus is the same, one person may decide to upgrade and another not based on their path to victory and the other outside circumstances.
It's so expensive that it is always too expensive.
You should be able to do both, upgrades give poor advantages, and needing to pay so much attention at this and so much science rate reducing and so much spending for these raggish things is an aberration.
Maybe the advantages that upgrades can give can vary from a situation to another, but in absolute, upgrades give too weak advantages to justify a so huge cost.
Mewtarthio
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,930
You keep mentioning that upgrades give a poor advantage, but I find the difference between a Warrior and an Axeman, or Infantry and Mechanized Infantry, to be pretty significant. If it was proven that nobody ever, under any circumstances, upgraded, then the feature could be considered unbalanced.
Upgrading a strength 1 warrior to a strength 5 swordsman is nothing to sneeze at. Neither is upgrading a tank to a modern armor (28 ==> 40) and Infantry to Mech Inf (20 ==> 32). That doesn't sound like a poor advantage to me. Every upgrade has a signifigant strength assocciation with it.
This is too expensive despite the differences..
And they aren't a so big difference..
Will you spend all your gold to upgrade only 1 unit for giving "some" advantages?
You shouldn't have very good reasons to upgrade, upgrading should be something more free, because it's not a major thing to do.
Not when you lose all your gold for only 1 unit, this become too expensive, gold is hard to earn in comparison to the huge cost of one upgrade.
---
Edit : Please answer here instead of this outdated topic :
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=170260
Mewtarthio
Emperor
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2004
- Messages
- 1,930
Danicela said:
In the Warrior > Axeman scenario, you get a 150% boost in base strength and an additional 50% bonus against the ubiquitous Melee class of units (that's 50% of the new base strength: The bonus is bigger than the original base strength) at the cost of a small City Defense bonus that's obsolete with Archers anyway and X gold (note that Axemen cost 130% more than Warriors). To balance this equation, X has to be pretty large.
As I pointed out above, upgrading is pretty major. In the late game, it's not so much (Infantry > Mech Infantry is only 60% Strength boost and AA capabilities; note that Mech Infantry costs only 43% more than Infantry), but you have more gold on hand by that point
You shouldn't be losing all your gold just to upgrade one unit: If that's so, you probably need to have a better money-making strategy. Now, in the early game, upgrading a Warrior to an Axeman is a nasty blow to your reserves, but as I noted above, it's a pretty big improvement.
A topic is only "outdated" when people stop replying to it. This topic continually remains near the top of the page, while that topic hasn't been posted on in over a week. Besides, this is the "Ideas & Suggestions" forum, specifically designed for discussing the merit of game details and how to change them (alright, technically it was designed as a wishlist for cIV, but it was specifically not closed for the above reason). The GD forum can serve that purpose, too, but it's more for tips, complaints, comments, and general, well, discussion.
I don't understand you Danicela.
First you want a gunpowder resource introduced into Civ 4 to add an extra "challenge" element to the game (in your thread back in March), now you're complaining that expensive upgrading is too difficult.
It's a high-cost/high-reward decision. Is that challenging enough?
First you want a gunpowder resource introduced into Civ 4 to add an extra "challenge" element to the game (in your thread back in March), now you're complaining that expensive upgrading is too difficult.
It's a high-cost/high-reward decision. Is that challenging enough?
alpha wolf 64
Byte me
I kinda see both sides to this arguement. Mid to late game, we should have plenty of gold so that a 110 for an upgrade doesnt bankrupt us. Both in the early game, I know I'm lucky to have even 80-90 gold so at best I can usually only upgrade a single unit. But if I want to upgrade more, I simply turn off science for a few turns until I get the desired amount of gold. On the flip side, I tend to build tons of crossbows and longbows. Upgrading them to rifles is 170/200 as I recall, or maybe that was to muskets. In either case, by then I have much more gold and can usually upgraded all units. But I think that costs should be based on the eras of the 2 units. So upgrading within the same era would be a straight difference between the cost of the 2 units. But going up an era might be double, 2 eras quadrupled, 3 eras octupled(?). Going from longbow to mech inf should be substantially more than 500ish.
Edit : Please answer here instead of this outdated topic :
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=170260
---
It doesn't explain the huge gold cost.
It's too big despite your explainations.
You underestimates the big amount of gold needed.
When you have only 1 unit slightly upgraded and that you lose all your gold, this is not "pretty major", but too expensive.
The gold I get is superior to the medium, I earn good in comparaison with other civilizations/cities/places, and although i'm in a good position, the gold needed is enormeous for what you get.
Upgrading 1 unit (and getting "some" power) is not a so big advantage when you have ~7 units.
It depends.
Here, as I created another topic of that and after this one, with a poll, and in a better forum, this newer topic makes this one outdated.
I said outdated in the sense of that this topic is obsolete in comparison with the other.
?
The other forum is better because there are more people on the other forum than this one.
This topic, as you say, is for remarking that something is unbalanced.
I've made the other topic with a poll and in another better forum and it's newer, so please, answer to the other topic because this one is obsolete.
The first thing has nothing to do with the other.
Gunpowder was because it's better because it was in Civ3 and for other reasons (see the topic)
Upgrading is unbalanced because you get only poor things for the huge gold you pay.
No, you don't have more 300 or 400, you can't upgrade much with it.
And this is not the point.
Yes, the cost is too big.
You shouldn't have to do that for something pitiful.
Yes, so your science is in late, to make all these gold.
Gold doesn't rain from the sky.
------
Edit : Please answer here instead of this outdated topic :
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=170260
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=170260
---
It doesn't explain the huge gold cost.
It's too big despite your explainations.
You underestimates the big amount of gold needed.
When you have only 1 unit slightly upgraded and that you lose all your gold, this is not "pretty major", but too expensive.
The gold I get is superior to the medium, I earn good in comparaison with other civilizations/cities/places, and although i'm in a good position, the gold needed is enormeous for what you get.
Upgrading 1 unit (and getting "some" power) is not a so big advantage when you have ~7 units.
It depends.
Here, as I created another topic of that and after this one, with a poll, and in a better forum, this newer topic makes this one outdated.
I said outdated in the sense of that this topic is obsolete in comparison with the other.
?
The other forum is better because there are more people on the other forum than this one.
This topic, as you say, is for remarking that something is unbalanced.
I've made the other topic with a poll and in another better forum and it's newer, so please, answer to the other topic because this one is obsolete.
The first thing has nothing to do with the other.
Gunpowder was because it's better because it was in Civ3 and for other reasons (see the topic)
Upgrading is unbalanced because you get only poor things for the huge gold you pay.
No, you don't have more 300 or 400, you can't upgrade much with it.
And this is not the point.
Yes, the cost is too big.
You shouldn't have to do that for something pitiful.
Yes, so your science is in late, to make all these gold.
Gold doesn't rain from the sky.
------
Edit : Please answer here instead of this outdated topic :
http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=170260
Danicela, have you ever done Game Theory, or taken a Political Science or Economics class? The stuff you learn in those classes pretty much covers the reasoning for why the upgrade costs are as they are right now. No one wants the easy way out. Being able to have an extremely high science rate AND be able to upgrade your entire army to the most powerful units of the time period is ridiculous. As is demonstrated in Game Theory and Political Science, leaders need to make tough choices. It's either A or B or both, and when it is both, it ends up being less of A and less of B than if he chose just one. In other words, if you choose to upgrade, your science will suffer, and if you choose science, your army suffers. You can't have both doing well. You can't concentrate on both at the same time. Make the tough choice. It's like choosing one of two evils. Obviously, you HAVE to choose an evil. You can't avoid it. It's just a question of which you want.
Similar threads
