Reduce the Upgrade cost.

[yavoon]

upgrading as it currently is is perfect. it requires the strategic choice. most ppl who want cheap upgrading dont want the choice, they want to run 90% science and just "get" the upgrades.

 

[Spartan117]

i change my vote, i dont remeber voting on this

yea upgrade can become extremely expensive, sometimes too expensive

 

[Elhoim]

Wow, this is a very contested poll!

 

[Gorman Truart]

I think upgrade cost should be reduced in the same manner as tech costs, i.e. depending on how many other civs you know that have the required technology. If you're the first civ to discover gunpowder, upgrading your entire military to musketmen immediately and going on a rampage will remain prohibitively expensive. But if several other civs already have the technology, it will be easier to bring your military up to par techwise with the rest of the world. This would make it easier to compete/catch up from behind in the tech race, while making it harder to achieve a runaway victory or steamroll backwards opponents.

 

[dh_epic]

I'm a cynic. I think that things that generally make the game more like Civ 3 and things that generally make the game easier will always get huge support on these forums. It has nothing to do with what's good for replayability and gameplay, but what people find easiest.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

I like Gorman's Idea... of course it partially already is in with the +25 gold per upgrade, so Warrior->Axe->Mace is more expensive than waiting for Maces and then upgrading your Warriors.

 

[gdgrimm]

I'm pretty happy with the cost structure.

Reasons:
Sometimes I have enough cash laying around to do a mass upgrade. Sometimes I don't.
Sometimes I'll burn a few turns at 100% gold to generate the cash to do a mass upgrade. Sometimes I won't.
Sometimes I'll build fresh units from scratch and delete the obsolete ones. Sometimes I won't.

The fact that there's no clear pattern to what I do indicates (to me) that it's pretty balanced as is.

I do think the upgrade mechanism needs to be changed. The mass upgrade mechanism works pretty well (except for the whole having to refortify everything the next turn). But incremental upgrades (like point upgrades to your border cities first) can be a real micromanagement pain.

 

[Masquerouge]

Personnally I'm fine with the upgrade costs. What I would like to see, though, is an option to have your upgrade costs spread over time. Meaning, each turn you set aside some golds, and then when you research a tech that will give you an upgraded unit, it uses that gold to upgrade your existing units. The more you saved, the more you upgrade.

 

[DaviddesJ]

Personnally I'm fine with the upgrade costs. What I would like to see, though, is an option to have your upgrade costs spread over time. Meaning, each turn you set aside some golds, and then when you research a tech that will give you an upgraded unit, it uses that gold to upgrade your existing units. The more you saved, the more you upgrade.

Why is this better than just saving the money in your treasury, and spending it on upgrades when you get the tech?

 

[dh_epic]

The way that upgrades are designed are to balance the following two choices:

1) Should I upgrade my units?
2) Should I just build new ones?

In Civ 3, it was ALWAYS #1. In Civ 4, it's much more balanced. There's incentives for each.

1 >> If you save up 1000 gold (often from a Great Merchant), you can upgrade all kinds of units within a SINGLE TURN. Since Civ 4 makes the window of opportunity for war much shorter, this can be huge. You also get those promotions.

2 >> Building new units makes sense if you don't have the cash lying around, and if you don't have any desire for a snap war.

The same people who always do #2 are the same people who complain that they don't have enough time to use their units and the game goes too fast. They ought to try #1 every once in a while.

 

[DigitalBoy]

The way that upgrades are designed are to balance the following two choices:

1) Should I upgrade my units?
2) Should I just build new ones?

In Civ 3, it was ALWAYS #1. In Civ 4, it's much more balanced. There's incentives for each.

1 >> If you save up 1000 gold (often from a Great Merchant), you can upgrade all kinds of units within a SINGLE TURN. Since Civ 4 makes the window of opportunity for war much shorter, this can be huge. You also get those promotions.

2 >> Building new units makes sense if you don't have the cash lying around, and if you don't have any desire for a snap war.

The same people who always do #2 are the same people who complain that they don't have enough time to use their units and the game goes too fast. They ought to try #1 every once in a while.

I usually always build new units until I get Riflemen. Then I always upgrade.

 

[Jaybe]

Build NEW units until Rifles, and lose out on all those city raider promotions --are you MAD?
... Or just not into using your army offensively (which is also a good reason).