Solving the mystery: Unit Maintenance

[alpaca]

Well, that is the reason, why human sometimes need to have standing army, instead of buying it in last minute.

Yes but the mechanics between this and deliberately keeping units obsolete is exactly the same, so the exploit argument doesn't hold when you try to argue against different upkeep for different units because something like it is already in the game and apparently doesn't lead to large-scale broken exploits.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Well the difference is that in current model you are much more weaker when not having units (in AI eyes), compared to proposed model (cost/100), where you are just a bit weaker due to obsolete units.

 

[alpaca]

Well the difference is that in current model you are much more weaker when not having units (in AI eyes), compared to proposed model (cost/100), where you are just a bit weaker due to obsolete units.

Obsolete units aren't just a bit weaker, I think the army score (what I guess the AI mostly uses when deciding) is proportional to the sum of the strength of all units. So if you keep a horseman instead of a knight you'll have 2/3 of the impact.

Of course it's a bit more but I think the problem is pretty irrelevant

 

[player1 fanatic]

Still, it's still 2/3 over 0 in case of late buying of units.

With lots of obsolete military units you still have decent military presence, which is not true with very small number of units and bug bank account.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

The AI should consider Bank account when preparing to attack as well.

But making obsolete units cost slightly more would work as well.

Above all it wouldn't be confusing and obtuse.

 

[kelmen]

if i want to disable the cost increase, what changes should i make?

i tried set the multiplier and divisor both as 1, but i got crazy increase instead.
thought everything time/divide 1 should get back same values.

 

[alpaca]

if i want to disable the cost increase, what changes should i make?

i tried set the multiplier and divisor both as 1, but i got crazy increase instead.
thought everything time/divide 1 should get back same values.

Set the multiplier to 0 and the divisor to a very high number, like 100000. That should do the trick, I think.