Strategic resources and unit obsolence problem

[player1 fanatic]

In this game, unit get obsolete when upgrade unit is available, regardless if you can or not produce the upgrade due to lack of strategic resources.

This leads to weird gambling situations, when you try, for example, to discover Ironclads, and if you do not get Coal discovered when you get the tech, you lose access to both Caravels and Ironclads and need to rely on Frigates and Privateers. Then you try to avoid Battleship tech, since it would make Frigates outdated too.

Same thing happens with Gunpowder. No Niter means no musketmen nor swordsman. Avoid bombard tech at that point, if you want to keep your catapults.

 

[TruthfulCake]

I dislike the idea of unit obsolescence in general. Aside from losing access to some unique units (like Aztecs' Eagle Warrior), the strategic resource problem that you mentioned is a real pain. It is a civ's freedom to create obsolete units, if they feel like it, really.

To put a little more thought into this suggestion:
1. Purchasing an obsolete unit and upgrading it needs more gold than buying a contemporary unit. This is not the case with slingers/archers. This causes the lack of obsolescence to be exploitable.
2. Have a second tab/heading in the production panel titled "obsolete" to separate the new units from the old, in order to make the build list less cluttered.

 

[player1 fanatic]

Suggestion to developers:

One possible way to resolve this would be to make units obsolete only after a first upgraded unit is build.

So lets say you get tech for Ironclads. You do not have Coal, so you are allowed to build Caravels. Thus, not penalized for discovering new technology.

Then, when you get Coal and build/upgrade first Ironclad, then make Caravels obsolete.

 

[greygamer]

The problem is strategic resources currently are an all or nothing proposition. In reality nations that did not have access to such resources could still get those weapons, for example Brazil commissioned two dreadnoughts despite not having the means to produce them locally.
Lack of a resource should increase the cost/maintenance or limit the number of units, especially if obsolescence is a game mechanic.

 

[idjit]

In this game, unit get obsolete when upgrade unit is available, regardless if you can or not produce the upgrade due to lack of strategic resources.

This leads to weird gambling situations, when you try, for example, to discover Ironclads, and if you do not get Coal discovered when you get the tech, you lose access to both Caravels and Ironclads and need to rely on Frigates and Privateers. Then you try to avoid Battleship tech, since it would make Frigates outdated too.

Same thing happens with Gunpowder. No Niter means no musketmen nor swordsman. Avoid bombard tech at that point, if you want to keep your catapults.

I noticed this too last night. I had made a seaport city for building a navy. I then found out that I didn't have coal (no one did, actually), so no ironclads and then to my horror, realized I also couldn't build caravels either. Caravels are better than nothing. But then my game crashed to desktop sometime in the modern era after that and I just gave up at that point. I tried guys, I really did. I guess I just need to "readjust" my definition of a working product, as well as my definition of "fun."

 

[dexters]

Yep. Really dangerous here. Researched swords, could no longer build warriors. But no access to iron.

Though I guess it makes sense in that it prevents people with a lot of gold to build the cheaper unit then upgrade en-masse once they get the resource.

 

[Becephalus]

Yeah the penalty for a lack of resources should be much higher build costs, not inability to build whatsoever.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Probably just allow upgrade for ~3-5*the cost (and maybe encampment production as well)