Unit Upgrade Path?

[Nunya]

If you could upgrade Sipahis to Cavalry their special abilities would carry over, but their movement wouldn't. They would go down from 5 to only 3 moves. And since Cavalry can't be upgraded any further (unless they find an upgrade ruin) and in the modern era 25 Strength of Cavalry is just as useless as 22 Strength of Lancers I'd opt to keep my Sipahis as they are.

Upgrading Lancers to Cavalry would be better since they'd only lose 1 move and gain +3 Strength which is a fair trade. However, Cavalry is still not a straight upgrade from Lancers so I'd prefer it if both of them could be upgraded to Tanks. They already do get that upgrade from ruins, so I really don't see why you can't do it with gold.

Another line of units that have a weak upgrade path are archery units. In one of my games I developed a few lovely Crossbows with extra range who could fire twice per turn only to find out that their promotions were worthless once I upgraded them to Riflemen. Crossbows should upgrade to Cannons instead.

And finally it would be nice to have an upgrade for Scouts.

 

[Liquidated]

Another line of units that have a weak upgrade path are archery units. In one of my games I developed a few lovely Crossbows with extra range who could fire twice per turn only to find out that their promotions were worthless once I upgraded them to Riflemen. Crossbows should upgrade to Cannons instead.

Seriously, I am so disappointed with these sorts of inconsistencies. Archers and xbows are ranged attack only , 2 tiles by default. Once they turn into gunpowder units though they suddenly become melee ranged attack only?

Really, archers from 500 BC can shoot farther than rifles from 1939 or even that giant effing death robot from 2020? How come there's no Industrial ranged units other than siege? Was this game even play tested?

Too many questions like this regarding game play, I need to stop looking at this game for a good year.

Cheers!
-Liq'd

 

[Daniel D]

Upgrade paths are in the 'pedia. Just look up any unit and it shows what it upgrades to at the bottom.

Really, archers from 500 BC can shoot farther than rifles from 1939 or even that giant effing death robot from 2020?

I think the idea is that archers can shoot in an arc above your front lines. Firearms have to shoot in a straight line, so your riflemen aren't allowed to shoot from two tiles away. I agree that it is kind of disappointing, but I guess they didn't want the same unit to be good at both ranged and front line operations for the sake of balance. On the bright side, you'll pick up cannons around the same time as riflemen anyway.

 

[gunter]

I wonder why Musketmen are not part of the upgrade path...

 

[Nunya]

What upgrade path exactly? You mean why they aren't an upgrade for Crossbowmen? That's because they serve a different function. They are a weaker but cheaper alternative to Longswordsmen which also doesn't need any iron to be built.

 

[alysenne]

Is there a good reason why horses can't be upgraded into the modern era?

I usually don't have too many horses to care, but right now, I'm trying out Siam and I had a lot of elephants. I had a nice army full of a ton of promotions. They upgraded to cavalry and that's it. Useless. I had to rebuild a big part of my army from scratch.

 

[KrikkitTwo]

Yeah, having Cavalry+Lancers upgrade to Tanks (closest) might be unrealistic, but the functional game effect would be similar.

Or even allow them to upgrade to Infantry... They would lose the movement and change their function, from flanker to blocker, but gain some utility late game.

At least let them upgrade to Mech Infantry.

 

[Lyoncet]

I miss the days of upgrading my Chariots into Helicopter Gunships.

 

[Nunya]

When you upgrade units they seem to carry over all special abilities, including bad ones. So upgrading Cavalry to Mechanised Infantry would give you Mechanised Infantry that doesn't get defensive bonuses. Upgrading them to Tanks would have been better since they already have the same downside.

Another reason to allow that is that many of today's tank regiments were originally cavalry regiments so there is a historical precendent for it.

Well, at least it's easy enough to mod it in (which i already have done for myself).

 

[Le Roi Soleil]

Another reason to allow that is that many of today's tank regiments were originally cavalry regiments so there is a historical precendent for it.

I can only comment on this as it applies to the American army, but the above is untrue. The still existing American cavalry regiments (1st Cav and 2nd ACR when I got out...there might be more now) in the US army are not primarily armored units, though they do have a few tanks. At least in America, the armored divisions were formed from scratch early in the 20th century, starting with the 1st and counting upwards, and used infantry rather than cavalry nomenclature (ie. "division" rather than "regiment", "battalion" rather than "squadron", etc.).

But whatever.

The unit upgrading paths do feel a little funny and the carryover of bad abilities is kind of silly, and is a good patch candidate, in my opinion. I do think, however, that there is a good historical and gameplay argument for not carrying over cav units into tanks. The historical argument I have already touched on, and the gameplay argument is that tanks are a huge step up from cavalry, a far bigger jump than any currently existing upgrade in the game (25 strength to 50 strength and +1 speed, IIRC), and allowing such an upgrade would likely be exploited in order to buy massive tank armies through cavalry upgrades. The mounted units are good enough, already. Allowing them to upgrade to tanks would just be ridiculous.

 

[saraid]

Another line of units that have a weak upgrade path are archery units. In one of my games I developed a few lovely Crossbows with extra range who could fire twice per turn only to find out that their promotions were worthless once I upgraded them to Riflemen. Crossbows should upgrade to Cannons instead.

Yeah, I refuse to pick +range and +attack for my archers/longbowmen/crossbowmen because of this. Knowing they'll turn into a "melee" (read: guns in face) unit, I know I'm either expecting them to die or choosing a useless promotion.

Seriously, I am so disappointed with these sorts of inconsistencies. Archers and xbows are ranged attack only , 2 tiles by default. Once they turn into gunpowder units though they suddenly become melee ranged attack only?

Really, archers from 500 BC can shoot farther than rifles from 1939 or even that giant effing death robot from 2020? How come there's no Industrial ranged units other than siege? Was this game even play tested?

I think the idea is that archers can shoot in an arc above your front lines. Firearms have to shoot in a straight line, so your riflemen aren't allowed to shoot from two tiles away. I agree that it is kind of disappointing, but I guess they didn't want the same unit to be good at both ranged and front line operations for the sake of balance. On the bright side, you'll pick up cannons around the same time as riflemen anyway.

This, basically. Archers have historically been used as a kind of ultramobile, lightweight siege unit. Their role is to soften the enemy from a safe distance. Muskets and rifles, on the other hand, have always been forms of direct combat: the only exception has been the sniper role, which doesn't exist in Civ*.

At least it's better than in Civ4, where archers were only good for moving to a hill next to the enemy, fortifying, and praying they were stupid enough to attack you.

It would make sense for the archer to eventually upgrade into the siege line, to me, but I think it's a stretch for most people. And it follows the same proposed logic as to why cavalry simply go obsolete, full stop. At least you can upgrade your crossbowmen at all.

* It might be interesting to make a mod that creates a gunpowder line of snipers that are ranged only. My military history isn't good enough to make suggestions, though. I'd say they should eventually upgrade into giant death robots. This thread seems to anticipate my entire response: http://forums.2kgames.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1165691

 

[GinandTonic]

I can only comment on this as it applies to the American army, but the above is untrue. The still existing American cavalry regiments (1st Cav and 2nd ACR when I got out...there might be more now) in the US army are not primarily armored units, though they do have a few tanks. At least in America, the armored divisions were formed from scratch early in the 20th century, starting with the 1st and counting upwards, and used infantry rather than cavalry nomenclature (ie. "division" rather than "regiment", "battalion" rather than "squadron", etc.).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry_regiments_of_the_British_Army

Tank and armoured recon are arranged in the British Army mostly as heavy and light cavalry.

 

[Le Roi Soleil]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cavalry_regiments_of_the_British_Army

Tank and armoured recon are arranged in the British Army mostly as heavy and light cavalry.

Lost in that history is that while the original armored organizations were converted cav regiments, the majority of the British tank battalions were converted infantry units in by far the most significant armored conflict in which the British have taken part. To wit:

With the preparations for war in the late 1930s a further two regular battalions were formed; the 7th in 1937 and the 8th in 1938. The 40th, 41st, 42nd, 43rd, 44th & 45th battalions were raised in 1938, being converted from Territorial Army infantry battalions; the 46th, 47th, 48th, 49th, 50th and 51st were likewise activated and converted in 1939.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Tank_Regiment

The "trade your horse in for a tank" cavalry business is mostly historical myth.