Unit upgrades

[Loppan Torkel]

What about a system where the units get minor improvements based on (the number of turns since you discovered the tech or built the first unit) and (the number of units you've built of that certain unit or how many battles they've been in). Half or something of this minor improvement could then carry over through the upgradepath.
A low requirement to get your UU could also be implemented.

 

[Mewtarthio]

So, basically, if you're a good researcher and build a sizable army, your troops become even more powerful, thus enabling you to steamroll all over your enemies, thus giving you even more units, making all your troops powerful enough to take out a division of Panzers with a pointy stick?

 

[tmarcl]

So, basically, if you're a good researcher and build a sizable army, your troops become even more powerful, thus enabling you to steamroll all over your enemies, thus giving you even more units, making all your troops powerful enough to take out a division of Panzers with a pointy stick?

No, that's the way it is now.....

 

[warpstorm]

Mewtarthio analyzed it correctly. You would make the rich get richer syndrome even more pronounced.

 

[dh_epic]

Yeah. Even if this has resembles real life in some way, it would tear the game apart and let someone run away with the game even moreso than now.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

There has been a lot of complaint that civ3 still was focused too much on conquest through war, and hopefully that will change in civ4 with improved negotiations, economics, spionage etc.

So basically I don't think that Fireaxis will release a game that is even more focused on war. I have no doubt that they will balance this idea out if they implement it. One easy way to counter this would be to raise/alter the support per unit which would penalize your research if you keep a too large army for too long. A raised cost to upgrade your units (knight->cavalry etc) could also make it harder to always wage war.

I just thought that with all other aspects of civ improved it wouldn't hurt to give conquest by military means a little boost that is not totally unrealistic. If your civ fouses a lot in the horsebranch you would get a little bonus to attack or defense for your horses.

 

[dh_epic]

I think there's some merit to what you're talking about, but it's at best incomplete. You'd still need to open up other strategies that are independant from war... but tempering the benefits of war couldn't hurt either.

 

[sir_schwick]

Here is how to temper this system so its not over-powered, but gives benefits to cultures who war a lot.

Unit types can be improved(cost or combat ability wise) a very limited amount by these various factors.
1) Miniaturization - The longer a technology is utilized, the more efficient and cheaper it can be made.
1A) Time - Time from discovery of tech that naturally sees the increasing use of tech.
1B) Application - AFter building so many units, experience in producction and training will improve efficiency.
2) Other Technology - Technology usually supports other fields, so other techs would have similair but smaller effects then above.
3) Field Experience - this factor for unit types would be very very small. Basically, over time as the units go into combat, results are studied and implemented.

Individual units can also get a slight bonus.
1) Experience - Fire-baptism is a very powerful thing.

At most type bonuses would increase combined effectiveness/cost reduction by at most 5%. This bonus lets them maintain a slighly smaller military and can help determine conflict outcomes. However, it really is not enough of a factor to lead to snowballing.

Individual experience would at most increase effectivness by at most 5%. This would make Elite segments of your military necessary for messy operations.

 

[Loppan Torkel]

Individual units can also get a slight bonus.
1) Experience - Fire-baptism is a very powerful thing.

At most type bonuses would increase combined effectiveness/cost reduction by at most 5%. This bonus lets them maintain a slighly smaller military and can help determine conflict outcomes. However, it really is not enough of a factor to lead to snowballing.

Individual experience would at most increase effectivness by at most 5%. This would make Elite segments of your military necessary for messy operations.

The 5% increase of combined effectiveness/cost reduction at maximum would be too small imo, it wouldn't make that much difference and the bonus should be noticable.
I'd rather see a heavier penalty in economy/reserch for waging war but a greater bonus to the units you focus on. This would reward you when you plan your wars ahead and force you to take time to recover from the wars.

The individual experience gained is already implemented in the regular-veteran-elite scale.

To make it an option there could be a military researchslider, which would benefit your unit/s but penalize your progress in the techtree. I don't like this idea as much though.

 

[sir_schwick]

Actually 5% adds up to a lot more over time. If your military is 5% more effective then the enemies, they have to put 105% the manpower you put in to be equivalent. In small conflicts that is not such a big deal. If you field 40 tanks, they would have to field 42 tanks. That is 240 extra shields. Add in the at least 100 mech Infantry vs their 105 mech infantry. That is 600 extra shields. 20 AAA vs 21 AAA. Another 100 shields. 80 artillery vs. 84 artillery is another 400 shields. 40 stealth bombers vs. 42 stealth bombers, that is 480 shields. 100 jet fighrters vs. 105 jet fighters, thats 600 shields. Thus, in a modern age conflict the difference could well be 240+600+100+400+480+600=2420 shields! That is a couple wonders or 4 ICBMs, or 8 tactical nukes, or 12 research facilities. You get the picture, efficiency would count for a lot in major conflicts, but not determine minor ones.

Also, I think experience should actually effect mroe then HP. Elites are usually trained on how to attack well, so they should get bonuses in attack and defense. Conscripts and Regulars tend to get chewed up a lot easier then Veterans. The current HP systme does not reflect that as well. I think their should be combat situations whihc are only acceptable for elite or veteran troops. Sending those below those levels would incur much heavier loses. An example would be breachinjg a city the first couple of attacks, or a hardened facilitiy. Also, heading intoa large stack, if they keep the one-at-a-time combat.