Upgrades cost way too much
- Thread starter Ardinius
- Start date
SenhorDaGuerra
Prince
i dont like it when i discover, say rifling, a few turn before the AI, then try to build up some sort of army to attack the AI, then a few turn later they discover rifling and suddenly ALL their defense units have gone from musketmen to riflemen, IN ONE TURN! I really dont enjoy that, because if it wa the otehr way around, and the AI wanted to attack me, i would stand no chance. so although the AI is pretty stupid, this advantage to the AI is way overpowered. so i think they need to balance it more. perhaps make it cheaper to upgrade ur veteran units that have more promotions, so that it is more worthwhile to keep them. or even just reduce the cost of all upgradig by 50-100 gold. its ridiculous that i cant build a rifleman in 2 turns, yet it costs me like 200 gold to upgrade him (which would prolly take like 20 turns to get that much gold).
so yea, im not a big fan of this little detail of the game!
take it wasy dudes.
so yea, im not a big fan of this little detail of the game!
take it wasy dudes.
Crighton
Emperor
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2006
- Messages
- 1,136
I'm guessing the only reason to pay for upgrades is for any carryover promotions. In terms of fighters/bomber it's going to be just cheaper to build a new one than to upgrade.
Ugh . . . just started doing the mental math on this . . . ugh all that gold I wated on useless units
Ugh . . . just started doing the mental math on this . . . ugh all that gold I wated on useless units
Crighton said:
Right - but you don't need to wait for it to be rebuilt, and aside from aircraft which get no experience, you get to keep the promotions. In the long run, assuming that you only upgrade three promotion units, it is beneficial as you're getting a three promotion unit rather than a one promotion unit (sans pentagon/west point/red cross or vassalage/theocracy)
Usually I can sell cheap techs to other Civs to finance the majority of the upgrade.
Pantastic
King
- Joined
- Mar 15, 2006
- Messages
- 922
Crighton, the other benefit of upgrading is that you get new units immediately instead of waiting to produce several armies of new troops. In a recent game I just got riflemen while my opponents mostly don't even have gunpowder, and by mostly upgrading I'll get to launch a war well before they can respond.
But note that the base rush cost of a unit is also 3*remaining hammers, so in principle upgrading costs are inline with rush costs. It's only because (a)rushing benefits from production bonuses in the city, and (b)The Kremlin that rushing becomes notably cheaper then upgrading.Crighton said:
DaviddesJ
Deity
Lower upgrade costs would be bad. Civ3 suffered from an exploit where you could deliberately build lots of cheap obsolete units and then mass-upgrade them, to get a modern army much more easily than building it from scratch. Civ4 avoids that problem by having higher upgrade costs.
My only hesitation in agreeing is that it's the only way to augment production (essentially) very early on with cash, rather than population. I still think that it occasionally makes decent financial sense, in cases where I'm (fairly) flush with cash but at a real shortage of production for my military (I'm always outnumbered at this stage, unfortunately). Universal Suffrage comes pretty late in the game (although of course with it and The Kremlin the game becomes ridiculously bastardized), as do plentiful experienced troops.
I'd agree though that cheaper upgrade costs wouldn't necessarily be the answer; Leo's in Civ3 was overpowered, IMHO (but then again, when wasn't it
). What DaviddesJ said, basically.Similar threads
