JDAllison
Prophet of Doom
Howdy.
I apologize up front if this has already been dealt with. I ran several searches and found nothing.
I've been doing some researching and some thinking, and am now ready to post my question/theory. In my current, regent-level game, I'm playing as the Romans. Since I'm trying to win by conquest, I've been building far more units than I usually do (I'm an expantionistic builder, I guess). I don't own Sun Tzu, but am about to take the city that does. I do own Leo's.
Over the course of the past 4700 game-play years, I've managed to amass a pretty good number of obsolescent units. Units that are past their prime, but reasonably ok for defense and peacekeeping. Since they're cheap, I also tend to build a ton of warriors early-on. I'm up to musketmen right now, but still have the odd warrior, spearman, legion, and pikeman hanging around.
My theory is this:
As a general rule is it better to upgrade a unit, or is it better to scrap him and start over? I'm assuming that you'd use what shields he gives as a starter on the new unit, i.e., disband him in the city building the new, modern unit.
If I disband, say, 15 warriors in Rome, I get two shields each. That works out to be 30 shields -- enough to build a Legionary or, later on, a Pikeman. I get a new unit, costing 1gpt in exchange for 15 units at a total cost of 15gpt. However, I am losing a net of 14 units that could be keeping barbs or "friendly" AI troops out of my cities. Then there's the lost shields issue. It costs 10 shields to build a warrior, while disbanding him nets only 2 shields. I've lost 8 shields in the bargain.
For instance, I might have 15 cities, each guarded by one warrior apiece. I can call all 15 together into one city, disband them all, and get a new Pikeman. That leaves me with 14 undefended cities, however, as well as 120 lost shields. (I know that a lot of players leave cities undefended, but I've had my butt handed to me too many times for me to try it again any time soon.)
On the flip side, I can build a barracks in several cities, which I need anyhow to produce vet units and repair injured ones quickly. This allows me to gather all 15 warriors and upgrade them to MDIs for 90g each, or 1350g. Meanwhile, my cities are building additional units or improvements (like libraries or marketplaces, etc). By disbanding all 15 and building one unit, I am forcing my other 14 cities to build a unit apiece, which can take a while in high-corruption cities. By upgrading I am saving time. At some point, however, it becomes more expensive to upgrade than to disband and start over. For instance, in the late game, when my core cities are churning out anywhere from 25 to 45 shields per turn or more, a mech infantry costs only about 2-3 turns, where an upgrade will cost a pretty good bit. Upgrading a spear to a MI is something like 360g (I think- I don't currently have a saved game with any unpromoted spears. If anyone knows better, enlighten me.) At any rate, it is a decent chunk of change.
Then factor in the multiple upgrades. From spear to pike to musket to rifle to infantry to MI. That's 5 upgrades at 30g each, or 150g over time. While that is cheaper than a rush-build, it is 150g that didn't get used in research or science or in rushing a city improvement.
Now, add in the Leo's effect, where all upgrades are half price. Now, it clearly becomes cheaper to upgrade than to disband and rebuild.
My thesis is this: As a militaristic civ looking to dominate by conquest, I need all of the units I can get. Especially early on, upgrading is superior to disband/rebuild. As a builder civ, with around 90 cities (which I regularly hit on huge maps and fewer than 6 civs), and about a unit to a unit-and-a-half per city, upgrading is not quite so cheap and less attractive. With only a few, well-developed cities, disbanding and rebuilding is probably the better choice.
Ok, it's open for discussion! In the words of Bruce, "Smite me, Almighty Smiter!" Oh, and the usual disclaimer: "This is my humble opinion brought from my own experience. Opinion may vary, see store for details. Batteries not included."
I apologize up front if this has already been dealt with. I ran several searches and found nothing.
I've been doing some researching and some thinking, and am now ready to post my question/theory. In my current, regent-level game, I'm playing as the Romans. Since I'm trying to win by conquest, I've been building far more units than I usually do (I'm an expantionistic builder, I guess). I don't own Sun Tzu, but am about to take the city that does. I do own Leo's.
Over the course of the past 4700 game-play years, I've managed to amass a pretty good number of obsolescent units. Units that are past their prime, but reasonably ok for defense and peacekeeping. Since they're cheap, I also tend to build a ton of warriors early-on. I'm up to musketmen right now, but still have the odd warrior, spearman, legion, and pikeman hanging around.
My theory is this:
As a general rule is it better to upgrade a unit, or is it better to scrap him and start over? I'm assuming that you'd use what shields he gives as a starter on the new unit, i.e., disband him in the city building the new, modern unit.
If I disband, say, 15 warriors in Rome, I get two shields each. That works out to be 30 shields -- enough to build a Legionary or, later on, a Pikeman. I get a new unit, costing 1gpt in exchange for 15 units at a total cost of 15gpt. However, I am losing a net of 14 units that could be keeping barbs or "friendly" AI troops out of my cities. Then there's the lost shields issue. It costs 10 shields to build a warrior, while disbanding him nets only 2 shields. I've lost 8 shields in the bargain.
For instance, I might have 15 cities, each guarded by one warrior apiece. I can call all 15 together into one city, disband them all, and get a new Pikeman. That leaves me with 14 undefended cities, however, as well as 120 lost shields. (I know that a lot of players leave cities undefended, but I've had my butt handed to me too many times for me to try it again any time soon.)
On the flip side, I can build a barracks in several cities, which I need anyhow to produce vet units and repair injured ones quickly. This allows me to gather all 15 warriors and upgrade them to MDIs for 90g each, or 1350g. Meanwhile, my cities are building additional units or improvements (like libraries or marketplaces, etc). By disbanding all 15 and building one unit, I am forcing my other 14 cities to build a unit apiece, which can take a while in high-corruption cities. By upgrading I am saving time. At some point, however, it becomes more expensive to upgrade than to disband and start over. For instance, in the late game, when my core cities are churning out anywhere from 25 to 45 shields per turn or more, a mech infantry costs only about 2-3 turns, where an upgrade will cost a pretty good bit. Upgrading a spear to a MI is something like 360g (I think- I don't currently have a saved game with any unpromoted spears. If anyone knows better, enlighten me.) At any rate, it is a decent chunk of change.
Then factor in the multiple upgrades. From spear to pike to musket to rifle to infantry to MI. That's 5 upgrades at 30g each, or 150g over time. While that is cheaper than a rush-build, it is 150g that didn't get used in research or science or in rushing a city improvement.
Now, add in the Leo's effect, where all upgrades are half price. Now, it clearly becomes cheaper to upgrade than to disband and rebuild.
My thesis is this: As a militaristic civ looking to dominate by conquest, I need all of the units I can get. Especially early on, upgrading is superior to disband/rebuild. As a builder civ, with around 90 cities (which I regularly hit on huge maps and fewer than 6 civs), and about a unit to a unit-and-a-half per city, upgrading is not quite so cheap and less attractive. With only a few, well-developed cities, disbanding and rebuilding is probably the better choice.
Ok, it's open for discussion! In the words of Bruce, "Smite me, Almighty Smiter!" Oh, and the usual disclaimer: "This is my humble opinion brought from my own experience. Opinion may vary, see store for details. Batteries not included."
