UU Warriors: Should they upgrade to Spears or Swords

[ShmooDude]

Thought this was a bug initially but is apparently intended, wanted to get the communities feeling about it. Currently UU Warriors (jaguars are the ones I noticed) upgrade to spears and not swords. This is so that the UU warriors don't upgrade into an iron requirement.

Personally I'd still rather they upgrade into swords, but I can see the appeal of guaranteeing they can be upgraded.

 

[BrokenSky]

Sorry does delay obsolesence mean UU warroirs obsolescence delayed or spearman obsolescence delayed?

 

[stackpointer]

Ahriman has warned against balancing around polls here: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?p=13005018#post13005018

I highly suggest that actual discussion for or against takes place as a decision shouldn't be made just because of a poll alone.

 

[Ahriman]

I prefer warriors upgrading to swords. Otherwise the window of opportunity for swordsmen before pikes come around can be too small. And we already have scouts upgrading to spears.

 

[mystikx21]

I'd be fine with delayed obsolescence on the feature of sticky promotions, but that basically just means "swords, not spears" anyway.

The weak point for the AI is being able to upgrade with available stocks of iron. We could assure these AIs would get at least one iron (its just Polynesia and Aztecs right?) so they could upgrade at least part of the army and go from there.

 

[stackpointer]

Sorry does delay obsolesence mean UU warroirs obsolescence delayed or spearman obsolescence delayed?

It means that the UU Warriors would be available to build until Pikemen (Metal Casting) but still upgrade into the Spearmen line.

 

[Hreat]

I edit my jaguars to upgrade to swords. I understand the issue if you have no iron, but the differing promotions available to vanguards seem totally out of flavor for jaguars, and you end up with some pretty poor troops if they don't get blitz before the upgrade. (conversely, woodsman with 3 movement seems pretty overpowered)

the vanilla upgrade path just makes more sense.

 

[ShmooDude]

I highly suggest that actual discussion for or against takes place as a decision shouldn't be made just because of a poll alone.

I agree, poll alone shouldn't make any decisions. Probably shoulda included a more detailed OP. I'm glad people are starting to discuss it. I just included it to kind of see where people stand initially.


Question: Is it possible to make it so you could upgrade troops w/o requiring the resource (but building new ones does)? They'd get a 10% penalty obviously because you don't have the iron but would allow you to still upgrade them through their path?

However, I somehow doubt this is possible without something like a DLL mod (not having any experience though, which is why I ask). Maybe have the the "upgrade" be to a different unit internally that doesn't cost iron, but have a script replace it with the proper iron requiring unit anytime its on the field?



Giving the UU warrior civs iron (similar to Rome I'd assume) is another interesting thought, though that might dilute Rome's flavor a bit.

I edit my jaguars to upgrade to swords. I understand the issue if you have no iron, but the differing promotions available to vanguards seem totally out of flavor for jaguars, and you end up with some pretty poor troops if they don't get blitz before the upgrade. (conversely, woodsman with 3 movement seems pretty overpowered)

the vanilla upgrade path just makes more sense.

This pretty much sums up how I feel as well. Vanguards and Soldiers just hold different roles almost despite both being "melee"

 

[BrokenSky]

well I am in favour of delaying obsolescence for UU, but I don't have a particular preference for swordsman or spear man upgrade paths.

 

[ExpiredReign]

I have always been in opposition to these types of radical unit changes. The definition of the unit lines implemented by Firaxis is not that fundamentally flawed as to need these changes: swords to gatlings, gatlings with resource needs, etc. or this one - UU warriors to spearmen. This, along with Scouts upgrading to Spearmen, is one of the first reverting changes I make, the logic just doesn't seem to be solid enough for me to keep it.

The delaying of obsolescence is the best way of "fixing" the problem of UUs lifespan but there is no need to change their unit type as well.

If some of the better promotions they have could somehow be carried over that would be a bonus, but not really a necessity.

 

[ShmooDude]

I have always been in opposition to these types of radical unit changes. The definition of the unit lines implemented by Firaxis is not that fundamentally flawed as to need these changes: swords to gatlings, gatlings with resource needs, etc. or this one - UU warriors to spearmen. This, along with Scouts upgrading to Spearmen, is one of the first reverting changes I make, the logic just doesn't seem to be solid enough for me to keep it.

The delaying of obsolescence is the best way of "fixing" the problem of UUs lifespan but there is no need to change their unit type as well.

If some of the better promotions they have could somehow be carried over that would be a bonus, but not really a necessity.

I think the issue with this particular one is that the AI doesn't deal particularly well with upgrading from a non-resource unit to a resource unit. That's why I suggested perhaps taking away the resource requirement for upgrades only (not new units) and maybe that could solve the problem while allowing their path to remain as it is in vanilla.

 

[ExpiredReign]

@ShmooDude

I get the idea behind your suggestion. I just think we are trying to finesse our way out of a problem of our own doing. If we don't mess around with these ill-conceived changes then we shouldn't have to fix them.

 

[Tomice]

(its just Polynesia and Aztecs right?)

Haven't played as one of the above recently, but Carthage has a similar problem.
The ressourceless elephants could be useful well beyond chivalry, but I'm not allowed to build them afterwards anymore. This makes the tech feel almost undesireable.

Out of this expirience, I'd say make them upgrade to swords with delayed obsolescence - from a player perspective.
The AI might end up with two dozen Jaguars it can never upgrade...

 

[stackpointer]

I guess that brings up another good question, should all UUs have delayed obsolescence?

 

[mystikx21]

I don't know if it should be "all".

Any UU that doesn't require a resource and any UU that gives a unique effect. Any that are just buffed strength no, but there aren't many of those left fortunately.

 

[Babri]

Is there a way to delay obsolete tech for horsemen for Arabs & Mongols? Horsemen can still be useful for these civs when they go on conquering spree.

 

[stackpointer]

Is there a way to delay obsolete tech for horsemen for Arabs & Mongols? Horsemen can still be useful for these civs when they go on conquering spree.

Is it technically possible? Absolutely using the ObsoleteTech field. Should we? That's the question in this thread.