When and if you should ever delete units?

[Pinstar]

Units cost gold to maintain, and this seems to be true for Tanks as much as it is for warriors. That said, it takes a butt load of gold to upgrade a humble warrior up the tech tree to modernize it.

I'm horrible about deleting units. Units that have too few promotions to really be worth preserving.

When should one, if ever, delete an obsolete unit. How much XP makes a unit worth it to upgrade to maintain those promotions and how far obsolete is 'obsolete'? One generation? Two? Three?

I think I might be able to improve my economy in the mid-late game if I payed more attention to this, especially if I happen to be running pacifism.

 

[Ergo Sum]

Personally I don't think promotions are the be-all-end-all here. Unless we're talking about a unit with a zillion promotions, if you can produce units at a comparable level of XP then there's no reason to keep older units around, especially since upgrading saps your gold which could be used for faster teching.

 

[Derakon]

My personal take on this is that any units that would not be well-served by an upgrade in the immediate future should be deleted. The only exception for this is non-combat units (e.g. medics, garrison units). So for example, I'll upgrade an axeman to maceman if I'm about to invade someone, and I'll certainly upgrade my cannons to artillery if they're camped outside an enemy city, but I'm not going to upgrade the remnants of the stack I used to rush my neighbor when it's going to be 50+ turns before my next war.

I wouldn't be surprised if this isn't the best strategy; it's just what I use.

 

[dirtyparrot]

When my units are in danger of going on strike I'll delete my warriors. With the exception of preventing cities from flipping, warriors do as good of a job garrisoning cities as a tank (in terms of happiness). Most units are not worth upgrading unless they carry really nice special abilities (e.g. Oromos) or you need them urgently. It's not unusual for my capital to be garrisoned in the modern age by just 1 warrior.

 

[shyuhe]

If you have good siege units, then old obsolete units can help mop up weakened city defenders. So they're generally worth keeping towards the mid-late game when you have more money to play with. In the early stages though, it's better to keep a very small army unless you're at war.

 

[plasmacannon]

Depends on which Leader and Empire you are playing.
A FIN leader of England, has all of the gold it needs to upgrade units.
Siege units, air units, naval units, a highly promoted unit, and unit you attach a GG to.

If you are Boudica of the Celts, well, then, no, just mass produce alot of AGG melee units.
Or other units later in the game.

I've deleted workers when I have captured a city and the opponent has enough force to recapture the city and workers.

 

[coanda]

I might cut units left over from a rush if I have enough lying around to barb-bust and garrison all my cities.

If I'm planning to peace-monger straight through the rest of the game, I might cut units left over from a medieval war.

Beyond that, I keep whatever units I can.

 

[none]

When short on cash it's better to upgrade the most experienced units only. Nevertheless I hate deleting units so when I'm in such a position I sometimes go berserk, if the power differential is not overwhelming older units can be used as cannon fodder (almost) effectively. With any luck you can get your opponent a Great General that will be settled in one of the cities you'll conquer. Of course that really works if you have better units to finish the job, units that will be able to take care of the garrisons before the defensive units get too many promotions (what I suggest is of limited use with Protective leaders for instance).

I just feel bad about wasting older units if my economy is sound and a Great Merchant can be useful to get some cash and upgrade units which may or may not be useful in the long run (especially if you don't run Hereditary Rule in which case upgrading obsolete units used for happy faces is not important).

 

[Derakon]

Hunh, hadn't thought about settled Great Generals. There've been a few times when I'm about to capture a civ's last city and they get a great general. Guess I should wait a turn to see if they settle it!

 

[DaveMcW]

Never delete a unit while running Hereditary Rule.

 

[Casi]

I rarely delete any units, use them as police troops, or the single one guarding new&safe towns etc.

 

[Bibor]

Obsolete units are awesome for peacekeeping in enemy capitals, thus I delete only the 6- unit strength ones.

 

[DMOC]

Since my starting warriors are often defending my size 25 capital in 1800 AD ... I rarely delete units. I do delete the occasional warrior and/or archer that is a second "defender" in a city.

 

[PieceOfMind]

I rarely delete units. If I ever do, warriors and non-protective archers are about the only things I'd consider, and it'd almost always be after I transition away from Hereditary Rule.

An advantage with having a lot of obsolete units is that, if you have a large commerce-generating capacity, you can effect a massive power buildup by running the slider at 0% and upgrading units while simultaneously getting most of your cities to build units (or draft).

 

[Alki]

I often use Great Merchant's Gold as a way to upgrade my whole army in one turn.

That way I can keep producing a bigger and ever bigger army without having to replace all units individually.

 

[Flying Pig]

I often fight one big war against my main competitor in the medieval age, then delete most of my army and go peacemonger as the sole superpower.

 

[vicawoo]

Deleting a unit provides 1 gold per turn over the cap (but not always workers, for some reason).

So the question is, in how many turns will you need to replace that unit, and what is the opportunity cost (wealth)? So won't need an archer for another 25 turns, you get your gold earlier.

In a shadow of madscientists' jefferson game, I deleted all my siege after killing shaka and as many units as possible except for some fogbusting/barb defense, because
1) getting metal casting/calendar as possibly as early as possible was most important (more than monarchy)
2) once I had calendar I would not reach my happy cap for a long time
3) game rules of slavery + no cottages.

 

[cain3456]

IIRC, any unit w/ >10xp that doesn't have a GG attached will be reduced to 10xp if promoted.

 

[Dhoomstriker]

IIRC, any unit w/ >10xp that doesn't have a GG attached will be reduced to 10xp if promoted.

Correct. The Promotions will remain with the upgraded unit, though, even promotions that were earned at an experience level higher than 10 Experience Points.

So, if you have a unit with 17/17 Experience Points and it still has a promotion available to it, use up the promotion before upgrading the unit. If you use up the promotion before upgrading the unit, then you'll keep the promotion and your unit will have 10/26 Experience Points listed after upgrading. If you fail to use up that promotion before upgrading, then you'll lose the value of those Experience Points entirely and your unit will have 10/17 Experience Points listed, without the ability to promote itself until you gain 7 more Experience Points.


I'm not sure what happens when you upgrade a unit with more than 10 Experience Points when you are playing as a Charismatic Leader. Does anyone know? Will the units (which are not attached to a Great General) be capped at 8 Experience Points or at 10 Experience Points?

 

[Johntiler]

its a good idea to have a few rubbish units. That way, if you get a great general, not only does the poor unit get the maximum benefit (20XP) but he also gets free upgrades too.

Eg. If you use a GG on a 17XP unit Maceman while you are in medieval times, the unit will get a say 2 more promotions and free upgrade to Rifleman when it comes available. (usually costs abut 200Gold).

Whereas use it on your starting warrior, you get a free maceman, and full benefit of the 20XP, and get 4 promotions or more... saves you about 600 odd gold the cost of upgrading Warrior to Rifleman.