 |
|
Settler
|
Jan 2006
time: 11:58
| |
|
|
Still new to CIV4. Sorry for another rookie question.
When I tried upgrade my warrior to the next level, I see it costs more than 100 coins. Isn't it even cheaper to build a brand new units instead? Who will have that kinds of money to constantly upgrade all the existing units? I wonder how you guys normally handled the unit upgraded?
Appreciate any comments.
|
|
| |
|
|
Technical Assistant
Of the Peanuts Gallery
|
Apr 2004
time: 05:58
| |
|
|
You'll have the money if you want to  Think about it this way: An axeman costs 35 hammers. A warrior, 10 hammers. Difference: 25 hammers. Normally (in a normal speed game) it costs IIRC 80gp to promote it to axeman, or about 3gp/hammer. Not all that bad of an exchange really; particularly when you consider that you get to keep the promotions it has, and up to 10xp per unit...
I usually promote only certain types of units, ones i'm likely to have a lot of; such as crossbows -> grenadiers, or catapults->cannons. It's very effective, particularly if you have a bit of a tech lead, to drop your science percentage a few ticks just before getting the major military tech you need for promoting much of your army (such as if you have a bunch of crossbows, right before getting military science). Save up a few thousand GP, and promote them all at once, suddenly doubling your power and allowing an instant rampage
Otherwise you throw away all the hammers you put into the units (when it becomes effectively useless), which is a poor exchange; and the further into the game you get, the better a deal it is. You only lose 10h throwing away a warrior; you lose 60h throwing away a crossbow.
|
|
| |
|
|
Co-Owner/ Administrator (Reasonable One)
Lord of the Ferrets
|
Nov 1999
time: 05:58
| |
|
|
Upgrading warriors is rare.
If through his early wandering he's gotten enough promos to warrent it. But this usually waits till I have more money.
GG addition but then it's free.
Caught with pants down and need an axeman.
Early in the game you won't have much money for this but as SNoopy points out, in the middle game you'll have a bit more.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Given that any gold you have is generally that much LESS beakers you have, upgrading units IMO is usually not optimum strategy. Usually I just build anew. Only the tastiest units with key promotions get upgraded in most of my games.
|
|
| |
|
|
Technical Assistant
Of the Peanuts Gallery
|
Apr 2004
time: 05:58
| |
|
|
Upgrading units is absolutely an optimal strategy in some situations, and in most games.
Take a crossbow. 60H, say 10 XP with three promos. Upgrade him to a Gren, 110H (?), so 50h extra, costs you around 150gp. That's barely more than 1GP/H for the final unit, and you're getting one with +7XP compared to the base with-barracks unit. Further, you're getting a unit WHILE you are still building another - meaning you can put out more grens/turn this way than you could just building them.
I certainly don't upgrade every unit, but it is absolutely a good idea in quite a few situations. Ultimately it of course comes to which do you need more - military or science - but unless you've got a map with a ton of hammers and not many beakers, the odds are you are not 100% on the science side of things...
|
|
| |
|
|
King
Saskatoon, SK, CA
|
Oct 1999
time: 05:58
| |
|
|
It's especially nice for the City Raider riflemen and grenediers.
|
|
| |
|
|
Technical Assistant
Of the Peanuts Gallery
|
Apr 2004
time: 05:58
| |
|
|
Oh, indeed. And try playing as Sitting Bull ... mmmmm grens with four to seven first strikes ...
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
|
Nov 2002
time: 11:58
| |
|
|
This is a situation where my early game has a huge impact on whether or not I will use a particular option.
If my units gain any significant amount of experience in the early game, then my military strategy will usually revolve around the maintenance of a field-army composed of units with increasingly higher experience totals. To accomplish this, I will typically keep a surplus treasury and research things a little slower. Even if I am not the tech leader, my field army is almost guaranteed to out-gun the forces of a partially upgraded tech-leader's.
If my units lack early experience, either because of a lack of barbarians or appropriate neighbors, then I tend to disband unnecessary units in order to expedite research and assert a tech lead. This will have a noticeable impact on how I choose to develop my economy; for example, I will prioritize libraries over markets/grocers.
I believe that conscious consideration for the upgrade option is one of the most important (and fun!) elements of the strategy of Civ4.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by snoopy369
Upgrading units is absolutely an optimal strategy in some situations, and in most games.
Take a crossbow. 60H, say 10 XP with three promos. Upgrade him to a Gren, 110H (?), so 50h extra, costs you around 150gp. That's barely more than 1GP/H for the final unit, and you're getting one with +7XP compared to the base with-barracks unit. Further, you're getting a unit WHILE you are still building another - meaning you can put out more grens/turn this way than you could just building them.
I certainly don't upgrade every unit, but it is absolutely a good idea in quite a few situations. Ultimately it of course comes to which do you need more - military or science - but unless you've got a map with a ton of hammers and not many beakers, the odds are you are not 100% on the science side of things... |
The only function of hammers is to get you more beakers.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Emperor usually. And yes I do.
What do hammers do besides get you beakers?
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
|
Nov 2005
time: 11:58
| |
|
|
According to beakerism (AKA Wodanomics), the ultimate purpose of everything you do in civ, is to help your research, as your tech-level can be regarded as your overall success in the game.
Personally i think, that this, as most -isms, holds a true core, but certainly has exception to it, such as extreme situations, like, for example, having a very small civ, who really needs the production for defense purposes, or in the final stages of the end-game, when your hammers build the space-ship, and beakers dont matter anymore.
|
|
| |
|
|
King
Tornio, Suomi Perkele!
|
Oct 2002
time: 13:58
| |
|
|
How do obsolete promotions affect the calculations? Say, shock and cover, against melee and archers, and everyone has gunpowder or above.
|
|
| |
|
|
Deity
Dance Dance for the Revolution!
|
Jan 1970
time: 06:58
| |
|
|
The unit in question still keeps the promotions, but if everyone has gunpowder units they're useless.
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
Paso Robles, California
|
Jan 2006
time: 03:58
| |
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Tattila the Hun
How do obsolete promotions affect the calculations? Say, shock and cover, against melee and archers, and everyone has gunpowder or above. |
That is a drawback. You need shock and cover promotions early. Unless I get these units to 10XP, I won't upgrade them.
I have at least two cities dedicated to unit production, and these put out units with 10+ XP.
|
|
| |
|
|
Prince
|
Jan 2003
time: 04:58
| |
|
|
The only function of hammers is to make more soldiers.
The only function of beakers is to give the soldiers pointier sticks.
The only function of commerce is to pay the upkeep for all those soldiers.
The rest is just details about little things like health, happiness, and avoiding economic collapse.
Now, if I could only play that ruthlessly, I would probably be a better player.
|
|
| |
|
Blaupanzer
|
|
|
|
King
Fairfax, VA
|
Oct 2000
time: 06:58
| |
|
|
But you would be playing a wargame, eris. There are much better wargames than any of the Civs. But I have never played any game more intrigueing than Civ for the multiplicity of options depending on geography, leader and civ characteristics, and the orientation of your neighbors. So no relentless warmongering for me, unless I play Montezuma, Shaka, Ghengiz Khan, Boudica, Tokugawa, undsoweiter. Now that I think about it, quite a few of the leaders in the set were known almost exclusively for their warmaking capability. Hmmm. 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Blaupanzer
Could you elaborate a bit, wodan?  |
Sure, I guess, though realize that this topic is so wide open that we could talk about any of a number of different things.
Going back to the original, the way I read it is that the assertion is thusly: upgrading units is a good idea in many situations because hammers are often more valuable than gold (=commerce =beakers) in terms of what do you NOT want to spend to have a good military (whether needed for defense or offense).
First off, let's get this out of the way: gold = commerce = beakers for purpose of this discussion. Object now or forever hold your peace. 
Secondly, let's assume that the main choice here is build new units and retire the old ones to garrison duty (and disband the oldest if needed), or upgrade using gold.
Thirdly, let's leave emergencies aside. Obviously, if you're invaded, rush-upgrades are not only a good idea, they might be your only idea. You might not be running slavery or nationalism, and might not be spiritual. And, even if you're doing one or more of those things, you might need to do them AND upgrade. Depends on the strength of the invasion, and also how much you let your military lapse.
And so. The question is build new, or upgrade. Spend X hammers, or Y gold.
The biggest variable here is whether the player is specializing or not. Many players that I have seen on here say they build generalist cities. For example, every commerce city makes all commerce buildings, every military city makes all the military buildings, and so on. They don't really do gold specialist cities (which leave off building university etc), or science specialist cities (which leave off building bank etc). Of course, if running a CE, then the slider determines a lot: all commerce cities might be able to omit banks, for example, if the slider is at 90% or 100%.
My point? What to do with those cities when they have nothing to build? The choices would seem to be:
1) make a building that is of minor benefit
2) make a unit
3) produce gold/science
#1 is a poor investment, so let's discount it
#2 is the question
#3 directly makes X=Y, and thus the city basically makes commerce-equivalent of the same number of hammers. But hammers are low, because this is a commerce or specialist city. So, gold/science benefit is very low. But the question is the upgrade cost. Spend 200 gold to upgrade or 100 hammers to build new? In this case, spend the hammers (which is #2).
If the player has one or more military cities, then this whole question will probably never come up.
If the player has one or more production cities, then perhaps this will come up, because those cities are busy making wonders, if nothing else. Personally, I would make the wonders, and let other cities make the units (even commerce cities, see above for rationale).
I don't know if that answered the question, but there should be enough rambling up there to see if we are going anywhere.
|
|
| |
|
Blaupanzer
|
|
|
|
King
Fairfax, VA
|
Oct 2000
time: 06:58
| |
|
|
| |
|
|
