Upgrading outdated units should be much less expensive

[Strategist83]

Currently, you can upgrade any outdated unit (example: warrior --> axeman) as long as it is in your territory. However, this costs an outrageously high amount of gold - much more than it would cost to produce a new unit (in terms of production ressource points). In the above example, it costs a massive 85 gold to upgrade a warrior into an axeman but only 35 production to create a new one. This is plain silly, because it penalizes players who guard their experienced units when it should in fact reward such play.

I suggest the net gold cost to upgrade a unit should equal the production cost of the new unit. Now there would be a real incentive to both guard your veteran units and plan ahead: You could theoretically have a simple warrior whom eventually became a marine. Further, it would reward players who remembered to put gold aside for upgrading his archers into longbowmen rather than just place all gold in research.

In order not to overpower this upgrading ability the player should only be able to upgrade units stationed not just within his lands, but only inside cities.

Comments?

PS: On a side note, what boards are the developers known to monitor?

[Blake]

Rushbuying costs 3 gold per hammer. To rushbuy an axeman would therfore cost 105 gold (ignore for the moment you can't rush from 0 hammers).

Upgrading is rather cost effectively, and can be extremely brutal when (ab)used effectively.

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Blake
Upgrading is rather cost effectively, and can be extremely brutal when (ab)used effectively.

I agree, making it significantly cheaper would make being just a little bit ahead of the tech race incrediably powerful. Think if you were just 10 turns ahead of an opponent as far as rifling was concerned, perhaps tied overall, then you have 10 turns to use your entire army (now all riflemen due to cheap upgrades) against his musketmen and longbowmen.

-Drachasor

[Strategist83]

How can you call it cost effective when it costs (if you are correct) three times as much gold as production, and the gold and production ressources are equally scarce?

[Strategist83]

Drachasor: That may be true, but I still think the gold cost being around three times the production cost is way too much. Remember that you can only upgrade on own territory - which would allow the enemy to fall back and upgrade his units as well.

[Blake]

Gold is "cheaper" than hammers.
This is because tiles have higher gold output, and gold is more flexible, it can be spent anywhere in your empire at any time.

For example, an early game town produces like 5 commerce while a mine produces 2 hammers. (2.5x as much as commerce). A late game town produces like 8 commerce, compared with +3 hammers from a mine (2.6 gold per hammer).

Your point would be valid if gold came in the same quantities and could only be spent in the same way as hammers. It is not.

[Wildcat]

Originally posted by Blake
Gold is "cheaper" than hammers.
This is because tiles have higher gold output, and gold is more flexible, it can be spent anywhere in your empire at any time.

For example, an early game town produces like 5 commerce while a mine produces 2 hammers. (2.5x as much as commerce). A late game town produces like 8 commerce, compared with +3 hammers from a mine (2.6 gold per hammer).

Your point would be valid if gold came in the same quantities and could only be spent in the same way as hammers. It is not.

Actually gold is also the basis of your research, but hammers are only used for production. From personal experience I find this limits your upgrading untill late in the game often I find myself upgrading archers into infantry without using most of the mid game troops at all.

[Saurus]

The insane upgrade cost is as far as I understand a built-in A.I handicap. The way upgrading works now, A.I do not need to really worry about upgrading while the human player need to lower science in order to have the money needed for upgrades.

[Arrian]

I think the upgrade costs are about right. Yes, it's a tad pricey, but that's a good thing. Mass upgrades were way too easy in CivIII (especially w/Leos!).

The AI does, however, get discounts on upgrades.

-Arrian

[Drachasor]

Originally posted by Strategist83
Drachasor: That may be true, but I still think the gold cost being around three times the production cost is way too much. Remember that you can only upgrade on own territory - which would allow the enemy to fall back and upgrade his units as well.

As I said though, if you are 10 turns ahead with a military tech (quite possible given all the options), then you can already make a deadly assault with 10+ upgraded units very shortly after getting the new tech. If it was cheaper then you could have 20 or 30+ upgraded units. The other person can't fall back and upgrade because..

A. You are attacking him. So falling back means you are gaining cities, which is the goal of such an attack.

B. He won't have the tech for many turns, meaning he can't upgrade for quite a while.

Making it cheaper makes being a bit ahead in tech even more powerful, since you can leverage that marginal advantage much more effectively--because you can do it in a shorter amount of time. Right now, in my experience, it is powerful enough as-is. Any upgrade change has to take this time element into account.

-Drachasor

[Krill]

It is also increasing the choices in the game. You can only upgrade so many units, so you have to chose which ones. Do you upgrade the spear with Formation and Combat 2, or what about that Axe with Shock and Combat 1, or what if I did...

[Tiberius]

Originally posted by Blake
Gold is "cheaper" than hammers.
This is because tiles have higher gold output, and gold is more flexible, it can be spent anywhere in your empire at any time.

For example, an early game town produces like 5 commerce while a mine produces 2 hammers. (2.5x as much as commerce). A late game town produces like 8 commerce, compared with +3 hammers from a mine (2.6 gold per hammer).

On the other hand, you don't pay any hammer maintenance and you don't spend hammers on research. I spend 90% percent or more of my commerce income on maintenance and research, and only 10% (or less) goes to the reserves, which can be used for upgrades later. Therefore a late game town produces less than 1 gold compared to 3 hammers from a mine (>3 hammers/gold).

Your point would be valid if gold came in the same quantities and could only be spent in the same way as hammers.

Voilà

[Krill]

I spend 90% percent or more of my commerce income on maintenance and research, and only 10% (or less) goes to the reserves, which can be used for upgrades later.

This is however, a choice...you can slow down if you so wish...and if you can stop the AI from beating you to an SS win

[Russian_King]

i think upgrading costs way too much in the beginning, i mean who has THAT MUCH GOLD? but later on u can upgrade a unit or 2 per turn

[Dis]

I still had archers and warriors at the end of my last game. I just never have enough money to upgrade these things. I really should just disband them.