Do you mainly upgrade old units or purchase new ones?

[joncnunn]

Myself, all defensive units are upgrades; they were often originally Warriors.

Consequently, Muskets are never on my unit roster.

On attackers, it's a mix, I'll often prebuild some Calvary as Knights, and sometimes a couple of Horse Archers I built to use as scouts post barb towns poping up.

My Cat's usually don't survive combat long enough to be upgraded. Cannons though are upgraded to Arts.

Tanks have to be built from scratch; I haven't needed to build any Modern Armor yet, there were plenty of Tanks to upgrade.

All Gunships I end up with began life as Calvary.

[Velociryx]

It may take a while, but I try to upgrade absolutely everything I have....I've discovered that it boosts your "number of soldiers" in the f9 summary screen (ie, upgrading a warrior to a maceman will give you "more troops" in the f9 summary than you had before....I guess maybe this is because a mace is "worth more" in terms of troop strength).....anyway, it's a good way to boost your "army size" relative to the AI WITHOUT incurring more maintenance cost.

-=Vel=-

[Martinus]

Depends on a situation. Normally, with Financial civs I have enough cash to upgrade the entire army. In non-Financial games, I usually do a mixture of both, though I prefer to build new ones if the units do not have much experience (e.g. when they were guarding a city and never saw a battle).

[Sandman]

I only upgrade in emergencies or for elite units. Otherwise it's a waste of money.

The old units get sent to the front as cannon fodder. Preferable to disbanding them, IMO, although it does give the enemy experience.

And of course, outdated units make great pillagers.

[couerdelion]

Does anyone know the formula for the upgrade

I seem to recall Archer -> Longbow = 100 GP and I've seen other promotions like 115XP or 85 XP.

(2.5x New Prod Cost - Old Prod Cost) could work as a formula which means that you are selling one unit and getting another with a big margin in the selling/buying prices.

Anyone know?

[Saurus]

No upgrades during the 3 first eras (Unless I somehow get a great merhant, witch should not happen since I normaly do not use merchants-specialists)
The upgrade cost is just plainly too insanely expensive at this point.

From Industrial and onward I upgrade troops all the time but still during the Modern days my Tanks and Infantries occassionally are backed up with some brave War Elephants.

[couerdelion]

Originally posted by Saurus
No upgrades during the 3 first eras (Unless I somehow get a great merhant, witch should not happen since I normaly do not use merchants-specialists)
The upgrade cost is just plainly too insanely expensive at this point.

I’m not quite sure that I understand the logic here. Presuming the Great Merchant is sent on a Trade Mission, you might gain a lot of gold but there are many ways to invest this. The simplest would be to push money into tech or culture investment gradually although this is not an immediate investment but gradually over time.

I would argue that your statement that it is too expensive would apply at “any time” since all upgrade costs will ultimately come from these investments. Why would it be “less expensive” when you have more money?

[Arrian]

I actually often upgrade anything with at least 1 promo... eventually. First to be upgraded are any troops actually fighting (clearly). If at peace, the first up will be any troops in far-flung possessions (most vulnerable), followed by coastal cities in general, followed finally by the interior.

And yes, upgrading is a good way to jump on the power graph, which in turn can keep the AI off your back. A few longbow to rifle upgrades (not terribly expensive) can really help out there.

-Arrian

[kevin2zoo]

I typically play a fairly peaceful builder type game. So I'd rather upgrade than take time away from improving my cities. I've usually got a troop center or two pushing out a few up-to-date units to hold off an invader until I can upgrade any units in vulnerable cities. I don't think I've actually disbanded a unit yet, although I have used them as cannon foder.

[Saurus]

Originally posted by couerdelion


I’m not quite sure that I understand the logic here. Presuming the Great Merchant is sent on a Trade Mission, you might gain a lot of gold but there are many ways to invest this. The simplest would be to push money into tech or culture investment gradually although this is not an immediate investment but gradually over time.

I would argue that your statement that it is too expensive would apply at “any time” since all upgrade costs will ultimately come from these investments. Why would it be “less expensive” when you have more money?

What I was trying to say was that the 100 gold needed to upgrade an Archer into a Longbowman is a lot of money during early game since you have much less income.
During industrial and modern days theese 100-200 or whatever gold needed to upgrade that maceman into an infantry is just pocket money.

What you are saying about the Great Merchant is probably true but for me irrelevant as I don't really get them. I try to get artists, prophets and scientists instead.

[Blake]

100 gold is nothing compared to losing a city.

I find gold is pretty easy to come by. I get it from sacking cities, I get it from scamming it out of the AI. Sometimes I even run with a positive balance.

The ability to get up to date units in a very timely fashion is invaluable. The cost is cheap enough to be almost generous. It's not overpowered like in SMAC, but the balance is very satisfactory.

[couerdelion]

Too many different answers

Now this is getting confusing. Some are saying that it is great value while others are saying it is too expensive. I have to presume that the context of is different and people are making judgments based on whether they are at war and may need those units at the highest level available and how much spare money they have available.

If I have an exposed city with two archers besieged by two catapults, three knights, two macemen then I’m going to promote them both if I can (and will probably make sure the spare cash is available to do it). Even if I don’t save the city, there is a good chance of taking out two or three relatively strong units before I lose that city. There is even a small chance that I will save the city but none if I don’t spend the cash.

I think the question has to be taken in the context of peaceful development of the game running at a net cash surplus of around zero to keep techs going. It would be nice to have more money but lets assume you’re lagging a little in the tech race so really need science investment to match the AI. Do you give up the tech investment to run a basic surplus for promotion or do you forego the idea of promotion.

Still waiting for someone to confirm how the price is calculated. I’m now guessing that the price of promotion is

25 gold + 3 * production difference in units

Warrior to Axeman = 25 + 3 * 20 = 85
Axeman to Maceman = 25 + 3 * 25 = 100
Warrior to Maceman = 25 + 3 * 45 = 160

If this is the case then regular promotions are not a good idea. Running under the hereditary rule civic with 3 archers and 2 warriors in your capital may be plausible even up till the time when you switch to representation.

[Strategist83]

It seems to me upgrading is manageable later on, but ridiculously expensive in the early stages. That is an inbalance. The cost of upgrading relative to the tech level should be the same. Therefore, I suggest early upgrade costs are lowered.

[Sandman]

Originally posted by Sandman
I only upgrade in emergencies or for elite units. Otherwise it's a waste of money.

The old units get sent to the front as cannon fodder. Preferable to disbanding them, IMO, although it does give the enemy experience.

And of course, outdated units make great pillagers.

Ahh, I've found another reason to upgrade. Certain units can get good promotions right away, whereas their upgraded forms don't. Macemen can get city raider when you build them, and upgrade to grenadiers - very useful.

Edit: Blake already suggested this earlier in the thread.

[couerdelion]

It's all in the flat 25 gold cost

Originally posted by Strategist83
It seems to me upgrading is manageable later on, but ridiculously expensive in the early stages. That is an inbalance. The cost of upgrading relative to the tech level should be the same. Therefore, I suggest early upgrade costs are lowered.

Since the cost of the upgrade is based on a flat cost plus variable cost, in earlier years upgrading may be relatively expensive - although perhaps still cheap if you are using the unit in combat.

I also noticed the maceman to grenadier issue. Gunpowder don't get city raider so my grenadier with 3 city raider promotions looks to be a killer unit and a good reason for me to declare war on Saladin.