Unit upgrading: a question

[A Fortiori]

Is it less expensive to upgrade a unit two generations at one time, or to upgrade the same unit twice as the technology and resources become available? Is the difference significant?

For example, to upgrade a warrior to an axeman and then to a maceman costs X + Y, to upgrade that same warrior straight to a maceman costs Z (technology permitting).

If game level and type matters, I've been playing shuffle maps, normal size, on monarch with the latest patch.

Forgive me if this has been answered in another post - I did look around a bit before deciding to ask here.

Cheers,
Eric

[Will9]

Upgrading costs are based on the difference in shield cost. The cost will always be the difference in the two units shield times three. Game speed matters since cost increases the faster the speed.

[Quillan]

As I understand it, the cost is a base amount of gold plus a certain amount of gold per hammer of difference in producing the starting and ending units. I think it's 25 gold plus 3 gold per hammer difference, but I'm not certain. Regardless of the exact numbers, the cost of upgrading from axeman to maceman and then maceman to rifleman is exactly X gold more than the cost of going straight from axeman to rifleman. X is the base cost, whatever it happens to be (25, I think, as I said). You'll save a little bit of money. The real question is "Do I need macemen right now, or can these wait until later?" Actually, the real question is "Do I really need to spend the vast amounts of money it'll take to upgrade these units, or can I build units just as effective as these?" In most cases, I prefer to build new ones. However, if I have loads of money or the units have loads of promotions I want to keep, I'll upgrade. I've found it's become normal for me to wind up with about a dozen or so City Raider 2-3 axemen who eventually wind up as mechanized infantry if the game goes on that long.

[zhuren]

Quillan:

Actually, the real question is "Do I really need to spend the vast amounts of money it'll take to upgrade these units, or can I build units just as effective as these?" In most cases, I prefer to build new ones.

Same here. I usually spend all my money on teching (i.e. low taxes) to be competetive.

So, I wonder if anyone really affords the luxury of regularly upgrading, for example, his standard city defence units? (btw. who else misses Da Vincis Workshop?). I think upgrading is (way) too expensive right now considering the huge sacrifice of having to lower one's tech rate.

[Solver]

I upgrade when I have a lot of money to spare. Otherwise, I upgrade the elite core of my army. Some units are too good to leave obsolete - you know, if you have a Knight which is Combat III + Pinch + Shock, it's a big waste not to upgrade him to Cavalry.

That's also how upgrades are intended - you upgrade some experienced units, but mostly build new ones. Oh, you can also get some wicked strong units by upgrading. For example, a City Raider III Maceman can be upgraded to a Grenadier, and retain the promotions - that will chew Riflemen to bits.

[Cort Haus]

As Quillan said, there's an 'admin charge' for each upgrade in addition to three times the difference in hammer cost, so one blast is cheaper, all other things considered.

I use upgrading a lot playing builder games on water maps with few hammers, so there's nearly always something more interesting to build than a unit. Even my 'unit pumps' end up as economic centres, as wherever there are hammers there must be Uni's and Banks to enable Oxford & Wall St.

I've been playing Prince recently for more relaxing, open-optioned games than the narrower Monarch, so I can get a healthy tech lead to keep my units a generation ahead of the AI, to compensate for it having two-or-three times as many units as me. We must not allow a powergraph gap!

It bugs me that the AI is allowed to upgrade much much more cheaply than me, but I recognise that it wouldn't need the bonus if it didn't need it, as-it-were. I'd still prefer it to pay a decent whack though, and I'll play a level up if it gets to easy for me.

[Mr Justice]

its slightly cheaper to upgrade more than one step at a time, but considering the overall cost its only a couple of % different.
ive only examined upgrades of two or less steps for cost comparisons, i have upgraded warriors to inf in 1 go but when i do that its cause the gold is burning my pockets.

[A Fortiori]

Thanks everyone, for your replies.

So there is a small advantage to waiting and upgrading two or more steps. Selective upgrading is the way to go and watch the powergraph.

I'm in a game now as financial Cathy and have a bunch of extra cash in the mid-game with tech trades and gpt deals for resources. Although I was initially shocked by the upgrade cost in CIV, this particular game is going well and I've had the option to upgrade more than usual.

Cheers,
Eric

[rah]

Yes, your favorite Cossacks become great gunships.
When I play Cathy, I like to make sure I have some extra money when I get flight.

[Solver]

You need rocketry for Gunships rah .

[Quillan]

Both rocketry and flight for gunships. Flight alone gets you fighters. Rocketry alone gets you SAM infantry.