What's more efficient, upgrade your units, or make new ones and replace them?

[Dis]

I have never done the math, and I'm really too lazy to. . I was hoping this has already been done.

In my current game, I'm sort of plagued by lack of cash to upgrade units. I had a really slow start, and I'm trying to keep my research rate high.

I have been building units such as rifleman, and just replacing my old units such as spearman, pikemen, and musketmen. Since I don't have the gold to upgrade.

But would it be more efficient to have these cities building units build "Wealth" instead? It's not like these cities have anything else to build, they are maxed out in all their infrastructure (at least the infrastructure I care to build- I never build coastal fortresses for example)

P.S. I do NOT have Leonardos' workshop. I missed out on all the early wonders (except pyramids).

And I'm running Conquests. Latest patch (I believe)

[1889]

I'd have to check the Civolopedia but I think wealth gives 1 gold for each 4 sheilds (1 for 2 after economics?) and upgrading costs 3 gold for each shield difference.

Upgrading Warrior (10 sheild) to Swordsman (30 sheild) cost 60 gold. For a city producing wealth to make you 60 gold it would have to produce 240 sheilds. So if you really have nothing better to do, build the new units rather than wealth.

[Sabre2th]

Of course, wealth is not a very efficient way to get money...

If you had a strong economy, upgrades would be the way to go. Since money is tight, it's probably better to just build new units and use the old ones as cannon fodder. Keep doing what you're doing

[joncnunn]

Wealth is actually most efficent on cities at max corruption where both the shield and commerce gets wasted.

And also if there's no build that can complete in that city in a reasonable time frame. Say, In WW II Pacific those islands that can't even produce an Inf within 50 turns.

And also, if suffering massive over the limit support costs and there's no building worth building and the next wonder is too far away to store shields for, the city may be better off producing wealth instead of producing units that increase your support costs.

[Addled Platypus]

instead of fodder


is it really a bad idea to disband in a city to get shields for them

I would rather not help some AI unit to promote

[Sabre2th]

Not really the question he was asking, jon.

That is a good point, Platypus. Promotions are generally something you'd want to avoid. I'd say it really depends on what units each side is using.

[1889]

Jon, your points on wealth are true enough, but that is quite a rare situation. In the WWII scenario I usually build units and then rush them with gold when I need them.

It is interesting to note that upgrading costs 3 times the difference in sheilds, but rush building cost 4 gold per shield.

Another occasional use of wealth is to delay production of workers or graneries in the early game so they match up properly with city growth. Only dedicated micro-managers can get very excited about an extra gold or two though.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Sabre2th
Of course, wealth is not a very efficient way to get money...

If you had a strong economy, upgrades would be the way to go. Since money is tight, it's probably better to just build new units and use the old ones as cannon fodder. Keep doing what you're doing

actually I disbanded all my old units. I don't like paying upkeep costs on obsolete units (unlike the AI)

[joncnunn]

For me, a lot depends upon how much my economy is suffering from obsolete units and how long until the obsolete units can be upgraded.

And note that if your in a govt that allows MP, Warriors permenatly assigned as MP are never obsolete. A warrior is actually a good MP in the modern era.

The most likely time frame for disbanding units for me is Middle Ages as a Republic post Chivarly. This is when even Med Inf is dated, can't be improved until the Ind era, and even that unit is a questionable unit.

[Dis]

I like guerrillas. If you have conquests, they are great for defense. As they get the free attack before defending- like archer units (and longbowmen). At least I think that's how the upgrades go. I believe both medieval infantry and longbowman upgrade to guerrillas. Which later upgrade to TOW infantry.

[Modo44]

If I have cash (which is usually the case), I will upgrade all built units. Med Infs might be weak on the offensive but they still do a good job when someone tries to invade me. As to the efficiency, upgrades can work to make an army quickly. You should ask players who use Horsemen -> Cavalry mass upgrades more often than I do.

[joncnunn]

The reason I don't like guerrillas (in stock) is that they are a 6/6/1 unit costing the same shields as Infs, a 6/8/1 unit.

Guerrllias are mostly there to help the AI which in Vanilla has lots of obsolete Swords in the industrial and modern era.

I'm much more a fan of the Chariot -> Horsemen -> Knight! -> Calvary!! and Spear -> Pike -> Musket? -> Inf! -> Mech Inf!! upgrade paths.

[Terra Nullius]

it's not really a answer to the question, but

there is a clear division in my mind about which units are worth upgrading.

good
warrior -> sword -> med inf;
chariot -> horseman;
archer -> longbow;
spear -> pike;
cat -> treb -> cannon

bad
med inf -> primate;
horseman -> knight;
pike -> musket;
cannon -> arty

good
musket -> rifle -> infantry
knight -> cavalry

basically, my rule of thumb is
don't upgrade pikes, horses or cannon.
do upgrade spears, trebs, muskets, knights, rifles.

as modo said, upgrades are for producing an army fast.
the cheap upgrades can do this effectively.
if you have to wait around saving cash to complete expensive upgrades, you lose the advantage.

lately, i tend to look on the middle ages as a troop building period. all those expensive muskets and knights take a lot of time to produce and they just don't have any clear-cut superiority for that era. however, they both have a cheap and effective upgrade to a crucial unit.

if i want to fight during this period, med inf or longbows have the same attack for half the cost. so i upgrade my swords, archers and send them out to die valiantly. meanwhile, i stockpile muskets(useless) and knights(not much better). waiting for the upgrade to cav/rifle.

this also helps in keeping down unit costs. by the time my longbows have finished fighting, there's only a few of them left, so i'm not paying for obsolete units. the knights/muskets i'm producing to replace them take a long time to build, so, again there are fewer of them and lower upkeep costs.

if i have any spears/ pikes left over, they get work as mp's, fortify on luxuries/resources, guard distant islands seek glorious death in battle or disband.

one spearman will cost me 30 shields to build. if he serves me for 2000 years, he's done well. i won't be getting any extra value out of that 30 shield investment by spending another 150 gold to turn him into a rifleman.

anyway, i'm sure i'm not telling you anything new there. but, just briefly, do make the effort to upgrade knights, muskets and trebs. do not waste money upgrading pikes, horses or cannon. any left over units should be disbanded if you can't find anything useful for them to do. if you've done all that and still have more production than you need, then switch to wealth.

if you are in this position now, it is clearly because something is not going according to plan. my impression is that if you keep chasing those upgrades by turning cities over to wealth, you will only sink yourself into even more trouble.

[Modo44]

Why do you say Knights are useless? Any best mobile unit of its era is a powerful toy. Granted, they are not good if you lag behind production-wise (expensive to build/upgrade to) but they do a heck of a job killing just about anything anywhere, if you can afford even a couple of them. I can say the same about Muskets. Sure, a mass upgrade is not going to happen (although, if you put your mind into it...). But if I have cities in peril, I will definately want them to have Muskets for defenders as soon as possible (so upgraded from Pikes).

Originally posted by joncnunn
The reason I don't like guerrillas (in stock) is that they are a 6/6/1 unit costing the same shields as Infs, a 6/8/1 unit.

6/3/1, actually. And they are very effective, as long as you stack them with Infantry. Then, all that counts is their attack value, and that one is useful (even more so in the AU Mod, of course).

[joncnunn]

Warrior -> Sword.
Only worthwhile if your planning a Swords Rush.
Sword -> Med Inf, a virutal no brainer considering the low cost.

Chariot -> Horsemen.
Extremely worthwhile when you manage to build Chariots at all prior to HBR.

Archer -> Longbow. Only seems worthwhile if you don't have horses to me. (Or instead if your the Vickings and therefore able to upgrade to berskers.) And about the only way to have a significant number of Archers to begin with (excluding Vickings) was if you had an archer rush.

Spear -> Pike. Very worthwhile def protection.

Cat -> Treb -> Cannon -> Art. A No brainer to upgrade

Horsemen -> Knight. An extremely worthwhile upgrade. Attack of Longbow + Def of Pike + a second MP.

Pike -> Musket. Yes, in most situations I agree so strongly that I'm slow connecting the Saltpeter.

Musket -> Rifle, that's when I actutally upgrade the Pikes to Rifs skiping Muskets

Rif -> Inf A no brainer

Knight -> Cal A no brainer

Inf -> Mech Inf A no brainer
Tank -> Modern Armor A no brainer

Guerrlia -> TOW A good upgrade