On updating obsolete units

[CivPatriot]

I agree, but I think that it should also be applied to naval vessels. It's even a further streach than going from calvary to armour(no I'm not a Brit, I prefer this spelling). Man of war to a crusier? That is way unrealistic. Make us build new naval units instead of upgrading.

[Cyclotron]

No in-field upgrades

The problem with unit upgrades that are carried out away from cities is that they could be used as a possible tactic. Consider: I have cavalry, but I am researching Tanks. I have a great deal of money stored up. I desire to swarm my enemy with these cheaper cavalry units, which they can easily defend against, and suddenly finish my research of Tanks, spend a crapload of maoney, and suddenly he's got a swarm of tanks on his doorstep.

This is why I believe that whatever system is used, it must revolve around the city.

This is for both a realistic reason and a gameplay reason. First off, you can't just have cavalry sitting out there in the field that suddenly say "hey, we've got tanks now" the instant a new tech is discovered and some money is sent their way. Upgrading includes re-equipping, re-training, re-tooling, re-strategizing, re-organizing, and a host of other logistical nightmares. I don't propose these be modeled in Civ3; Rather, it should be realized that this can not be accomplished on the field and must take place in a city (or concievably, a fortress). Second, as I have already shown, there are serious gameplay issues involved with "instantaneous" upgrades. This is by no means a problem unique to the ideas expressed here; Civ2's LW had this problem. Upgrades that are instantaneous must be carried out in a city where they cannot be used as a crackpot strategic advantage.

In general, I like your ideas... I'm just proposing that we don't have "in the field" upgrades.

[Inverse Icarus]

gah!

yes it is to hard for little uber!

i HATE when the AI starts a wonder, and FINISHES it within 5 turns.

THATS HORSESH*T

[CivPatriot]

The idea of upgrading in a city or fortress is a good one, espically for those units that were revolutionary(musketeers, cannon, tanks, mech infantry), for the rest I could see them being upgraded in the field, but for the sake of simplicity, upgrade them only in cities(might even keep the AI from cheating.

[SerapisIV]

I like that idea, upgrading only in cities. I laughed every time I upgraded my army mid-campaign in SMAC, but didn't complain too much, would've been a hassle shuttling troops around. I also like the fact that in CivIII with set unit types, its much easier to upgrade units then in SMAC with all the funky options I fielded in my armies.

[TechWins]

I really don't like the whole idea in general. If they are to have this idea then the troops should at least have to be in the city like Cyclotron7 said.

[Captain]

Yes, but in-city only!

For the reasons already mentioned, both gameplay and realism! The AI has enough trouble without me being able to send a pack of warriors to his door and upgrade them to howitzers (come to think of it, there should be some sort of limitation as well, you shouldn't be able to upgrade a phalanx into a battleship or a caravel into a stealth bomber.)

I kind of liked the old way of disbanding in a city, getting 50% back, and building new ones. It forced you to really consider whether upgrading you military was worth doing now, or waiting til later to do because of other worthwhile causes now (just like modern militaries do - the Canadian one hasn't upgraded in several decades now because of budget restraints and more pressing medicare and education "reforms").

It's weird, but I liked being able to keep 1 of each unit that I had armies of. It was cool to see my one ancient legion plus 1 archer plus 1 musketeer plus 1 cavalry around in my capital, like museum pieces. I called it my honour guard - useless in battle, but had sentimental value.

[Alex 14]

I have a great idea for solving this - check out the thread on trade to see what i mean.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Sorry, Alex 14, this is my last minute online before getting back to work...

I think the in-city upgrades are a good idea, altho I think it should cost some shields, as well. Not the cost of a whole new unit, by any means, maybe the difference paid in gold and shields. The fortress could be included in this, as it is essentially a military post - these would presumably be stocked with materials.

[Ecthy]

Well, all I can say is: Unit workshop... with a system based on SMAC, updating units would be way easier... but people just like old-fashioned lame unit models... well, you reap what you sow

[CivPatriot]

This is what I want(to clarify and list)

1. Units must be upgraded in a city or fortress(this is open to debate).

2. It costs the specail resources reqiured to build the unit, and a certain amount of gold( as a percentage of the shields reqired to build the unit).

3. Possibility for the player to allocate gold a resources in the military advisor for automatic upgrades(the units clostest to hosilte civs and the capital should be given priority).

4. Loss of veteran status(to reflect unfamilitarity with new equipment) unless barricks are present in the city(gives further importance to barracks and represents military trianing availible at barracks)

[Ecthy]

Originally posted by CivPatriot
This is what I want(to clarify and list)
2. It costs the specail resources reqiured to build the unit, and a certain amount of gold( as a percentage of the shields reqired to build the unit).

it should cost less shields (in a fortress? ) and maybe some gold.

[SerapisIV]

Originally posted by CivPatriot
4. Loss of veteran status(to reflect unfamilitarity with new equipment) unless barricks are present in the city(gives further importance to barracks and represents military trianing availible at barracks)

I like this idea. It does make barracks more important, they are pretty weak as they were in Civ2

[Lordfluffers]

I think people have got the idea. The shields-cost idea is good but it shouldn't be made too expensive because it would be hard to work out which city paid what in shields etc. would it be a equal percentage from all cities or what?? Also the idea was mainly about basic defensive units, i.e. the units that are usually maintained in a standing army. I think all units should be upgradeable though, why not a cavalry to a tank??? It would cost a lot but its your choice. Same with things like upgrading a battleship from an ironclad. You should be able to do it, you'll just have to pay a hefty price for the benefit With this method, hopefully an army will constantly be rearmed without the absurd situation of units surviving through the ages simply because they haven't been destroyed or disbanded.

P.S. I think units should only be able to be rearmed (converted) in cities. This brings the whole issue of supply and logistics into play. For example, a nation with a large number of Border guards would have to rotate their units to have them renewed.

P.P.S. I pretty chuffed my second post has got such a response!!!

[CivPatriot]

Okay, I agree Lordfluffers, lets make any unit upgradeable as long as they stay in thier class(air, ship, infanry, calvary).

Congrats also Lordfluffers, it took me several threads to get a good one going, hope fully this is a sign of things to come