On updating obsolete units

[007]

Well, from all units INFUNTRY ONLY must be alowed to upgrate. All others - sell and build new. I don't see a ship of the line be upgreated to battleship - it is an absurd.

Ok, maybe - there is a new feature to unit - the path to upgrate. phalanx may become pikemen then musketeers then ...
Mounted archer may become a knight, cavalery ...
Cannon- can not become artilery - cause it means changing everythin and tank can not become a plasma-tank.
This way defending units gradually grow with civ, but attack units must be used as build, otherwise - they r obsolite.

THIS is how upgrate must happen: A % of production is set for millitary upgrate.
When a new upgrade is available, units that are located in citys, start to receive %of shields from this city untill the difference in cost is covered.
This way it frees us from alot of micromanagment.

[dainbramaged13]

yes i agree infantry only!

it only makes sense that way.

calvary cant be upgraded to tanks you ****ing morons!@%#%$&)#@Q!*&

[Cyclotron]

I disagree with "infantry only." Here is my line (or rather, lines) of thought:

ancient age skirmishers -> pikemen/middle age skirmishers

musketeers -> riflemen -> machinegunners -> marines (or other modern infantry)

horsemen -> chariot -> knight (elephant?) -> dragoon

All other units not mentioned are not available for upgrades.
The reason I made infantry unable to upgrade to gun-toting infantry but made cavalry upgradable to gun-toting cavalry is because of a difference in tactics. Infantry traditionally used to hand-to-hand combat, with archers used only for support, but the gun completely revolutionized the way a footman fought, defended, and attacked. The very essence of the game changed. But with cavalry, the impracticability of using muskets made the traditional bladed weapons the choice for dragoons up to the early 1900s. Therefore, tactics didn't really make a giant leap. Breech-loading and rapid fire weapons made the firearm a much more practical cavalry weapon, and thus the industrial age cavalry unit is not included on this upgrade line.

Also, obvious non-combat upgrades:

Worker -> Engineer, or some kind of advanced worker. No need for settlers to be upgraded.

Diplomat -> Spy

[CivPatriot]

1. Remember we are talking units, not tactical changes which have never and should never be modeld in Civ. Civ is a strategic game, the idea that advances in tactics should prevent a unit to be upgraded is absurd. If an effect is not modeled in Civ then then why should it prohibit units from being upgraded becase of the different tactics used by them.

2. As for the industiral difference reqired to build a tank as opposed to a calvary unit, if the upgrade is done in a city, reqiured that the speical materials needed to build that unit be availible, and that a certian percentage of gold be paid in relation to the new shield build cost, I do not have a problem with this.

3. The unit upgrade line is a good idea, but it should be continous, ie spearman>legion>musketter>rifleman>Mech Infantry.

That's all I have for now.

[Lordfluffers]

I agree the idea of a ship of the line rearming to a battleship is pretty ridiculous but I think that's missing the point. If units are allowed to refit, then it should be by one technological step at a time i.e. a ship of the line should only be able to convert to an ironclad and then subsequently to a battleship.

Secondly offensive units should be upgraded as well, armies are constantly updating their equipment and this includes offensive abilities. Many cavalry units were transformed into armoured units after the tank was introduced!!! However the point is that a unit can only upgrade at one step at a time i.e. from phalanx to pikemen not straight to muskateer, catapult to cannon not artillery etc. The subsequent loss of production/gold should slow production of other things if refitting priority was high but the whole idea should not damage the play balance if implemented correctly.

I always got pissed off that if I was in an arms race I had to effectively curtail all improvement building. The effects of a large rearmament programme would still affect your economy if it took substantial amounts of production and gold away from other projects. Don't forget you can always build more units as well. By the modern age armies should be pretty potent. I always found I could never build quite enough bombers, tanks etc. in civ2 and build all the new modern improvements etc.

[Iskandar Reza]

then it should be called rearming or re-training then, not upgrading.

you don't upgrade a knight to a tank, you train them to drive tanks, instead of horses.

maybe we could upgrade knights to tanks, but in such away that when you upgrade this turn, you won't get your tanks until, say three or four turns later (training takes time, especialy training a knoght to drive a tank or a hum-vee)

the length of time should be based on how obsolete the unit is, say from phalanx to marines = 5 turns, conscripts to marines = 1 turn... you get the picture

[CivPatriot]

Okay, let's change the name to refitting units becuase it does relfect the idea better.

I do not like the idea of having to refit a step at a time, but I do like the idea that refitting obsolte units should take time depending on thier obsolesece.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by Lordfluffers
Many cavalry units were transformed into armoured units after the tank was introduced!!!

That's true, but many others were also converted to helicopter units, and even more completely abandoned their horses and fought in the trenches with the rest of the grunts.

[007]

horse, I agree with u compelitely: Ship crews were grouned to fight as infuntry and cavalery can fight in tranches.

THAT"S WHY CAVALERY HAS DEFENCE POINTS !!!
it equals out fighting in tranches.

However, when catapult division is transformed to cannon. The effort put in equals creating new unit from scratch.

That's y i propose to apgrade only infuntry

[Cyclotron]

I'm not as worried about the realistic implications as I am the strategic ones. Tanks have a giant bonus over cavalry in terms of more hp, firepower, and movement than cavalry. Likewise, musketeers are MUCH more powerful than pikemen.

Although there is something to be said for the realistic challenge of "transforming" a cavalry unit into a tank division, the biggest problem is that an entire force of obsolete units can bridge an entire era gap and thus create a huge suprise offensive. All upgrades should not be monumental upgrades, they should be noticable improvements but not represent huge numerical bonuses. This is why I advocate a seperate line between non-gun and gun carrying infantry, and why I don't like upgrades to tanks or mech. infantry.

[Lordfluffers]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
I'm not as worried about the realistic implications as I am the strategic ones. Tanks have a giant bonus over cavalry in terms of more hp, firepower, and movement than cavalry. Likewise, musketeers are MUCH more powerful than pikemen.

Although there is something to be said for the realistic challenge of "transforming" a cavalry unit into a tank division, the biggest problem is that an entire force of obsolete units can bridge an entire era gap and thus create a huge suprise offensive. All upgrades should not be monumental upgrades, they should be noticable improvements but not represent huge numerical bonuses. This is why I advocate a seperate line between non-gun and gun carrying infantry, and why I don't like upgrades to tanks or mech. infantry.

Yes yes but the relative jump in performance is displayed by the equally high cost in refitting. Rearming cavalry units with tanks wont happen overnight simply because of the costs. When a civ discovers a new ground breaking advance, it wont simply be able to upgrade all its obsolete units but will have to phase refitting over a period of time!

[dainbramaged13]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
I disagree with "infantry only." Here is my line (or rather, lines) of thought:

ancient age skirmishers -> pikemen/middle age skirmishers

musketeers -> riflemen -> machinegunners -> marines (or other modern infantry)

horsemen -> chariot -> knight (elephant?) -> dragoon

All other units not mentioned are not available for upgrades.
The reason I made infantry unable to upgrade to gun-toting infantry but made cavalry upgradable to gun-toting cavalry is because of a difference in tactics. Infantry traditionally used to hand-to-hand combat, with archers used only for support, but the gun complet++++revolutionized the way a footman fought, defended, and attacked. The very essence of the game changed. But with cavalry, the impracticability of using muskets made the traditional bladed weapons the choice for dragoons up to the early 1900s. Therefore, tactics didn't really make a giant leap. Breech-loading and rapid fire weapons made the firearm a much more practical cavalry weapon, and thus the industrial age cavalry unit is not included on this upgrade line.

Also, obvious non-combat upgrades:

Worker -> Engineer, or some kind of advanced worker. No need for settlers to be upgraded.

Diplomat -> Spy

Cyclotron, I agree with you that those are the only paths to take, but with a legion inserted, the two infantry paths should be joined without much gameplay or realism lost.

[CivPatriot]

1. Cover the vast differences in skirmishers and infantry(gun eqippemnt men), between mechnized and non mechinzed units(infantry>mech infantry, calvary>tanks) by increasing the refit time and cost to depict this. this would help solve the strategic concerns about a suprise offensive.

2. Make unit refits allowed only in cities of size 7 or above that are connected to the trade system, smaller ones would not have the industiral capability to do refit a unit and this would discourage the AI or the player from builind a city on a campiagn just to serve as a refit HQ.

3. The greaest problem from a realism perpective and from a strategic one for the refit idea is the naval side. Since Civ3 is supposed to have a greatly enchaned trade system with specail resoursces used to build units, naval blockades become far more imporant than they were in Civ2. A man of war is far less powerful than a crusier or a battleship. It doesn't matter if one can or cannot refit a calvary unit to a tank, if one doesn't have the resources to build replacement units. How to solve this I do not know, but preventing the change of naval units from wooden to all metal is the best way. That is unless they place intermediate units in between a man of war and a battleship. I have no problem however with allowing the refitting of woodenships in thier class to more powerful ones and the same for metal ones.


By the way wasn't the vast majority of 19th century calvary fought as dismounted infantry?

[Theben]

I see no reason why upgrade "in the field" are unrealistic. It's not like new weapons and tachnology, tactics can't be shipped out of a city to where the army is. Granted, they won't benefit from a barracks and should lose some experience, but as long as they're in supply the only other restriction I can think of is a delay in upgrading based on distance from the supply source.

Now some things, like cavalry to armor, triremes to dreadnoughts, are simply out of the question, no matter if they are in city or not. The unit should be disbanded and a new one built.

[Iskandar Reza]

it is unrealistic. think about it, you have a warrior, who's used to fighting hand to hand with a spear all the while, then suddenly you upgrade them to a tank unit, and they're ready for battle the very next turn?? what, no training, no nothing??

even in real life it takes tears to train combatants to operate tanks and other advanced weaponry.

so the unrealistic part comes not from being unable to ship those tanks and techs, but from being unable to train them in field. teaching an acient unit how to operate a tank and tank tactics in the field without the fundamentals... hah, it's ridiculous.