On updating obsolete units

[dainbramaged13]

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

yes, a lot of crying is done when units are upgraded



All I have to say to Firaxis is, they should decide which units should be upgraded, and there should be definite lines of upgradeability, with no skips or jumps allowed. Specifics to me are unconsequential, just as long as it's fun to play

[CivPatriot]

As long as we get unit upgrades I'll be happy. How to implement them, is open to disusssion however.

[To_Serve_Man]

I like your avatar Provost Harrison

[joseph1944]

I to would like to have unit upgrades. This is a game, and is not require to be real life.

[Gramphos]

To_Serve_Man: make your Avatar a Gif with transparent background.

[DarkCloud]

Real units were upgraded when their "Lords" outfitted them with new materials, so this is completely conventional- the only unreal aspect of obsolete upgrades is Leonardo's Workshop.

[To_Serve_Man]

No I mean I like PennyWise.... the band in which that symbol represents. hehe

[CivPatriot]

Should modern units be treated differently in the refitting cycle than anciet or medievil ones? For the sake of simplicity in game play no. I think that all units should be forced to upgrade in a city greater than size 4 for anciet units, size 7 for medievil units, and size 10 for modern units, and these cities must be connected to the trade route.

Btw, could we refrain from talking about avatars?

[DarkCloud]

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??

But the warrior is outfitted in 20 years in ancient times, and 2 years in modern times- I feel this is enough time to learn the new trade.
Also- How many times will you be able to upgrade from 'warrior' to 'tank'? The upgrade will be after 1000 years of discovery of new equipment.

[JMarks]

Civ 2 already has a way to upgrade units. Its called DISBANDING! Ok, yes its agravating when the AI isn't smart enough to do the same often enough, but thats a problem with the AI. Hopefully such a thing will be fixed. But the idea that its unrealistic not to have units automaticly upgraded is absured. Anyone hear of the Swiss guard? Sure they're more symbolic than usefull, but so would any leftover pikemen in modern times.

Ioanes

[dainbramaged13]

The swiss guard is maybe sthe equivalent of 1 or 2 pikeman... and its a special case.

Anyway, the capability for unit upgrades, whatever the cost on production time, or in-game gold/shields, MUST be included in civ3. Could we get some response from firaxis about this?

[LDiCesare]

The swiss guards cannot beupgraded because the Vatican doesb't know Gunpowder.
I don't mind "realism". It is far less realistic to be able to keep warriors in the 20th century than have an automated upgrade of armies. Armies should upgrade automatically because the player will not have to micromanage everything. When you've got 30 or 40 pikemen that you want to upgrade, you lose an hour doing so and that's not fun. Same for tanks and ships. Realistic? Upgrading automatically would mean "automatically disbanding and building the new army".
I hardly ever go on playing if I don't get Leonardo because I'll be bored updating units.

[Provost Harrison]

Why can't they have it like in SMAC where you pay a lump sum to upgrade your armies, which is the best idea. Comes straight out of the coffers. A poor and shabby nation in reality would not be able to equip it's soldiers with the most modern weaponry, or if the army is too big for the nation to support feasibly. It would also favour a bit more thought into military forces rather than a huge block of units (unless you are rolling in dosh of course ).

Upgrades for cash, as was the case in SMAC, is the way forward...

[Sava]

Here are my thoughts on upgrading...

Infantry units should be upgradable. It isn't hard to drop your sword and pick up a gun.

Cavalry are different from armored units, let's not think they are similar just because Civ2 said they were. Cavalry became obsolete during the "trench war" (WWI). The tank was invented to break through the trenches. Don't you people watch the History Channel? Cavalry units should be treated as infantry, because Cavalry are just guys on horses. Cavalry units should be equipped with horses a la Colonization. This would end this silly debate.

In terms of Naval, Air, and Armored units. These are machines people. Machines don't last very long, especially if they are not maintained. You people need to get away from this whole "name" idea and look at things logically. Can you convert a wooden boat (Ship of the Line) into an Ironclad? NO!! Ironclads are designed much much differently. Ship of the Lines were scuttled (disbanded) and the Ironclads were built. But Ironclads were only around for about 25 years. Ship design radically changed between the Civil War and the Spanish American War.

Units should be able to have minor upgrades. i.e. Adding radar to a Battleship, Cruiser, etc. Adding missile turrets to a ship.

Air units should not be upgradable at all. You can't turn an F-15 into an F-117A stealth fighter because they are two completely different things. Infantry units are just guys with weapons, whether they be swords, guns, pikes, spears, bows, or toothpicks. Machines should not be upgradable.

Here's an example:

Warriors to Marines, YES, but only if there is a barracks in the town.

Catapult to Cannon, NO, you can't turn wood into metal.

Trireme to Caravel, NO, they are two completely different designs.

Ironclad to Destroyer, NO, again, two completely different designs.

What I propose is something similar to Civ2. When you disband a unit, you get a production bonus to whatever you are building. Basically, this accounts for scrapping the materials and reusing them.

In addition, I'd like to see a seperate tech tree for weapons. Weapons design has been a large part of human history and I'm not satisfied with "Conscription" giving me Riflemen. How about an advance called "bolt action rifle". This is going to be a Civ 4 wish for me.

[Lordfluffers]

I wish people would read the whole post before commenting!!!

Things like outfitting warrior units have already been generally agreed to be unfeasible!! The concept of refitting is not literally taking a pikeman and giving him a gun it is representative of developments over years. I presume a destroyer unit is not a single destroyer but a squadron, over time these units would be slowly refitted so an ironclad unit would over a matter of years be transformed into destroyers. P.S. The first ironclad was a wooden ship covered in Iron, that why it was it was called an Ironclad (clad in iron duh!) !! The French made it but I forget its name.

Remember this is a gradual upgrade, not an instant conversion of all your forces. Instantaneous upgrade is a bit ridiculous, it takes years in peacetime to replace and refit forces. It should be balanced that just as you finish upgrading your ship of the line units to ironclads a new discovery would be made to continue the constant evolutionary process.

Army structure changed a lot in the 18th and 19th centuries but cannon units were slowly outfitted with artillery etc. Look at military history and you'll see that whole armies arent disbanded and rebuilt when a new advance comes along but are instead slowly outfitted.