Automatic unit upgrades or disbandings ?

[Slax]

I have not noticed - has anything been said about making units obsolete? Is there any automatic upgrade or disband feature? If we don't disband units, will we still have ancient units wandering around in the year 2000?

[saracen31]

I doubt there will be auto-upgrades, unless there's a wonder equivalent to Leonardo's, which always was pretty unrealistic (but cool). But I don't think anything's been said about the issue.

Don't see why you couldn't have ancient units in the modern age.

[Gramphos]

Originally posted by saracen31
I doubt there will be auto-upgrades, unless there's a wonder equivalent to Leonardo's, which always was pretty unrealistic (but cool). But I don't think anything's been said about the issue.

The best way would to have the units change or disband in some turn (When new weapons are discovered you could either set to upgrade all units, and all new requiting to that units will be the new type (in the change period it would have a medium function for all properties))

Don't see why you couldn't have ancient units in the modern age.

As the units need to be filled with new people to not die, and someone rarely would train units into old ways of war

[Inverse Icarus]

maybe leo's can ba a minor wonder.

[jerkwaterbox]

or maybe it will be like SMAC where you can pay money to upgrade you units to better things

i sure hope so

[Ralf]

Originally posted by Slax
If we don't disband units, will we still have ancient units wandering around in the year 2000?

I suspect that the ADM-stats differs much more from one era to the next, in Civ-3 compared with Civ-2. Just compare standard ancient chariots (1-1-2) and archers (2-1-1) with standard middle-age swordsmen (3-2-1) and knights (4-3-2). An ancient unit (even a civ-specific one) is pretty useless against middle-age - not to mention industrial & modern age combat-units. So I guess, one is more or less forced to upgrade - which is good.

[Admiral PJ]

I'm a little worried about the idea of different ages being greatly different in combat powers. It would be good for the realism factor, but could upset the game balance. I don't want one nation being too powerful and no other nation able to touch it,
it would be good if when one nation reaches a new era or a certain year comes then a new era comes for the whole world.
Maybe this new era would somehow balance out things, perhaps allowing technoliges to be reserched at higher quicker rates for all nations.. needs more thought (When i'm not half asleep).

AdmiralPJ

[Kc7mxo]

I see no reason for automatic disbandings. Would you like your 200 dragoons to just wander home just because you finnally figured out cavalry?

defeintly not a safe thing!

But automatic upgrades would be terribly unbalancing.

Hopefully there won't be any reccurence of the ctp fiasco.

[Bleyn]

Originally posted by Admiral PJ
I'm a little worried about the idea of different ages being greatly different in combat powers. It would be good for the realism factor, but could upset the game balance. I don't want one nation being too powerful and no other nation able to touch it,
it would be good if when one nation reaches a new era or a certain year comes then a new era comes for the whole world.
Maybe this new era would somehow balance out things, perhaps allowing technoliges to be reserched at higher quicker rates for all nations.. needs more thought (When i'm not half asleep).

AdmiralPJ

I disagree. There should be enough of a difference between the different eras that the civilizations in the later eras have at least something of an advantage over those who have not gotten that far. If I have researched my way into the renaissance, my troops should have a distinct advantage over those of a civ. stuck in the anchient era. Yes, there should still be a chance that a large enough mass of ancients will wipe out a newer unit. But one on one, there should be no question who is going to win most of the time.

Now, I am not saying that changing from ancient to medieval should instantly give a civ an unbeatable advantage. It should be more gradual then that. And yes, I do think that if I can ramrod myself to the industrial era when everyone else is stuck in the ancients, I should be stomping on them.

But to advance everyone else just because I have broken a threshold? That doesn't make much sense. Yes, I know that in modern times, there is a lot of research and technology that anyone and everyone eventually has access to. But that is a function of modern communications. For much of human history, travelling long distances limited communication and the spread of ideas.

Consider the pre-Columbian Americas. They were completely isolated from the rest of the world for thousands of years. Their technological advancement was completely disjuncted from everything everyone else in the world was doing.

Now if you said that neighboring civilizations with which communication existed might get some small research bonus from proximity, I could be more agreeable to that. Communications exists, and unless one of those nations has closed their borders to the other nation, or all other nations, some movement of knowledge will inevitably occur.


As for auto upgrades or disbanding... I'm bleegh on both. There should be some investment in time and resources that precedes the upgrade. And the thought of loosing units just because a newer unit that I might never actually use appears? Double bleegh.

[lockstep]

Originally posted by Kc7mxo
But automatic upgrades would be terribly unbalancing.

The upgrade could be executed whenever a unit arrives at a city.

[Gramphos]

Actually a unit must receive supplies even when it not is in the city, and upgrading them would be realistic, if it took some years, and not all units upgraded in the same time.
In the upgrade process it should for the turns an upgrade would take every turn get x% of the new units abilities. I.E. if a unit that moves one step is made obsolete by one that moves two steps and the change would take three turns before it was upgraded. This would be how it was (I’m just focusing on movement, but the same should apply for all abilities)
Turn0: You discover the new unit; no upgrade has started
Movement: 1
Movements on road: 3
Turn1: Upgrade started
Movement: 1 1/3
Movements on road: 4
Turn2: Upgrade continued
Movement: 1 2/3
Movements on road: 5
Turn3: Upgrade finished
Movement: 2
Movements on road: 6

[Ralf]

Originally posted by lockstep
The upgrade could be executed whenever a unit arrives at a city.

AND you must pay an upgrade-price, as well - although a worthwhile one comparing with building from scratch. Also, this upgrade price is only available after you have built yourself the appropriate mini-wonder (available only for those who actually battle-exercise their combat-units). Finally, you cannot upgrade any unit-type to any different updated unit-type, of course.

Bombers only to advanced bombers
Early wooden warships only to advanced wooden warships
Infantry defence-units only to more advanced infantry defence-units
Early tanks only to modern tanks

You get the idea. Also, any combat-status falls down one step, in the process: from elite -> veteran, and from veteran -> regular. (sorry - otherwise Kc7mxo is right; this automatic upgrade-feature becomes too unbalancing, like it was in Civ-2).

[Slax]

Originally posted by jerkwaterbox
or maybe it will be like SMAC where you can pay money to upgrade you units to better things

i sure hope so

Did the units have to be in cities to be upgraded? Is this the most likely method for Civ III, or does it not fit with the known features?

I'd like to see some kind of automatic obsolescence (and disbanding) of units after, say, 2 generations of new tech (particular to that type of unit). Meanwhile, the units can be put towards building new units.

I guess there has been no official mention of this topic by Firaxis.

[saracen31]

I'm not in favor of auto-disbanding at all...why do that? I frequently have warriors/phalanxes in my cities, even after getting the advances for archers, pikemen, legions, etc. And the trusty horseman can be useful for a long time.

It's all a trade-off: if I think I'm safe from enemies in the central heart of my empire, and I would rather build universities or stock exchanges than new units, it should be my choice.

[Cyclotron]

As I have said many times, it is strategically unsound to allow any form of in the field instantaneous upgrades. Even if only one unit is upgraded per turn, you can still have cavalry (not to hard to deal with) magically transformed into armor (a killing machine) in the middle of a battle. People would begin to plan their upgrades for maximum surprise value.

Instead, I would propose that the upkeep for obsolete units increase the more obselete they become. It would cost a lot for the US army to keep around musketeers, as their equipment is no longer manufactured in bulk and it would be hard to keep men in the service when it's obvious how ineffective musketmen are in modern combat.

Rule of thumb: Don't make anything the player will want to do anyway automatic; that will just take control away from the player and unbalance the game.