Automatic unit upgrades or disbandings ?

[saracen31]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
And there is no point in losing the experience accrued by your men.

I do think they should be brought into cities (possibly even into colonies, that would solve some of the micromanagement) to be upgraded. Units in the midst of a siege should not get an upgrade in any event.

I think they should lose a level of experience when it happens however. If you suddenly upgrade warriors with sticks to pikemen, I'd think there would be quite a learning curve there. They're still fighting men with some experience, but it would be a whole new ballgame.

[Cyclotron]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I would like to see the SMAC based system where you can pay to upgrade your units to newer versions. It would be too much micromanagement to mess around searching for old units and taking them in to be disbanded and replaced. And there is no point in losing the experience accrued by your men. Perhaps one thing they should make sure of is that units can only be upgraded in cities, although this may cause too much complication (units holding overseas colonies, for example)

Isn't this instantaneous upgrading, even if it is in the cities? Besides, paying money is not as good a solution as paying shields, since it makes the player actually take time to upgrade.

Hey Harrison, do you mean to say that Civ2 had too much micromanagement? I couldn't agree less with that. Civ2 actually made you work do modernize, which both makes the upgrading process gradual (to avoid surprise upgrade attacks) and makes it more "realistic" (if you care for that).

In addition, I would be outraged if you did not lose all experience gained by a unit when they are upgraded. They haven't even fought a battle yet! Making them keep their veteran status would basically remove the need for barracks and training facilities in the late game. Barracks are for re-training too, y'know. Civ2 disbanding accomplishes exactly this re-training and re-equipping.

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Hey Harrison, do you mean to say that Civ2 had too much micromanagement? I couldn't agree less with that. Civ2 actually made you work do modernize, which both makes the upgrading process gradual (to avoid surprise upgrade attacks) and makes it more "realistic" (if you care for that).

Yeah, pretty much. I understand micromanagement is an integral part of the game, but it is the unnecessary micromanagement that can be cut. Trading with caravans was quite time consuming to figure out all the best places to send them to optimise money generated. So the new trade system eliminates that. Also when acquiring a new technology and having to upgrade units, I was never fussed on the concept of having to build new ones, disband, etc. Leonardo's Workshop was a good wonder and why everyone grabbed it, probably the best wonder. But still, a more integral form of upgrading should be in the game. I would say the use of money to upgrade would be sufficient, for the purchase of new weapons and equipment, retraining etc. But I am not convinced that this should just happen spontaneously 'in the field'. A unit should have to return to a city to upgrade, or perhaps a colony and fortress as well. If the money has been paid out, the unit should be upgraded there and then as soon as it reaches one of these facilities.

The problem with disbanding and retraining in Civ2 was that it was very much 'all or nothing' due to the nature of the game (you were either veteran or were not veteran). I think experience should be kept between different levels of technology. Basically they are battle hardened units who are just upgrading their weaponry and equipment.

[aaglo]

Item: upgrading of units with loss / without loss of experience...
Why they should lose xp? Well, all the xp they have is accumulated using older equipment/weapons, thus they need to practise the use of new eq./wpns, right?
Why they shouldn't lose xp? As a matter of fact I don't know. Well, if the unit is veryveryvery green, you actually can't go any lower , but that's not a good reason. Let's think a better one... Has anyone arguments for this?

[Sava]

One solution I have often presented would solve this problem. In Colonization, military units were made by equipping them with weapons. If that feature is added (it won't be) to Civ 3, maybe Civ 4, it would solve the problem. Armies would simply be equipped with new weapons. So, ideally, it wouldn't cost any gold to upgrade. The length of the upgrade process would only take as long as your "Weapons Workshop" (the name of the building in my plan) takes to produce the newer weapons.

The first army - "me pick up stick, hit you in head" The newest army - "me pick up rifle, shoot you in head" Whoever says man has evolved is wrong! "Those who fight, don't think!"

[aaglo]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
...The length of the upgrade process would only take as long as your "Weapons Workshop" (the name of the building in my plan) takes to produce the newer weapons.

Mr. SoulAss. ( )

What's wrong with the Colonization word Armory or Arsenal

[Slax]

I agree with Provost. I hope Civ III has some kind of upgrade feature (in cities only), and of course no Leonardo's Workshop wonder.

But I still want some kind of eventual automatic disbanding if you leave units un-upgraded for too long. I'll bet that if this was a feature of Civ I or Civ II, no one would say it was a bad idea now.

[Cyclotron]

Automated disbanding is ridiculous and would be annoying. It's obvious why people would want to get of obsolete units, so let them do it themselves. I can think of no reason why anybody would keep a phalanx around until the space age, but I also can't think of any reason a special feature has to be put into the game to prevent them from doing this. Where is the logic? What is the reason? If I want to upgrade my units, I'll do it myself, thank you very much. I don't need to have my gameplay interrupted by some feature put in because a few people just can't deal with an archer being on the same map as a howitzer. Deal with it!

As for upgrading, although I prefer the Civ2 disbanding and re-building (I happen to like the micro involved) I wouldn't mind another system as long as it is not instantaneous and happens only in a city (or optionally, fortress?). I don't know about paying money for upgrades... It makes since, but if you don't pay shields then the upgrade is instantaneous, is it not?

[Slax]

Originally posted by cyclotron7
Automated disbanding is ridiculous and would be annoying. It's obvious why people would want to get of obsolete units, so let them do it themselves. I can think of no reason why anybody would keep a phalanx around until the space age, but I also can't think of any reason a special feature has to be put into the game to prevent them from doing this. Where is the logic? What is the reason? If I want to upgrade my units, I'll do it myself, thank you very much. I don't need to have my gameplay interrupted by some feature put in because a few people just can't deal with an archer being on the same map as a howitzer. Deal with it!

Why then am I not allowed to BUILD obsolete units and wonders? Gee, I have all the technology to build them but the damn game won't let me. I have half of a unit built, and now its obsolete and can't be finished, I can't believe may gameplay is being interupted like this.

This was a game feature to push the units in play along the timeline. I suggest they finish the job.