Do you think units should Auto-Upgrade?

[Trachmir]

One of the problems with civ is that you never get to use your units, as it's always better to wait for better ones. I think units NEED to Auto-Upgrade in order to correct this, besides it's absurd to see Phalanxes running around during the modern age. One suggestion I heard was to allow Auto-Upgades, but to lower the units Health... thus the unit needs time to get back to full strength (i.e., retraining). However, I would hate for veteran units to lose that staus... afterall this represents experience not just technology.

What do you think?

[shuttleswo]

i would like to see civ3 follow the SMAC example and allow you to upgrade units at some cost to the player, and either individually or as a group (all phalanx units upgrade to pikemen). i think this is pretty realistic, since real armies regulary upgrade their equipment without creating a whole new army or unit. and particulary effective, since auto upgrading causes some playability problems (the potential to build lots of phalanx units only to have them upgrade to pikemen/musketeers).

[Lawrence of Arabia]

quote: Originally posted by Trachmir on 04-03-2001 08:48 PM One suggestion I heard was to allow Auto-Upgades, but to lower the units Health... thus the unit needs time to get back to full strength (i.e., retraining). However, I would hate for veteran units to lose that staus... afterall this represents experience not just technology.

it was me who gave that idea. A good example for this would be the American Civil War. The guns had been of a totally new class, but the tactics are way behind. Therefore, there were a lot of casualties. A unit should loose its veteran-ness when auto upgraded, thereby simulating a change in tactics.


------------------
Its okay to smile; you're in America now

[Lancer]

I suggest that a unit should lose it's veteran status when auto-upgrading, but retain something else, it's traditions. Traditions make it much more likely that a unit become a veteran again, which btw I think should only happen in combat. A barracks should only produce green units without any traditions. Traditions are achieved when a unit becomes a vet, and are reinforced EACH time it becomes a vet, becoming stronger veterans quicker.

[Trachmir]

I agree with your reasoning, however a reduction in health would accomplish the same thing with out the removal of veteran status (unless you took several turns to allow your units to heal (i.e, Train). If units lose veteran status, I think you will run into the same problem as before (although lessened)... why build Veteran Musketeers (due to barracks) and allow them to become "normal" Riflemen, when you can wait a few turns and just build Veteran Riflemen? This assumes however that barracks work the same as in earlier civs... if you could/must take time to train a unit at a city with a barracks after the unit was built, then I wouldn't have a problem with the loss of veteran status.

Another suggestion for Auto-Upgrade, the Unit MUST be within your territory (or perhaps an allies) for it to occur.

I am willing to have a "command" to upgrade a unit for a cost, but this does require more micromanagement and need not be required to insure balance (especially if units healths are cut to 50% (or half of current) right after an Auto-Upgrade).

[Adm.Naismith]

I suggest to dig back to this thread: Unit evolution, a use of veteran status .

Me, Tiberius and others debated about auto upgrade, but supposing Civ units similar to SMAC's, so we mentioning minor and major upgrade. We are supposing the extended level or experience used in SMAC (very green, green, hardened, veteran, commando, elite) will be used instead of Civ 2 two level (Green/Veteran)

Just a brief excerpt/summary of the linked thread:

Major upgrades

Upgrade command possibilities:
a) one unit-by-one (selected by "right click menu")
b) all units inside one-city/one-base (one kind of unit)
c) entire civ (one kind of unit)

Upgrade will cost money: I suggest to balance it starting from "rush build" cost for the difference from existing unit to new one.

Duration (turns unit will be unable to move/attack, similar to artillery rule):
1) One turn in military bases (inside cities or fortress/airport)
2) Two turns for the rest of the units (on the field)

After major upgrades units will lose 1 level of training/morale (maybe 2 outside mil. bases).

Alternatively, outside military base/cities the upgrades could take only one turn but be more expensive (+25%).

I underline once more it's all a playability problem: upgrading unit must be a decision balancing from keeping the experience level and building a unit from scratch, not really a free gift for early warmonger.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Wittlich]

Wouldn't Auto-Upgrading basically lead to everyone having a non-obsolete Leonardo's Workshop?

Frankly, I think that Leonardo's Workshop was too much of a bonus to the civ that builds it (even though it does eventually become obsolete). At least with an auto-upgrade feature the playing field is level across the board. Oh, and sure, I too would agree that if there were an auto-upgrade feature it should cost the player something to use it - be it money and/or weakened units for a few turns.

[Adm.Naismith]

Right, Leonardo's Workshop as free unit update is silly. He used his genius mostly in civil projects (channels, mobile bridges), sometime in military, but AFAIK rarely in military units (more in fortress design).

I agree that having an update feature for every civ is more fair.

Leonardo must shift from a Civ 2 Wonder to Civ III Science&Artist leader.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant

[Ilkuul]

quote: Originally posted by Wittlich on 04-04-2001 06:49 AM Frankly, I think that Leonardo's Workshop was too much of a bonus to the civ that builds it (even though it does eventually become obsolete).

NO, NO, NOOOO! Never mind how unrealistic it is, let's not get rid of Leo! OK, maybe the effect could be transferred to a great leader/artist, but something like that should still be included. Bear game play in mind: we're not all virtuosos who can notch up massive scores at deity level; and things like Leonardo's are, in my view, a great boost to the struggling 'average' player. In our desire for realism we shouldn't eliminate all convenient shortcuts!

As far as auto-upgrading is concerned, I think some of the suggestions above could be implemented in addition to retaining a special advantage for the civ that gets Leo.

[Cyclotron]

Auto upgrading treads on shaky ground. I mean, some things just can't upgrade. How about that cavalry to armor? Not gonna happen.

In addition, even some easy-looking ones don't make any sense:

Consider musketeers to riflemen. Musketters, as well as having different weapons, have way different tactics... musketeers advance in large blocks due to the inaccuracy of their weapons, while riflemen use trenches, cover, etc. The style of war is so radically different that even trillions of dollars would not "upgrade" them all instantly. Styles of fighting evolve, they don't spontaneously happen.

I propose that ugrading should not be automatic, but instead should involve more work, like time, or new barracks... auto upgrading is absurd.

[airdrik]

You are right, they use totally different tactics, but those tactics evolved as time progressed. A major change in tactics took place durring the american revolutionary war where the british with their red-coated musketeers marched in strait lines. This was a good strategy as long as your enemy was generally in front of you and there were no obstructions, but the colonists used a more geurilla approach to war, they scattered themselves and hid behind trees and bushes and stuff which made it harder for the british to see from where they were attacked (note: at the beginning of the war). Both the british and the colonists used 'musketeer units' but they used different tactics.

As time progressed tactics were refined and weapons improoved and the rifleman was created, though it was not that much more powerful than a musketeer unit because the only difference by that time was the gun. So don't go saying that there is a big difference between musketeers and riflemen.


Anyway, I like the idea of auto-upgrades for some things like phalanx->pikemen, and musketeers->riflemen->marines and manual/costly upgrades for things like pikemen->musketeer, catapult->cannon and no upgrade for things like cavalry->armor. The way it could go is like this (=> is auto upgrade, and -> is manual)

warrior->musketeer...
phalanx=>pikemen->musketeer=>rifleman=>marine
horeseman=>?(chariot/elephant)=>knight->dragoon=>cavalry
(chariot/elephant=>crusader->dragoon...)
(archer->)legion->infantry=>marine
armor=>bigger armor
catapult->cannon=>artillary=>howizer
fighter->stealth fighter
bomber->stealth bomber

[Trachmir]

Well calvary could upgade to Mechanized Infantry... or at the very least some sort of Foot Infantry.

As to the realism of these upgrades, we are talking about a large number of years here... if you want realism then you should have to build units EVERY turn, as the men would leave to retire (in the modern age, every 4 to 8 turns!)... we're talking about standing military power... and we will be paying to upkeep these forces, and modernizing them as needed!

[Cyclotron]

Military advancement is usually a slow process. Note that just because a new weapon is developed does not mean it is used immediatly, nor does it mean it quickly (or ever) replaces the old one. Note that in WW2, the British used WW1 era biplanes when newer combat craft were not available. Military units generally stay around longer than their obselescence, like the cavalry in late WW1 that were not instantaneously replaced by the newer tanks.

I see no reason why units should be able, within the space of one year, to suddenly change tactics, strategies, and completely replace their entire arsenal with newer weapons, especially in the field! Really, having the units disband and re-building them is the best way to simulate this, and the best for gameplay, too. You won't suddenly lose the war because those cavalry you've had no problems with suddenly turn into tanks that crush your forces with ease.

Auto-upgrades, when instantaneous and in the field, are absurd as well as unrealistic. Don't pull that "realism" argument on me. You know perfectly well that we aren't talking about lifespans of people, but rather the integrity of the unit as a whole. "Modernizing" is a slow and resource intensive process that is not done in the course of a year or two and is not done while a unit is out in the field. Modernizing takes training, and training takes the barracks and facilities only a city or military base can provide. If a musketeer commander gets a shipment of rifles while scouting in the forests 500 miles away from home, he isn't going to suddenly know how to use, operate, care for, and properly utilize them!

------------------
- Cyclotron7, "that supplementary resource fanatic"

[markusf]

I think there should be 2 types of upgrades. Auto upgrades to units once certain tech is discovered, and mass upgrades by spending gold....

For instance if you have mapmaking your ships can move 2 squares, once you get seafaring they should be allowed to move 3 squares, and 4 squares with astronomy. With land based units i think that certain techs should modify the attack and defence ratings of units. For instance archers have 3 attack, and once you discover iron working all archers now have 4 attack.

Major techs like gunpowder would allow you to build a new unit all together and you don't get a free upgrade. you actually have to spend money to upgrade to muskets because its a different unit class.

[Adm.Naismith]

Cyclotron7, IMHO all the problems here seems to come from the difference between real long and slow continuous update against game discontinuos one-turn upgrade.
Tactics (when really used) where teached in short time, really learned in battle, hence our proposal of an experience level lost for every upgraded units and a lost turn.

In Civ turns lenght (from 50 to 1 year!), unit upgrade on the field aren't as silly as you think: during WWI and II new artillery, new tanks, new planes, new rifles where often shipped straight on the second line for just some days of practice!

But we can bypass this forcing any update inside military base (finally useful for me ) and cities, but please not disbanding and rebuilding units: it will messing the build queue for a sooo loooong time .
Don't forget officers and general ranks don't disappear with advances: how many generals learned to shift from horses and rifle to machine guns?

Of course some update can't be permitted for balancing reason (i.e. from horses to tanks), and still require disband/rebuild.

About second line units still used in real wars, well we don't have real second line duty in Civ! So we must find a viable update path.
In real life old planes shifted to training, logistic fly, reconnaince...
we skipped all these in Civ III, for good pratical reason IMO: Civ is not a Tactical wargame.

------------------
Admiral Naismith AKA mcostant