Managing your civ for the benefit of your UUs

[Dominae]

Originally posted by GusSmed
Because you're paying less per HP upgraded.
Chariot -> Horseman is 20 gold. It costs me 80 gold to upgrade 4 Regular Chariots to horsemen, an upgrade of 12 HP. It costs me 60 gold to upgrade 3 Veteran Chariots to horsemen, an upgrade of 12 HP.

Yes...but just pay the extra 20 gold to upgrade another Vet. Chariot and you have 4 Vet. Horsemen for a value of 16 HP, in which case you have the same 16/12 = 4/3 ratio.

I think what's going on here is I'm not accustomed to discuss cost per hit point, largely because I don't see the motivation. If units are compared to themselves, then hit points should not figure as its clear that Vet. units are always better than Reg. units (since they have the same stats, and consequently the same upgrade cost). If you were to cross-compare upgrade costs of units, I can see where HPs might be a factor, since upgrading a Vet. of a "lesser" unit type may result in a better unit (overall) than the upgrade of a Reg. "better" unit type.

So, I can't see the point of upgrading units after they are Vets over and above the fact that they're better as Vets in the first place.


Dominae

[BRC]

So, I can't see the point of upgrading units after they are Vets over and above the fact that they're better as Vets in the first place.

If you are pressing an attack, and you only have enough gold to upgrade a veteran or a regular, you would take the veteran to upgrade, correct? (I am now wondering if this is the proper thing to do or not)

[Dominae]

Originally posted by BRC
If you are pressing an attack, and you only have enough gold to upgrade a veteran or a regular, you would take the veteran to upgrade, correct? (I am now wondering if this is the proper thing to do or not)

Well yes. The reason this is obvious is that one unit is Veteran and the other is Regular, and Veteran units are simply better than Regular ones. I don't think this has anything to do with upgrading.


Dominae

[Charis]

On upgrades

It's not a question of is Vet better than Reg, or whether to build a barracks or not - the die has been cast and you have, in your possesssion, a Regular Warrior. Do you pay to upgrade him to Gallic Sword or not? (I'm using Gallics as an example, but the argument isn't specific to them)

In fact it IS less cost effective to upgrade the regular.
You get less for your money.

Would anyone pay to upgrade a conscript warrior? Unlikely. If Elites could upgrade to Elites? In a heartbeat yes, and would probably pay double.

Your warrior was built to be cheap MP and was made before there were enough rax around. Let's say that later in the game when considering these upgrades that you have a rax town to work with.

Option A - you upgrade reg warr to reg GS
Cost is 80 gold, result is a reg GS
Option B - you DISBAND the warrior in a rax town and immediately pay rush.
Cost is 95 gold, result is a vet GS
Option C - you keep the warrior around for MP duty, if in despotism or monarchy, and just build a vet GS
Cost is 50 shields, result is a vet GS.

Now this is not an apples to orange comparison, but a direct question for the here-and-now, which do you like?

In MOST cases, B looks pretty good. If my foes are weak, low hp or low defense, then I like A because the chance of promoting is far greater than the chance of losing my unit, especially given the GS retreat ability. A is also decent if cash is medium-low and you will only use the unit for defense.

If cash strapped, where that 100 gold might go a long way towards a tech or something more needful, or if I already have enough GS to conquer every civ on my continent, option C is best.

So there's no one answer, but the question is quite a real one. In one recent game, my foes had just warriors defending their border town and yes I paid good money to rushbuy three regular swords to go after them. In another game, I only upgraded the vets because I was going to face Numidian Mercs, and the increased losses the regulars would face made them less cost effective. That's sort of an "after tax" calculation, if you consider how many swords (reg OR vet) you have standing after their first battle, divided by the total upgrade cost. Vets are again the more 'cost effective, after tax'

Dominae and the other Viking posters -- good reads guy! :b


Charis

[Arrian]

Option B - you DISBAND the warrior in a rax town and immediately pay rush.
Cost is 95 gold, result is a vet GS

If you disband a warrior, you get 2 shields, right? A Gallic Swordsman is a 50 shield unit. Thus, you are then 48 shields short. 48x4 = 192 gold. Not so cost-effective.

I have upgraded regular warriors to GSs (leftover initial exploring warriors). Normally, it is very rare for me to upgrade regular warriors. Very rare. I normally keep them for MP duty until Republic and then disband them. But GSs are powerful units, and with militaristic, a win by a regular gives you a *very* good chance of promotion to veteran. GSs win a lot. That being said, I build almost exclusively veteran attack troops in my games.

-Arrian

[BRC]

That being said, I build almost exclusively veteran attack troops in my games.

Me too, except for the initial warriors. And those warriors end up getting disbanded upon the switch to Republic (for rushing temples, usually).

I don't think this has anything to do with upgrading.

Sorry. I guess I misunderstood.