On updating obsolete units

[Grumbold]

I think trying to set barriers is just overcomplicating things. You either go for upgradable units or you don't. An infantry unit is an army not one soldier. A ship unit is a fleet not one vessel. Over the course of one or more turns the equipment the solders, sailors or aviators get to use is replaced with more advanced technology.

It is not an issue of morphing a horse into a tank but a primarily horse equipped unit into a primarily mechanised unit over the course of years. Looking at the German army in WWII this should be obvious because they were very clearly using these combinations side by side, with a mechanised division having mechanised infantry, mechanised artillery, mechanised supply trucks, horse riding infantry, horse drawn artillery, horse drawn supply carts and foot soldiers all mixed into the one formation. Their goal of having a totally mobile force was never realised because they lost vehicles faster than they could produce replacements but the blitzkreig successes they achieved were partly because they were better equipped in this respect than their opposition.

[dainbramaged13]

Originally posted by 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...

While i agree with the idealism of Cyclotron (mostly, see other post) i realize that really, if a complex system of unit upgrading is not already implemented by now (which i doubt it is, and if so, what are we arguing about) , what if anything do you think they will think about doing? THIS ( /\ ) is the only thing that will ever be implemented in civ3, and, it is not too far off from reality, maybe just skipping a few steps in micromanagement. The other option is to have a PW-like portion set away for unit upgrading that you can use later, or is automatically used whenever units are available for upgrading

[Rasputin]

Originally posted by Lordfluffers
Also the idea was mainly about basic defensive units, i.e. the units that are usually maintained in a standing army. I think all units should be upgradeable though, why not a cavalry to a tank??? It would cost a lot but its your choice. Same with things like upgrading a battleship from an ironclad. You should be able to do it, you'll just have to pay a hefty price for the benefit :

you can upgrade your ironclad to detroyer at hefty proice already, its called disbanding and rush building....

P.S. I think units should only be able to be rearmed (converted) in cities. This brings the whole issue of supply and logistics into play. For example, a nation with a large number of Border guards would have to rotate their units to have them renewed.

I think this should only be done in citys with barracks or a new City improvement (whatever it caleld) to do this.. perhpas having to leave unit in city for certqain number of turns as well to learn all the new technolgies.

I think this sort of upgrade should only be done when it affects the type of weopon carried by the unit ,eg spearmen to phalnx to musketeer to rifleman .... or horse to knight to crusader to cavalry

not to be used for untis that utliise mechanical means such as anytihng to tank... camel to truck

So basically my suggestion would be for basic upgrades but never for any naval nor air nor motorised ....

[Lordfluffers]

I think people are forgetting that the lifespan of units is massive. Although you may have a muskateer unit for 100's of years, the soldiers that populate that unit are constantly being changed and trained etc. It is not as if you are given a bunch of cavemen guns and saying 'here use this firearm'. As new technology is developed it is gradually filtered into use. This is human nature. It is anachronistic for an army to have the knowledge of rifles and its army, 40 years after the discovery, to be still armed with muskets. Although the change is not overnight, it does happen and relatively quickly. In warfare technological breakthroughs have always been exploited quickly to maintain or achieve an advantage. Also in this time period the human composition of a unit would be completely different unless you can show me an army which keeps frontline troops serving for 40 plus years. A system like Public Works in the (****ty) CTP series would allow for a variable refit rate that allows units to gradually be refitted rather than the unlikely system of total refit at the initial discovery in SMAC.

One other point, as civilistion has advanced the size of armies and their permanance has increased dramitically too. Such a system as Ive proposed would allow armies and consequently the danger of war to increase accordingly. It would be completely plausible under such a system that arms races and situations such as the buildup to the first world war, with nations frantically putting energy into upgrading and modernising, as well as building extra units, could lead to a devasting and massive war. The old system of obsolete units surviving through the ages to me is completely ridiculous.

(P.S. Any comments Firaxis???)

[johndmuller]

Units whose underlying tech(s) have become obsolete could be "sunset" in some fashion, either by being removed at some point in time (say 50 years later) or by each such unit having some probability of being removed each turn. This would force people to upgrade and would prevent anachronisms.

If that were too extreme, perhaps the obsolete units could be morphed into something else, infantry into police (social control), cavalry into farm animals (agriculture), old ships into museums or hotels (entertainment).

[Jarouik]

Originally posted by Rasputin
you can upgrade your ironclad to detroyer at hefty proice already, its called disbanding and rush building....

I think this should only be done in citys with barracks or a new City improvement (whatever it caleld) to do this.. perhpas having to leave unit in city for certqain number of turns as well to learn all the new technolgies.

The problem with this kind of more elaborate upgrade scheme (or indeed, disbanding your units and building new ones one by one) is that it adds too much micromanagement. I never upgrade my entire army to modern units in Civ 2 just because it takes too much time and attention, so I end up having just phalanxes defending my modern metropolises if I haven't built Leonardo's, which I by the way always do because it does all the hard work for me, for free

My point is that the upgrade system of SMAC is the only one simple enough to actually bother using. It models realistically enough the enormous cost of upgrading your armies (as even unit support is now only modelled with money!), and of course, there should be some limits to which units can be upgraded into which, as in Civ 2 with Leo's. Of course, as Civ 3 limits the number of cities more than Civ 2, you are not going to have such huge issues with micromanagement, but I still like the straightforward approach of upgrade with cash. You could balance the situation by at least lowering the upgraded units' veteran status and making them lose their movement points for the turn.

[Adm.Naismith]

I digged back a little, because this topic was debated many times before. I don't want to ignore the good suggestions many of you do in this thread, only add some previusly mentioned opinion.

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 old thread I mention:

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 dedicated warmonger.

I somewhat disagree about upgrading of very different unit type, as from chivalry to tank or from galeon to transport. In that case I consider unit disbanding (getting back half shields as usual) a more realistic model.