Thread Tools
Old September 17, 2001, 14:24   #31
saracen31
Warlord
 
saracen31's Avatar
 
Local Time: 13:27
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Dallas
Posts: 152
Quote:
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.
saracen31 is offline  
Old September 17, 2001, 17:11   #32
Cyclotron
Never Ending StoriesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
King
 
Cyclotron's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:27
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cyclo-who?
Posts: 2,995
Quote:
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.
Cyclotron is offline  
Old September 18, 2001, 04:25   #33
Provost Harrison
Apolytoners Hall of FameCivilization IV PBEMPolyCast Team
Deity
 
Provost Harrison's Avatar
 
Local Time: 14:27
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Germans own my soul.
Posts: 14,861
Quote:
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.
__________________
Speaking of Erith:

"It's not twinned with anywhere, but it does have a suicide pact with Dagenham" - Linda Smith
Provost Harrison is offline  
Old September 18, 2001, 05:30   #34
aaglo
King
 
aaglo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:27
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the contradiction is filled with holes...
Posts: 1,398
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?
__________________
I'm not a complete idiot: some parts are still missing.
aaglo is offline  
Old September 18, 2001, 05:35   #35
Sava
PolyCast Team
Emperor
 
Sava's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:27
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: mmmm sweet
Posts: 3,041
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!"
Sava is offline  
Old September 18, 2001, 05:41   #36
aaglo
King
 
aaglo's Avatar
 
Local Time: 16:27
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: the contradiction is filled with holes...
Posts: 1,398
Quote:
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
__________________
I'm not a complete idiot: some parts are still missing.
aaglo is offline  
Old September 18, 2001, 21:21   #37
Slax
Prince
 
Slax's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:27
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 657
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.
Slax is offline  
Old September 18, 2001, 21:46   #38
Cyclotron
Never Ending StoriesThe Courts of Candle'Bre
King
 
Cyclotron's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:27
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cyclo-who?
Posts: 2,995
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?
Cyclotron is offline  
Old September 18, 2001, 22:39   #39
Slax
Prince
 
Slax's Avatar
 
Local Time: 08:27
Local Date: October 31, 2010
Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: London, Ontario, Canada
Posts: 657
Quote:
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.
Slax is offline  
 

Bookmarks

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 09:27.


Design by Vjacheslav Trushkin, color scheme by ColorizeIt!.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.2
Copyright ©2000 - 2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Apolyton Civilization Site | Copyright © The Apolyton Team