Units that dont upgrade

[SK138]

I think near the later stages of the game there are just too many units to build that you really wouldn't build anymore like the frigate and the ironclad. I thought maybe making it so the frigate upgrades to a destroyer and an ironclad to a battleship or the other way around. What do you think?

[WarpStorm]

Well, that's what I did in one of my mods (as well as te AU mod). It seems to work fairly well.

[FNBrown]

I did the same thing... I make the Frigate and Ironclads upgradeable to Destroyers.

For that matter, I make Cavalry upgradeable to Tanks.

[Wittlich]

Yes, you can modify the unit upgrades through the editor...but it isn't realistic:

How can a flesh-and-bone horse (Cavalry) upgrade to to a steel encased Tank?

How can a wooden ship/iron based ship upgrade to a steel ship?

I just consider these non-upgradable units as going obsolete and I either use them until they are destroyed or I end up decommissioning them. At least this makes sense.

[player1]

How can a wooden ship/iron based ship upgrade to a steel ship?

Galleon to Transport anyone?
Galley to Caravel?
(also a huge change, since you redesign hull and sails completly)
Infantry to Mech. Infantry?
(you add them brand new motorization)


Frigate to Destroyer example?
(same as Galley to Caravel)
Cavarly to Tank example?
(same as Infantry to Mech. Infantry)

But I would personaly not allow Cavalry to Tank, since losing abilities by upgradeing (movement of 3 to 2) is bad design concept.
And there is question of balance, since that upgrade would cost just 40gp.

[Boracks]

Originally posted by player1


But I would personaly not allow Cavalry to Tank, since losing abilities by upgradeing (movement of 3 to 2) is bad design concept.

But historically accurate for many Canadian and British cavalry regiments. My father was in Lord Strathcona's Horse (Royal Canadians) during WW2 when they converted from horse to tank. And I was in the Fort Garry Horse, a reserve unit, that trained as armour but had a cavalry history, performing the last cavalry charge by a Canadian regiment in 1919.

Given some of the non-historical upgrades allowed, I can't see why this historical one was left out. The cost should reflect this, just like it takes 120 to upgrade a spearman to a rifleman.

My 3.2 cents worth.

[SK138]

I just wanted them to upgrade mainly because I didn't want to have frigates and ironclads available to build when, at the same time, I can build battleships and destroyers instead.

Originally posted by Wittlich
Yes, you can modify the unit upgrades through the editor...but it isn't realistic:

How can a flesh-and-bone horse (Cavalry) upgrade to to a steel encased Tank?

How can a wooden ship/iron based ship upgrade to a steel ship?

I just consider these non-upgradable units as going obsolete and I either use them until they are destroyed or I end up decommissioning them. At least this makes sense.

If you want realistic how can ANY unit be upgraded over lengthy periods of time. The Warrior I built in 3600 BC should not be around as a Guerilla in 1980 AD!

The only upgrading we should see(maybe) is from one unit to the next without skipping upgrades of previous units in that line of technology; once a unit is upgraded to it's next highest ability it shouldn't be available for an upgrade. Units should also have a natural attrition rate in which the unit sort of fades and gets turned into shields (for their equipment value)

At least this is my opinion of a more realistic representation of the world.

[SK138]

thats a good idea bigfree but I doubt we'll ever see it in a civ game

[WarpStorm]

Iran had units that were over 2500 years old in RL. Sure the people changed, sure the technology changed, but the units themselves traced their origins from the time of Darius.

Originally posted by WarpStorm
Iran had units that were over 2500 years old in RL. Sure the people changed, sure the technology changed, but the units themselves traced their origins from the time of Darius.

What are you typing about?

This doesn't even begin to touch on the subject at hand.

If I had a 'rock thrower' unit; should he be around 2500 years from now? Heck, the rocks he throws may not even last that long!

[Tattila the Hun]

It would be nice, if instead of "tank", my unit would be "27th Armored brigade".

[Boracks]

You can rename them. At least, I have an 'abc' icon that says I can rename a unit. Not that I'm bothering with 60+ cavalry running around, mind you.

[Fosse]

What are you typing about? This doesn't even begin to touch on the subject at hand.

Well, he's just trying to give a historical example of a unit existing for millenia... being that a few posts ago people were talking about how units can't exist for millenia...

The idea is that maybe it's silly to imagine a galley eventually turning into a modern transport, but if you look at the gold spent as an investment in new equipment and then imagine that you transfer the command and soldiers curretnly serving in the unit... then it's at least palatable.

Nobody thinks that a rockthrower built in 3500 BC is going to be composed of the same guys in 2000 AD (or 3550 BC!), but the idea is that the civ is continually recruiting and training that UNIT with new members.

[FNBrown]

Originally posted by Wittlich


How can a flesh-and-bone horse (Cavalry) upgrade to to a steel encased Tank?

This happenend quite frequently in the US Army.

When Cavalry divisions no longer used horses, they were re-assigned tanks. Many of the Cavalry divisions that were around in the 1800's are still in existance, they just drive tanks instead of ride horses.

The concept of the upgrade is not upgrading the weapon itself, it's training your troops to use an entirely new weapon that does the same job they've always done, only better.

In fact, there are Cavalry divisions these days that use helicopters - although I think the choppers in Civ3 are ill-suited for that purpose.

The point is, when you invent tanks, you don't tell your men who ride horses to pack their saddles and go home. You put the horses out to pasture, and you train the men on how to drive tanks.

[Wittlich]

Originally posted by FNBrown
The point is, when you invent tanks, you don't tell your men who ride horses to pack their saddles and go home. You put the horses out to pasture, and you train the men on how to drive tanks.

Ah, but wouldn't training the men on how to drive tanks be the same thing as building the tank (not upgrading)?

I do see your point FNBrown, but I also see Firaxis'. I guess if you were able to upgrade Cavalry to Tanks, it would lead to an unbalancing effect in the game...

[Sinapus]

Originally posted by Wittlich


Ah, but wouldn't training the men on how to drive tanks be the same thing as building the tank (not upgrading)?

I do see your point FNBrown, but I also see Firaxis'. I guess if you were able to upgrade Cavalry to Tanks, it would lead to an unbalancing effect in the game...

I pretty much see disbanding a Cavalry unit while building a Tank unit in the same city to be the equivalent of retraining/re-equiping the Cavalry unit to use tanks.

Of course, you could always use your Cavalry as cannon fodder until your tank forces are up to speed.

[FNBrown]

Originally posted by Wittlich


Ah, but wouldn't training the men on how to drive tanks be the same thing as building the tank (not upgrading)?

I do see your point FNBrown, but I also see Firaxis'. I guess if you were able to upgrade Cavalry to Tanks, it would lead to an unbalancing effect in the game...

That's the bottom line... against a human player, it doesn't unbalance the game too much, because most intelligent players would gladly pay for the upgrade. The AI, on the other hand, doesn't upgrade nearly as much as it should.

Not only that, but the AI doesn't count on upgrades as much as a human player. For example, under standard rules, during the late industrial age, I don't mind building riflemen, because I know they will eventually be upgradeable all the way to MI. This is the time of the game when my empire is really rolling, and able to churn out good units. However, if I'm thinking offense, I'm less likely to crank out a ton of Cavalry I know I'll have to disband later on when Tanks hit the scene. So the upgrade path is always a factor in my strategy - and, I dare say, it is NOT a factor that the AI is capable of considering when giving build orders.

[planetfall]

Isn't the root of the problem that there are too many useless unit production capabilities in the Modern Era?

The only reason many add upgrade paths is not that the upgrade makes sense but rather the UI to select city build options is very very painful to use when the list of build options gets long. It may be humorous to see police dressed in warrior or legionairre uniforms but they are not useful military units. About like the guards around Buchinham Palace. Get for that tourist shot and a smirk.

What we need is an option to choose which eras a unit is available in. Thus by allowing warrior's in Ancient and Middle ages but not in industrial or Modern times. Implimentation could be either

A- minimum change: build change
No building of units who do not have a flag for the current Era checked in the editor. -or-

B- maximum change: retire units
Units existing without flag for current year would have to 1) upgraded, or 2) disbanded within 10 turns of entering new Era. We would need a popup: ## warriors are obsolete and will be retired in year ####.
If obsolete units not retired, then they would disappear from world. So a player has 10 turns to either build cash to upgrade some/all of obsolete units or disband them for some shield credit. If not disbanded, units are lost.

What do you think?


== PF

[FNBrown]

Originally posted by planetfall
Isn't the root of the problem that there are too many useless unit production capabilities in the Modern Era?

The only reason many add upgrade paths is not that the upgrade makes sense but rather the UI to select city build options is very very painful to use when the list of build options gets long. It may be humorous to see police dressed in warrior or legionairre uniforms but they are not useful military units. About like the guards around Buchinham Palace. Get for that tourist shot and a smirk.

What we need is an option to choose which eras a unit is available in. Thus by allowing warrior's in Ancient and Middle ages but not in industrial or Modern times. Implimentation could be either

A- minimum change: build change
No building of units who do not have a flag for the current Era checked in the editor. -or-

B- maximum change: retire units
Units existing without flag for current year would have to 1) upgraded, or 2) disbanded within 10 turns of entering new Era. We would need a popup: ## warriors are obsolete and will be retired in year ####.
If obsolete units not retired, then they would disappear from world. So a player has 10 turns to either build cash to upgrade some/all of obsolete units or disband them for some shield credit. If not disbanded, units are lost.

What do you think?


== PF

Automatically disbanding the units is a little harsh. It can leave a less wealthy civ defenseless.

I propose an alteration of your suggestion:

1. ) Obsolete units can't be built. There needs to be a resource-independent basic offensive, defensive, and naval unit for each era; not just the rifleman.

2. ) If you enter a new era with obsolete units, they are automatically upgraded to regular resource-free equivalents (offense, defense, or naval), regardless of barracks or harbor presence. In fact, they don't even have to be in a city.

[CerberusIV]

I am currently playing my own mod that allows frigates and ironclads to upgrade and also cavalry to tanks. It seems to me that the issue is cost and that the industrial and modern era units are too cheap. I like the Ottomans but find it hard to accept that a sipahi costs just as many shields as a panzer when you think what you get for that investment.

I pushed the cost of tanks up to 140 shields and MA to 220. Anybody tried this kind of change? How did it work out?

[SK138]

I like your idea planetfall but I think having a pop-up every turn telling you that a unit is going to be disbanded would be too much trouble. I think that a unit should just stay as long as it's alive or upgraded but have it so a unit of that type cannot be built when it is out of a certain era

[WarpStorm]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
I like the Ottomans but find it hard to accept that a sipahi costs just as many shields as a panzer when you think what you get for that investment.

But think about the competition at the time. I can easily get to Military Tradition at the middle of the Middle Ages if I go straight for it (and as the Ottomon's I would). Tanks won't come around until the second half of the Industrial Ages. While a little expensive, they are easily one of the best units in the game for effectiveness in their era.

[Switch]

I like that idea about era-based units....except without that auto-disband.

Another feature I'd like to see is the ability to build obsolete units....If the most recent version of a unit is incredibly expensive, I'd rather build a Rifleman and pay to upgrade it later, than build an Infantry unit that takes ~twice as long to build. Perhaps if you hold ctrl while clicking a unit, it'll give a list of every unit below it on that upgrade-tree (given you have the resource), and you can select which form to build. This would be useful for the less wealthy civs during a war: if they take a city, then they can use older units to keep up a measure of defence until they can build up the infrastructure to upgrade it.

Maybe to keep this from being used too much, it could only be used while in War-time mobilization?

[planetfall]

Originally posted by SK138
I like your idea planetfall but I think having a pop-up every turn telling you that a unit is going to be disbanded would be too much trouble.

In the maximum change scenario, I only envisioned the popup coming up at the beginning of each era. Something like this:

Current Year: ####
Retirement Year: #### + 10 turns

List of units that will be retired:

warriors ... ##
spearmen ... ##

etc.


I actually think max change is too severe as it my unnecessarily hinder weaker civs. A better option would be automatic upgrade to conscript unit of era. Upgrading to regular unit seems to both make auto retirement too powerful and would not give unexpected military bonus for players who plan on using autoretirement feature.

Remember th goal is to improve game play and remove obsolete units from:

1. city build queue
2. F3, military advisor screen

because the GUI's for these screen take longer to read the more obsolete items you find listed. I would be somewhat happy with the minimum change, Option A. I am tired of trying to find that lone archer to I can upgrade or disband so I have a free line on the F3 screen. Especially with the PTW bug on scrolling and reading military data, this is so, so, so painful and is definitely having an effect on my enthusiasm for the game.


Switch I like your idea of a short and long list for city build.

Maybe something like this in editor:

Show on short list: {default}



UNIT   Ancient  Middle  Indust  Modern

warrior  [ x ]   [ x ]  [  ]    [  ]

spear    [ x ]   [ x ]  [  ]    [  ]

...

tank     [   ]   [   ]  [ x]     [ ]

Thus in standard build queue

ancient: warrior, spear,...
middle: warrior, spear,
indust: tank... {no warrior or spear}
modern: ... {no warrior, spear or tank}

{Control} {click on build queue} -- brings up
entire list of buildable units, including obsolete units.



== PF

[SuperSlinky]

Originally posted by CerberusIV
I am currently playing my own mod that allows frigates and ironclads to upgrade and also cavalry to tanks. It seems to me that the issue is cost and that the industrial and modern era units are too cheap. I like the Ottomans but find it hard to accept that a sipahi costs just as many shields as a panzer when you think what you get for that investment.

I pushed the cost of tanks up to 140 shields and MA to 220. Anybody tried this kind of change? How did it work out?

I have done this as well. I have pretty much revamped the entire game with the options in the editor. Now all I have to do is play it and see how it works.

[Zero]

Originally posted by WarpStorm


But think about the competition at the time. I can easily get to Military Tradition at the middle of the Middle Ages if I go straight for it (and as the Ottomon's I would). Tanks won't come around until the second half of the Industrial Ages. While a little expensive, they are easily one of the best units in the game for effectiveness in their era.

Just want to elaborate on this. Note that beelining to military tradition allows you to have 8:4 advantage in middle age, 8:6 advantage in early industrial age and only 8:10 disadvantage in mid-industrial age. Even if tanks come in, if yo dont have oil then 8 is the highest damage you can do (Marines). INstead of building slow marines you can continue to build Siphai in that case.

[Gangerolf]

never mind

[elcapjtk]

I think of it as the actual units surviving 6000 years, but the division of your military that survives.