Obsolete units?

Tilemacho · September 28, 2000, 09:39

I saw some screenshots of CTP2 and remembered this problem in CTP1.
I think it was one of the games most rediculus things. You could have tanks and pikemen at the same time!!! Of course the same problem existed in Civ2 but since every unit had the same upkeep cost it was stupid to hold obsolete units later in the game.
But the upkeep cost in CTP1 increased quite a lot for the later units making ancient units almost free. Thus it was better to keep obsolete units than to disband them.
IMO this option souldn't be available. NOONE would accept to be in an army with bows when he nows that the oponent will have chainguns...
Thus I think that obsolete units should be desbanded after some time when new wapons are available, or should become as expensive to hold as the new units.

Atahualpa · September 28, 2000, 14:40

lol chaingun. Quite a long time now since I heard it the last time, guess it was doom2!

Besides in some African state I think guns were all banned and even polices (or was it private security orgs) had to fight with bows and arrows!
Nevertheless they also have a deadly effect!
Sure it cant compete but well just to mention.

I think with the new CtP2 combat system you can go to hell (heyyyy doom) with your old units cause they added in an armor value. So I guess your ancient units wont even stop a modern-flea!

Ata

DR DOOM · September 29, 2000, 06:53

I usually found that 5 newer units in a stack could easily take out a greater number older units even fortified in a city. So the older units were best disbanded into making factories, wonders, newer units and such.

Tilemacho · October 2, 2000, 03:14

Maybe I didn't make myself clear...(well my English is defenatly not as good as yours...)
I didn't use the old units to fight against new ones. I used them to protect myself from Lawers and spies!!!The reason I didn't disband them and build new units was that they were very cheap! A pikeman costed only 2 gold every turn whereas a machine gunner much more!...and they where both as good against non-combat units.
Also older units could be used to stop trespass trought narrow land.

October 2, 2000, 04:00

I agree with your point Tilemacho. I also tend to keep my obsolete units until the end of the game....and for similar reasons too.

When I played civ2, I did tend to disband some units, because they didn't have much use later on in the game, and for the unit costs (as you mentioned). In CTP, I don't think I've used the disband more than a couple of times. The main reason being that they were taking up space.

Atahualpa · October 2, 2000, 06:42

Rather than disbanding I use all the obsolet units and stack them together in 1 or 2 full stacks and send them to the enemy.

I always have my cities defended by 2 front-units and 1 ranged unit at any time. When they are closer to the enemy I defend them with 3 front and 2 ranged units. That should keep most AI attacks from succeeding!

When there are better front and ranged units available I replace the old ones and send those not needed in stacks to nerve the enemy

Nevertheless an upgrade function would be nicer
ATa

Chris Horscroft · October 5, 2000, 20:58

Absolutely agree.

Upgrade shouldn't be too difficult, and accurately reflects what goes on in the real world. Calvalry regiments eventually get tanks, infantry units are upgraded with new weapons and armoured vehicles etc, aircraft are brought into service. CTP ought to reflect this, and allow unit upgrades...

Chris

Atahualpa · October 6, 2000, 02:20

Unfortunately it doesnt

Ata

Mason · October 6, 2000, 19:40

I agree with Chris on this one. Having the ability to equip your older units with new weapons, training, skills etc would be more realistic and offer greater depth in the game. The possiblity to "upgrade" your pikemen for instance, to machine gunners when they become available later in the game? Of course the option to upgrade would need to have a suitable cost attached! This would have to be determined by taking the cost of making a later unit from scratch as opposed to "upgrading" at slightly less cost to make it an attractive option for the players.
I remember when I played CIV2 a few years ago, there was an advancement called "Leonardo's" something, which provided your existing older units with an upgrade to newer ones. Not that we need this in CTP2 but I think it does show it's possible and worth a thought by the game designers???

Diodorus Sicilus · October 9, 2000, 23:36

Back when the "Suggestions" columns started for CtP2 there was quite a bit of discussion about upgrading units or having a Design Your Own Unit feature ala SMAX/SMAC's Unit Workshop. I think the problem is that not everyone could agree on what features were desirable and that such a Workshop feature would require a great deal of programming and graphic work to implement - ain't gonna be done on the quick, and not at all unless it's certain the players want it.
Unfortunately, by bagging the workshop they seem to have also given up any kind of Upgrade feature as well. This is a shame, because even a limited Upgrade ability would really improve the game. Something as simple as a limited set of possible upgrades as mentioned in an earlier post: Warrior to Phalanx, Legion, Archer, or Pikeman for various costs of re-equipment and training. Any earlier foot to Musketeer for Major costs of re-equipment and training. Early mounted archers or knights to Gunpowder Cavalry, then to Tanks, etc for huge amounts of money per unit, and so forth.
Given that an air unit represents the ground support crews, air crews and inforastructure to keep 'em flying as well as the aircraft, you could even justify an upgrade from Fighter to Bomber to Interceptor, etc. Naval units would be harder, because in every case you have to spend all the $$$ to build an entire new ship - not much savings in "upgrading" by retraining the crew, whereas in almost all other cases the cost to Upgrade could and should be less than the cost to build an entirely new unit from nothing.
Of course, another part of the problem is to give people a serious incentive to Upgrade to a more expensive-to-maintain unit later in the game. Like, the maximum number of units you can maintain is based on the total population of all your cities? So that to free up military manpower for a new unit you eventually have to get the troops out of their old bronze armor and into those shiny new expensive tanks...

WesW · October 10, 2000, 02:39

I like the idea of linking the number of units you can have to your population. I have been thinking that your armed forces' should have an effect on population after a certain point; maybe this is the next best thing. I will have to try and remember this when we start kicking around slic ideas for CtP2.
I seem to recall that in WWII the limiting factor on the quality of the armies at the end was available healthy young men, not material.

MadWoodster · October 10, 2000, 07:15

This is a great idea WesW. One easy way to reflect this is as your army gets beyond say 10% of your population, unhappiness creeps in. This would represent the unhappiness caused by the conscription necessary to get an army of this size. Obviously choice of governments would have a major influence with a facist government able to form bigger armies than a democracy.

lev · October 12, 2000, 00:54

I think it was wise to ditch the unit workshop idea, but an upgrade option would be excellent. Assuming CtP2 won't ship with this, I wonder if you could enable it via SLIC?

Limiting number of troops based on population is an interesting idea, but there is already a built-in limit from the maintenance costs - more armies eat into your production more and more.

Chris Horscroft · October 18, 2000, 19:33

Agree that the limited upgrade path ideas under discussion here are well worthwhile and should be implemented. Certainly for land and air units. The workshop concept from SMAC I never liked, and I hope that activision has not discounted unit upgrades simply because it didn't want to bring in a SMAC-like workshop!