On updating obsolete units

Lordfluffers · May 30, 2001, 11:36

One of the things that really bugged me with all civ games (except SMAC) was the way that obsolete units like phalanx and the like lasted down and past the twentieth century. Will this be addressed in Civ3???? I hope so. If its not on the agenda I think I have a basic model to help slowly update obsolete units as the ages move on.

I think there should be a feature that enables a player to convert a % of their gold earned each turn to modernising and replacing their forces. This would work much like the way CTP's public works scheme acts. You should also be able to set the % rate, the maximum level being dependent on the govt type (a militaristic govt would have a higher rate than a democracy for example). The rate of replacement depends on the percentage level set at and the overall amount of gold coming in. For example, a large civ with 10000 gold per turn and a high repacement level (say 50%) would upgrade its units at a rate of 5000 gold per turn. A smaller civ earning 5000 gold with an replacement level of only 20% would only be able to repace its units at a level of 1000 gold per turn.

I hope all this is clear so far....

When a new unit becomes available, say a rifleman obsoletes a musketeer, I propose a system where the player, like in SMAC, can choose what obsolete units can be converted to and the cost of each individual conversion. For example the cost of replacing Phalanx with rifleman might cost 6000 gold per unit. On the other hand converting the remaining phalanx to musketeers might only cost 3000 gold. A player therefore has the choice as to whether they want a quicker but not as effective rearmament programme or a slower but more potent one??? Any questions, criticisms, comments?????

I'd aprreciate a response on this top Firaxis

Grumbold · May 30, 2001, 11:38

Since it is a feature that appeared in SMAC I would not expect it to be removed from Civ III unless they had a very good reason to do so.

Lordfluffers · May 30, 2001, 11:52

The nature of SMAC with its sci-fi slant enabled Firaxis to create a system of weaponry, chassis, armour etc as well as unit types that enabled a fluid and unique way of building a units. With Civ3, it wont be as easy to build custom units etc so I'm not sure whether this feature will remain. Firaxis??

Cyclotron · May 30, 2001, 12:28

I believe it's already been established that there will be no custom units in Civ3.

Grumbold · May 30, 2001, 12:32

We're talking ability to upgrade for a cost, not custom unit design. I believe it is beneficial to the game to allow a nation to pay to upgrade its spearment to musketeers once it has learned the technology. It makes it far less likely to encounter mixed hotch-potch armies of spearmen, musketeers and riflemen all guarding the same AI city in the 20th century.

CivPatriot · May 30, 2001, 13:54

I always hated that. It never failed that my tanks ended up attacking an idoit civ that still had musketters when they could buld something better.

The unit upgrade feature is one of the few things I like in SMAC, I really hope that it makes it way into Civ3. The gradual upgrade idea is a good one too. May be they will give us both.

Provost Harrison · May 30, 2001, 16:29

Yeah, there definitely needs to be some facility to allow this to happen. It is also another issue of minimising micromanagement as well. It is a pain to have to build new units, disband old ones in all your bases, blah, blah, blah, and one that detracts from other tasks that you may want to carry out. It should be at a cost, of course...

NakaNaka · May 30, 2001, 17:25

I couldn't agree with this more. Having outdated units is the worst, and not realistic either. Are we still employing troops with guns from the 1800's. Of course not. We PAY for better weapons. That's why I think this is an A+ idea that must go in Civ3. It's been implemented in SMAC so it should make it ...

Inverse Icarus · May 30, 2001, 17:29

we all know the AI cheats to no ends, what if all the Japanese warriors/phalanxes got upgraded to Riflemen after they stole a tech, with the 3 million gold they had lying around

manofthehour · May 30, 2001, 18:24

Well I like the idea, just a few idea.

First 50% of your gold, going to upgrade your units along with scince. With a buget like that unless you are conquering 5 cities a day you would never make any money. Mabey putting away 5% of your gold away into the kinda of a savings acount for gold. Than when you get the chance you can upgrade your unit with the savings or just from your treasury. Maybe your savings could have interest.

When programing the AI just don;t let them cheat on this feature to prevent them from

Quote:

we all know the AI cheats to no ends, what if all the Japanese warriors/phalanxes got upgraded to Riflemen after they stole a tech, with the 3 million gold they had lying around

Easy solution.

dainbramaged13 · May 30, 2001, 18:24

DEAL WITH IT THEN uber! oh... is that too hard for the little uberkrux!?!?

I do love the idea. THEYD BETTER HAVE IT OR I WONT BUY THE GAME DAMMIT!!!!!

jk

i like smilies

dainbramaged13 · May 30, 2001, 18:26

no im not on crack dammit

SerapisIV · May 30, 2001, 18:46

Quote:

Originally posted by dainbramaged13
no im not on crack dammit

yeah, too weak, snorting heroin, thats the way to go!

dainbramaged13 · May 30, 2001, 18:47

damn you figured me out

SerapisIV · May 30, 2001, 18:55

Well back on topic...

I like upgrading units to be back in CivIII. It was a great feature. I've heard in earlier threads on the topic complaints that paying just money would be a bad idea and it should cost shields as well. Well before that arguement comes up again, I think that costing cash only and having the required resources for a unit's construction, I think it should be allowed. ALthough I do think that armored units should not be originally upgraded. Say making a cavalry unit into an armored unit. I think that stretches things. I think that armored, mechanized units should require actual city contruction, not just money.

CivPatriot · May 30, 2001, 19:27

I agree, but I think that it should also be applied to naval vessels. It's even a further streach than going from calvary to armour(no I'm not a Brit, I prefer this spelling). Man of war to a crusier? That is way unrealistic. Make us build new naval units instead of upgrading.

Cyclotron · May 30, 2001, 19:38

The problem with unit upgrades that are carried out away from cities is that they could be used as a possible tactic. Consider: I have cavalry, but I am researching Tanks. I have a great deal of money stored up. I desire to swarm my enemy with these cheaper cavalry units, which they can easily defend against, and suddenly finish my research of Tanks, spend a crapload of maoney, and suddenly he's got a swarm of tanks on his doorstep.

This is why I believe that whatever system is used, it must revolve around the city.

This is for both a realistic reason and a gameplay reason. First off, you can't just have cavalry sitting out there in the field that suddenly say "hey, we've got tanks now" the instant a new tech is discovered and some money is sent their way. Upgrading includes re-equipping, re-training, re-tooling, re-strategizing, re-organizing, and a host of other logistical nightmares. I don't propose these be modeled in Civ3; Rather, it should be realized that this can not be accomplished on the field and must take place in a city (or concievably, a fortress). Second, as I have already shown, there are serious gameplay issues involved with "instantaneous" upgrades. This is by no means a problem unique to the ideas expressed here; Civ2's LW had this problem. Upgrades that are instantaneous must be carried out in a city where they cannot be used as a crackpot strategic advantage.

In general, I like your ideas... I'm just proposing that we don't have "in the field" upgrades.

Inverse Icarus · May 30, 2001, 19:40

gah!

yes it is to hard for little uber!

i HATE when the AI starts a wonder, and FINISHES it within 5 turns.

THATS HORSESH*T

CivPatriot · May 30, 2001, 19:46

The idea of upgrading in a city or fortress is a good one, espically for those units that were revolutionary(musketeers, cannon, tanks, mech infantry), for the rest I could see them being upgraded in the field, but for the sake of simplicity, upgrade them only in cities(might even keep the AI from cheating.

SerapisIV · May 30, 2001, 20:01

I like that idea, upgrading only in cities. I laughed every time I upgraded my army mid-campaign in SMAC, but didn't complain too much, would've been a hassle shuttling troops around. I also like the fact that in CivIII with set unit types, its much easier to upgrade units then in SMAC with all the funky options I fielded in my armies.

TechWins · May 30, 2001, 22:06

I really don't like the whole idea in general. If they are to have this idea then the troops should at least have to be in the city like Cyclotron7 said.

Captain · May 31, 2001, 00:30

Yes, but in-city only!

For the reasons already mentioned, both gameplay and realism! The AI has enough trouble without me being able to send a pack of warriors to his door and upgrade them to howitzers (come to think of it, there should be some sort of limitation as well, you shouldn't be able to upgrade a phalanx into a battleship or a caravel into a stealth bomber.)

I kind of liked the old way of disbanding in a city, getting 50% back, and building new ones. It forced you to really consider whether upgrading you military was worth doing now, or waiting til later to do because of other worthwhile causes now (just like modern militaries do - the Canadian one hasn't upgraded in several decades now because of budget restraints and more pressing medicare and education "reforms").

It's weird, but I liked being able to keep 1 of each unit that I had armies of. It was cool to see my one ancient legion plus 1 archer plus 1 musketeer plus 1 cavalry around in my capital, like museum pieces. I called it my honour guard - useless in battle, but had sentimental value.

Alex 14 · May 31, 2001, 03:01

I have a great idea for solving this - check out the thread on trade to see what i mean.

Marquis de Sodaq · May 31, 2001, 12:52

Sorry, Alex 14, this is my last minute online before getting back to work...

I think the in-city upgrades are a good idea, altho I think it should cost some shields, as well. Not the cost of a whole new unit, by any means, maybe the difference paid in gold and shields. The fortress could be included in this, as it is essentially a military post - these would presumably be stocked with materials.

Ecthy · May 31, 2001, 14:24

Well, all I can say is: Unit workshop... with a system based on SMAC, updating units would be way easier... but people just like old-fashioned lame unit models... well, you reap what you sow

CivPatriot · May 31, 2001, 15:18

This is what I want(to clarify and list)

1. Units must be upgraded in a city or fortress(this is open to debate).

2. It costs the specail resources reqiured to build the unit, and a certain amount of gold( as a percentage of the shields reqired to build the unit).

3. Possibility for the player to allocate gold a resources in the military advisor for automatic upgrades(the units clostest to hosilte civs and the capital should be given priority).

4. Loss of veteran status(to reflect unfamilitarity with new equipment) unless barricks are present in the city(gives further importance to barracks and represents military trianing availible at barracks)

Ecthy · May 31, 2001, 15:25

Quote:

Originally posted by CivPatriot
This is what I want(to clarify and list)
2. It costs the specail resources reqiured to build the unit, and a certain amount of gold( as a percentage of the shields reqired to build the unit).

it should cost less shields (in a fortress?

) and maybe some gold.

SerapisIV · May 31, 2001, 16:13

Quote:

Originally posted by CivPatriot
4. Loss of veteran status(to reflect unfamilitarity with new equipment) unless barricks are present in the city(gives further importance to barracks and represents military trianing availible at barracks)

I like this idea. It does make barracks more important, they are pretty weak as they were in Civ2

Lordfluffers · May 31, 2001, 16:48

I think people have got the idea. The shields-cost idea is good but it shouldn't be made too expensive because it would be hard to work out which city paid what in shields etc. would it be a equal percentage from all cities or what?? 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

With this method, hopefully an army will constantly be rearmed without the absurd situation of units surviving through the ages simply because they haven't been destroyed or disbanded.

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.

P.P.S. I pretty chuffed my second post has got such a response!!!

CivPatriot · May 31, 2001, 18:38

Okay, I agree Lordfluffers, lets make any unit upgradeable as long as they stay in thier class(air, ship, infanry, calvary).

Congrats also Lordfluffers, it took me several threads to get a good one going, hope fully this is a sign of things to come