 |
| |
|
|
Dis
|
 |
Las Vegas, Nevada
Feb 2000
time: 21:37
|
|
|
 29-07-2005 03:25
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
#1
|  |
|
What's more efficient, upgrade your units, or make new ones and replace them?
|
Tired of ads?
|
|
I have never done the math, and I'm really too lazy to.  . I was hoping this has already been done.
In my current game, I'm sort of plagued by lack of cash to upgrade units. I had a really slow start, and I'm trying to keep my research rate high.
I have been building units such as rifleman, and just replacing my old units such as spearman, pikemen, and musketmen. Since I don't have the gold to upgrade.
But would it be more efficient to have these cities building units build "Wealth" instead? It's not like these cities have anything else to build, they are maxed out in all their infrastructure (at least the infrastructure I care to build- I never build coastal fortresses for example)
P.S. I do NOT have Leonardos' workshop. I missed out on all the early wonders (except pyramids).
And I'm running Conquests. Latest patch (I believe)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sabre2th
|
|
Not really the question he was asking, jon.
That is a good point, Platypus. Promotions are generally something you'd want to avoid. I'd say it really depends on what units each side is using.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
it's not really a answer to the question, but
there is a clear division in my mind about which units are worth upgrading.
good
warrior -> sword -> med inf;
chariot -> horseman;
archer -> longbow;
spear -> pike;
cat -> treb -> cannon
bad
med inf -> primate;
horseman -> knight;
pike -> musket;
cannon -> arty
good
musket -> rifle -> infantry
knight -> cavalry
basically, my rule of thumb is
don't upgrade pikes, horses or cannon.
do upgrade spears, trebs, muskets, knights, rifles.
as modo said, upgrades are for producing an army fast.
the cheap upgrades can do this effectively.
if you have to wait around saving cash to complete expensive upgrades, you lose the advantage.
lately, i tend to look on the middle ages as a troop building period. all those expensive muskets and knights take a lot of time to produce and they just don't have any clear-cut superiority for that era. however, they both have a cheap and effective upgrade to a crucial unit.
if i want to fight during this period, med inf or longbows have the same attack for half the cost. so i upgrade my swords, archers and send them out to die valiantly. meanwhile, i stockpile muskets(useless) and knights(not much better). waiting for the upgrade to cav/rifle.
this also helps in keeping down unit costs. by the time my longbows have finished fighting, there's only a few of them left, so i'm not paying for obsolete units. the knights/muskets i'm producing to replace them take a long time to build, so, again there are fewer of them and lower upkeep costs.
if i have any spears/ pikes left over, they get work as mp's, fortify on luxuries/resources, guard distant islands seek glorious death in battle or disband.
one spearman will cost me 30 shields to build. if he serves me for 2000 years, he's done well. i won't be getting any extra value out of that 30 shield investment by spending another 150 gold to turn him into a rifleman.
anyway, i'm sure i'm not telling you anything new there. but, just briefly, do make the effort to upgrade knights, muskets and trebs. do not waste money upgrading pikes, horses or cannon. any left over units should be disbanded if you can't find anything useful for them to do. if you've done all that and still have more production than you need, then switch to wealth.
if you are in this position now, it is clearly because something is not going according to plan. my impression is that if you keep chasing those upgrades by turning cities over to wealth, you will only sink yourself into even more trouble.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Modo44
|
 |
in western Poland
Jul 2004
time: 06:37
|
|
Why do you say Knights are useless? Any best mobile unit of its era is a powerful toy. Granted, they are not good if you lag behind production-wise (expensive to build/upgrade to) but they do a heck of a job killing just about anything anywhere, if you can afford even a couple of them. I can say the same about Muskets. Sure, a mass upgrade is not going to happen (although, if you put your mind into it...). But if I have cities in peril, I will definately want them to have Muskets for defenders as soon as possible (so upgraded from Pikes).
quote:
Originally posted by joncnunn
The reason I don't like guerrillas (in stock) is that they are a 6/6/1 unit costing the same shields as Infs, a 6/8/1 unit. |
6/3/1, actually. And they are very effective, as long as you stack them with Infantry. Then, all that counts is their attack value, and that one is useful (even more so in the AU Mod, of course).
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Modo44
Why do you say Knights are useless? |
i like knights. i just don't think they should be used in battle.
in the early middle ages, i'm sure to have a few warriors, swords or archers hanging about. these can be quickly and cheaply upgraded and they have the same combat value as a knight.
pike + med inf/longbow = 4.3.1
knight = 4.3.2
shield cost: 70 (same)
ok, the extra movement is nice, but it doesn't give me a crucial advantage.
second, archers and swords are reaching the end of their useful cycle. if i'm going to use them, it has to be now.
third, spears and pikes are reaching the end of an important cycle. so there is often a good reason to throw them into battle, then slowly build muskets to replace them.
fourth, foot troops keep pace with the artillery. this means that med inf/longbows can actually take a lot of targets with lower casualties than knights would.
fifth, it takes a long time (or a lot of cash) to build a decent squadron of knights. by the time i've got them built/upgraded, i'm half-way to the industrial. i'd rather hold on to them for the ludicrously cheap cavalry upgrade.
sixth, it's mostly about managing unit costs. the middle ages is the perfect time to switch from having lots of cheap, versatile troops to having expensive, specialised troops. this is a two-stage (but concurrent) process.
i. sacrifice/ disband the old
ii. build the new troops and wait for upgrades
because knights and muskets are so costly, it actually gives you an advantage. you build troops more slowly, so you have fewer of them. hence lower unit support.
at the same time, your old troops are only costing you money, so they might as well go hurt someone else instead.
basically, it's about looking for the best way to get some leverage. why spend 70 shields building a knight/musket, then throw him into battle and lose? i say, wait a few turns more and, for a mere 30 gold. you can have a 50% improvement in combat stats.
i wouldn't harp on about this, it's just that there is such a clear distinction between the value of the different upgrades.
to me it seems a crime to use knights/muskets in battle given that
(a) alternative, equally-powerful, cheaper troops are available
(b) the upgrade is extremely cost-effective
(c) there is a way to work in an advantage (lower overall troops numbers as aa troops die off and the replacements arrive more gradually)
quote:
I can say the same about Muskets ... if I have cities in peril, I will definately want them to have Muskets for defenders |
sometimes, yes (although i'd still prefer two pikes versus one musket)
there will certainly be exceptions. the difference is, if my pikes can do the job (even with heavy casualties), they get the mission. muskets are intended to guard the castle (core) and look pretty until they can be turned into something worthwhile (rifleman).
it just isn't efficient to spend so many shields on a single unit, then lose it the next turn to a javelin thrower.
quote:
Originally posted by joncnunn
Cat -> Treb -> Cannon -> Art. A No brainer to upgrade |
specifically, no
cat -> treb -> cannon = yes
cannon -> artillery = no
a 10 shield upgrade is almost always worth it
a 20 shield upgrade is normally worth doing
a 30 shield upgrade is sometimes worth doing
a 40 shield upgrade is hardly ever worth it
this is my cut-off point.
i hate having to disband my cannons, but the fact is, it usually takes more time and resources to upgrade cannon than to simply build new arties.
quote:
Archer -> Longbow. Only seems worthwhile if you don't have horses to me. (Or instead if your the Vickings and therefore able to upgrade to berskers.)
Horsemen -> Knight. An extremely worthwhile upgrade. Attack of Longbow + Def of Pike + a second MP. |
strongly disagree
horseman -> knight is one that i have simply taken off my list. to such an extent that i hardly ever even build horsemen these days. it just doesn't add up for the investment.
i. requires 'horseback riding' - not a useful tech. by the time i have this tech i am about two clicks away from the middle ages.
ii. requires horses - ok, if they fall into my hands i won't complain. and by the time 'military tradition' comes around i must have horses. but i'm not going to distort my rex for the sake of a fast, 30-shield archer.
iii. requires 'chivalry' - this really bugs me. i hate civ's with knight replacement uu's for this very reason. the ai won't sell this tech easily. so i have to spend all that extra time researching an unneccessary technology.
this could be due to my own inexperience, but nothing ruins my middle ages timetable like having to divert time to researching chivalry.
iv. requires 'chivalry' - par contre, 'feudalism' gives - same attack strength, same defence strength, and a government tech.
v. i don't spend gold on a unit unless it will be used very soon. so i spend my shields on building knights, then spend gold to get cavalry and go out an' whoop me some! i will only use knights in battle when i have no other choice, so it would just be a waste of cash to upgrade horses.
vi. there's really no need to have iron and horses in the ancient age. one or the other will do the job. i think the iron-based units are simply better value for money.
vii. -> berserkers
150 gold pieces 
you're actually prepared to spend that much on one unit at such an early point in the game!!!
(ok, berserkers can do some damage, but that is just obscene).
vii. archer -> longbow
archers can be extremely useful in the aa. it is situational. so i don't go after this every time. but if the opportunity is there, i will certainly use it.
overall, this tiny period (aa - middle changeover) is crucial to the game and has a whole bunch of alternatives in terms of tech, resources and upgrade paths. a scientific civ will want a completely different approach from a militaristic one, and so on.
of course each situation calls for a unique approach, but my rule of thumb lately has been pretty clear - any upgrade over 40 shields is just not worth it.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Dominae
|
|
Upgrading is always more efficient than building up a new army from scratch. Gold (Commerce) is much more plentiful than Shields. For example:
1. All tiles produce at least 1 Commerce if you put a Road on them; some (Flood Plains, Coast, etc.) produce no Shields. In Republic, all tiles produce at least 2 Commerce (with a Road).
2. The first Shield-boosting improvement (Factory) is available in the Industrial era; the first Commerce-boosting improvements (Library, Marketplace), in the Ancient era.
3. You can trade for Commerce in the form of techs or Gold with AI, but you cannot in any way get Shields from other civs. Trading one tech around will sometimes net you 500+ Gold; there is no analogous windfall for Shields (well, Great Leaders, but they're random).
Upgrading is also faster than building from scratch. At 10 Shields per turn it takes 3 turns to build 3 Warriors, or 3 turns to build 1 Swordsman. But, with enough Gold (180 to be exact), those 3 Warriors become 3 Swordsmen, and 3>1.
Furthermore, with upgrades, you can start building your army before you obtain the relevant tech or Strategic resource; for instance, building up Horsemen long before Military Tradition or even Gunpowder. Fielding 50 Cavalry the turn you discover MT is something the AI has a tough time dealing with.
The problem is that upgrading costs Gold (Commerce), which you also need for research. So the key question you need to be able to answer is: when can I afford to upgrade my troops at the expense of slowing down my rate of tech advancement?
A related question is: when will I strike? A mass-upgrade scheme requires planning to execute: you need the right level of technology relative to your opponent, an appropriate amount of Gold, enough cities to keep the unit upkeep down, etc.
The two best mass-upgrade schemes in the game are: Warrior->Swordsmen, and Horsemen->Cavalry. Usually one or the other is enough to gain a significant lead in any given game.
The reason for skipping Knights is that Knights almost always go up against Pikemen, while a Cavalry beeline sometimes catches civs with Pikemen to defend instead of Musketmen. If you're certain that your Knights will be facing Spearmen exclusively, then by all means research Chivalry. But also note that Cavalry does not require researching Theology or Chivalry.
Mass-upgrade schemes do not always work, of course, usually because the tech pace is too fast. In this case a mix of upgrading and building units from scratch is necessary. I guess a rule of the thumb therefore is: upgrade when feasible, taking care not to fall behind technologically (or fall out of the tech trading loop).
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
ummm, yes.
let me re-phrase that... berkos make for a very expensive upgrade if you're not a homicidal maniac trying to produce an entire star-fleet of the little bearded buggers.
i'd also point out that producing nothing but archers and then researching at zero for a thousand years might have different effects when you're not on an isolated land mass.
the other thing is, maybe i should change the way i do things, but:
i tend to aim at producing the bare minimum of units. i'll build what i need to get me through the war, then allow 'natural' attrition to thin the ranks. if things go to plan, by the end of a war, i'll have just defenders and a handful of elites left over.
typically, my wars involve taking out 3 or 4 ai cities and throwing their economy off balance. then i use the reduced unit numbers to allow fast research to the next offensive unit. i was forgetting that that just happens to be what works for me.
and in the spirit of accepting different ways of looking at things,..
quote:
If you're not a part of the solution, there is good money to be made in prolonging the problem. |
where do i sign?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
random games
i'm mostly interested in conquering the world (or at least getting rich by helping someone else do it). if the berkos want to come along for the ride, tha's fine bah me.
berkos, sipahi and panzers are all uu's that just don't impress me. berks are too costly, sipahi's are ok, i guess and panzers are just way too late.
i've never seen the need for a tank with extra movement - you've already got railroads by then, throw in a few combat settlers and there's just no need for panzers.
still, every map is different. it depends,..
|
|
| |
|
|
|
lebensraum
|
|
you've never seen jon step out of a covered wagon with his m-60 at the ready?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37.
Apolyton Time is 00:37. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
hey! get back to your beta testing and leave my lame-o posts in peace! 
yeah, now tell me something new.
dwr 
|