Promotion/Unit Upgrade System – Revamp and other issues

[MadDjinn]

Ok, here’s a thread that will gather information and detail the issues with the current promotion system in the hopes that someone somewhere will consider patching it to make the game more enjoyable. This is not a complaints thread about specific unit uselessness (Mostly, but there's some obvious ones), but rather a thread that will show all of the various issues with respect to upgrades, promotions, etc of the various unit lines.

edit: Note: A lot of this information is spread around various threads already, or random posts, but it seemed appropriate to gather everything into one common thread to show how everything is tied together. I'm sure there's a mod for some of these things, but the whole system needs a fix, and I'd rather the 2K/Firaxis devs add the fixes to the core game now vs. waiting til the code SDK comes out to do it for them.

Suggestions can be made, questions will be asked to see what people expect. And well, if 2K/firaxis won’t make the changes, a mod will eventually come out (post-code SDK release) to handle the system changes since not all of the issues can be dealt with via XML (that I have found yet).

I'll try to keep things compiled by unit types, then we’ll get into the deeper issues. There are some basic issues when it comes to counters, and when units obsolete.

This thread will also a compilation of the various ‘corner cases’ where the promotion/upgrade system fails to address doubling up ‘special’ promotions to generate super units. (as well as all of those 'negative' promotions that stick around but shouldn't)

Obsoleting Techs
This is a minor issue, so it might as well go first. The mechanic, in general, used by the game is that a unit obsoletes when the next unit in the line is available; unless that next unit requires a strategic resource. Here are some units that break the mold:

Warrior (UU Jaguar – Aztec)
- upgrades to Swordsmen
- Obsoletes at Metal Casting.
- Very first unit of the game. It follows the 'doesn't obsolete due to next unit requiring a strategic resource' requirement mostly. Given that Metal Casting is the very next tech after Iron Working, and doesn't provide a new unit, this leaves you with nothing to upgrade to anyways (since the next unit in that path is Longswords which also need iron). If you never find Iron, you can never upgrade your units into the riflemen and above paths; which have no strategic resource needs. So that early Jaguar rush, or a planned upgraded Mohawk Warrior or Legion rush, leaves you effectively out in the cold with units that you might as well delete if you can't get some iron.

Suggestions:
- Might be hard to code, but allow warriors to upgrade to Spearmen if you have 0 Iron available. This fits with the goody hut upgrade system.
- Allow warriors to upgrade to Musketmen if no iron is available. (keeps you on the warrior path without diving into the anti-mobility line)
- Have Warriors obsolete at Gunpowder. At least this way, you can safely expect to be using a new basic melee unit.

Swordsmen (UU – Mohawk Warrior – Iroquois, Legion - Roman)
- upgrades to Longswordsmen
– Obsolete at Gunpowder, not Steel
- Basically, there's no use of waiting til gunpowder to obsolete this unit; except to allow Iroquois and Roman players/AI to spam the Swordsmen a little longer before upgrading them to Steel.
- Should obsolete at Steel to be consistent.

Horsemen UU (Companion Cavalry - Greeks)
- upgrades to Knights
- Obsoletes at Metallurgy
- This is one of the weird ones. It obsoletes at a counter to Cavalry/Knights (Lancers), which breaks the normal mechanic.
- It should obsolete at Chivalry to be consistent.

Lancer UU (Sipahi - Ottomans)
- upgrades to Anti-tank Gun
- Obsoletes at Combustion
- the Lancer breaks the general rule of unit upgrades. It obsoletes at combustion, and not when Anti-tank guns appear (at replaceable parts).
- It should obsolete when the anti-tank gun appears (replaceable parts)
-- Note: see below for a possible change to this which would leave the Lancer obsoleting at combustion

Scout
- No upgrades (except by goodie hut)
- Obsoletes at Scientific Theory
- Just adding for completeness. There's really no reason for Scouts to obsolete at Scientific Theory. (what, we start thinking scientifically, so scouting is bad??) but there it is.

ok, now that that's done, on to some 'bigger' issues.

Unit upgrade paths by type
- and promotion/upgrade path issues/changes.

Melee units
Warrior->swordsmen->Longswordsmen->riflemen->infantry->mech. infantry
musketmen->riflemen
Paratrooper

- Aside from the previously mentioned lack of Iron issue, this upgrade path is fine. I'll have a special section about the Rifleman "catch all" situation.
- Would be nice to have infantry given the choice to upgrade to paratroopers, but not that important.

Siege units
Catapult->trebuchet->cannon->artillery->rocket artillery

This set of units is just fine (now) aside for the ranged combat issues, (different thread) with one glaring oversight. With the addition of the +30% attack vs. cities for catapults/trebuchets and +10% vs. cities for cannons/artillery/rocket artillery, we now have the option to get +40% vs. cities before getting the siege promotion. Basically, upon upgrade, trebuchets turned cannons keep the +30% as well as getting the new +10%. Preference is to drop the +30% vs. cities upon upgrade to cannons.

Ranged units
Archer/Slinger->crossbowmen->Riflemen
Chariot Archers (+UUs)->Knights

The most obvious issue here is the Chariot archers keeping their penalties when upgraded to knights.

The other obvious issue is that ranged units become melee units but keep the ranged promotions. They either go away (+range, indirect fire) or get stacked (seemingly) with melee based promotions. (terrain related mostly)
- There's no clear solution for this except for a conversion of the terrain promotions into their melee counterparts. (being one promotion away from logistics before upgrade, then having to do it all over again before getting it is bad) The purely ranged attack promotions should be deleted from the unit upon upgrade.

One issue that isn't obvious is that the slinger does not get the -attack vs. city penalty as archers/crossbowmen have. I haven't checked the Longbow or Chu-Ko-nu UUs yet to see if it's consistent.

Air/Anti-Air Units
The upgrade paths are fine, though there are some 'issues' that should be addressed. I've provided some 'solutions' for people to consider.

- Ok, Stealth bombers still get no upgrades. There's no reason for that as only missile units have that setup. It's not a missile.

Issue: Anti-Aircraft guns (radio) can be used before Flight is researched. Destroyers get the Anti-Aircraft promotion before either of these units even are conceptualized. This makes no sense, even historically. There's no reason to conceptualize shooting things into the air without a reason for wanting to shoot things in the air.

Solution: Move anti-aircraft guns to Radar. This is historically more accurate as Radar systems were needed to make anti-aircraft guns even know where the fighters/bombers were. In game, this also makes sense as the counter to fighters/bombers should come in contemporary tech positions. As Radio and Flight are the pre-reqs for Radar, this works. This could also help solve the issue of the AI spamming AA guns everywhere before anyone has an aircraft as well as using them for Infantry replacements.
- Side note: the base CS of the AA unit should be cut down, given the description that it was vulnerable to infantry attacks. (which are the same strength) Other option is give it a 'weak vs. melee' negative promotion if the CS is required for the calculations vs. Air units.

Solution: Destroyers get the Interception promotion after Radar (or Flight) is researched. (Embarkation is an example where this sort of idea already exists)

[MadDjinn]

Naval Units

One of the core issues with naval units is their upgrade paths. In both mid game and late game, there are two distinct classes of ships: Long range but light ammo and slow but powerful. Yet these types of ships are not tied together via upgrades. Both caravels and frigates upgrade to destroyers, even though they have two different reasons for being. Nothing upgrades to a battleship, even though the Frigate is more closely related by function to it. (same for an Ironclad due to when it obsoletes)

So here are some changes:

Current Upgrade Paths
Trireme->Frigate->Destroyer
Caravel->Destroyer
Sub->Nuclear Sub

Suggested changes to upgrade paths
Trireme->Frigate->Battleship
- Frigates can still obsolete at electricity, given that destroyers are better (by the numbers). But they should still upgrade to their ‘functional’ counter parts, rather than a ‘catch all’ unit. This allows you to keep those nice bombardment upgrades on a unit that can actually bombard against contemporary units. (Destroyers at 22 don't do much to anything from infantry up; let alone cities)

Ironclad->Battleship
Adding it for completeness, and to try to ensure that it has a reason to be used. (big guns and effectively a proto-type for a modern warship) This is also in line with the general rule that a unit obsoletes when the next unit arrives to replace it. (In this case, Ironclads are obsoleted at Telegraph when Battleships come out)

Caravel->Destroyer->Missile Cruiser
It seems odd to me that Destroyers do not upgrade to Missile Cruisers, given their shared role (anti-air)/protect vs. naval threats. Missile Cruisers are better in every way than the Destroyer, but fulfill the same functions. Aside from an increased combat strength, the two units share similar Ranged attack strength (22 vs 25). (Missile Cruiser shoots at three range though)

Now on to everyone's favourite subject....

Pointy sticks vs. Speed units
This is probably the most messed up portion of the Promotions/Upgrade system. Counters come before the units they counter, cross type conversions, weirdly placed obsoleting points. It all seems rather slapped together without anyone stopping to look at the big picture.

Issue: Pikes are a pre-requisite to Knights (tech wise)
- The prime counter (pikes) is a pre-requisite to Knights as well as Knights getting another counter later – Lancers. The Knight neither has the combat strength to handle infantry units (Longsword has same CS) nor the capability to survive against a counter-unit that appears BEFORE it exists; let alone the one that comes after (Lancers have a base 22 CS + extra promotions vs. mounted units). Given that pikemen have 10 base CS AND +100% vs. mounted, it has an effective CS, before any promotions or terrain/fortifications are counted, of 20 to the Knights 18. Effectively the design choice of the Knight, in relation to the pikeman, ensures no one should willing use mounted units.

Primary solution: Reduce the Spearman/Pikeman bonus vs. mounted to 50%. It's way overpowered at +100%; especially when Greek Hoplites (9 CS) can stand toe-to-toe with Cavalry when fortified in rough terrain. I would also suggest that the bonus vs. mounted is also ONLY used when the unit is fortified. (so yes, they'd get the fortified bonus and the vs. mounted bonus at the same time, but that's ok; they should do better than swordsmen in the same position)
- At only +50%, Pikes would still easily handle horsemen, and would, while not just wandering around on open terrain, still have a CS equal to or better than knights; but not Cavalry.

Issue: The Anti-Tank gun comes before tanks are even invented
Replaceable Parts(anti-tank gun) is a pre-req. tech to Combustion (tank). Why would you design a counter to a unit that doesn’t even exist yet? There’s no reason for it to exist. Not to mention gameplay wise, I can get all of my anti-tank guns ready before you even have the hope of using a tank in the first place.

Solution: Move Anti-tank guns to combustion. This could go with the fact that Lancers (prior unit to the anti-tank guns) are obsoleting when Combustion is teched. (and tanks are available)

Issue: There is a solid break in the unit vs. counter unit line of unit upgrades.
- Pikes get upgraded into the melee line, so Lancers have nothing to start with but must be the counter for a line of units that keep their promotions as they get upgraded (horsemen/knights/cavalry/tank/modern armour)

- Pikes get upgraded to Riflemen. This leads to riflemen that have a 50 strength base against cavalry, with no terrain modifiers, even though the cavalry are supposed to be ‘capable of standing toe-to-toe with contemporary infantry units’. In this set up, you might as well delete the cavalry.

- Pikes can hold their own vs. cavalry. At base 10 strength, with +100% vs. mounted units, a pikeman can equal or exceed the strength of a unit way further up the tech tree (standing on rough terrain alone is enough). Cavalry use Rifles to shoot their enemies, not charge in to get speared by people with pointy sticks. This needs a major fix – change Cavalry to ‘gun’ type or nerf the +100%. (see above for the nerf - preferred option)


Upgrade Paths:
Counter Units –
Spearmen->Pikes->riflemen
Lancers->Anti-tank guns->helicopters

Countee Units –
Horsemen/chariot Archers ->Knights->Cavalry->tanks->modern Armor

Suggested changes: (maybe a poll will be required...)
Pikes->Lancers
-to keep the flow of the counter vs. it’s countee; which is the point of the whole flow from ancient to modern.

OR
Pikes->Musketmen
But drop the bonus vs mounted. In this case, the weapon of choice is entirely the point and it's not an anti-mounted weapon. This choice keeps the current upgrade paths for lancers and above. As well, musketmen can still handle Knights fairly well without a bonus vs. mounted. This would leave the Tercio as a special unit still. (but then drop the +100% off of them as soon as they are upgraded to riflemen - drop it to 50% would be nice right now)
- Not to mention having a reason to have Musketmen; aside from the UU ones.

OR
Pikes->Riflemen
But drop the +100% vs. mounted. This is the simplest choice, but the least historically accurate. No one carried around long sticks once guns became common.

[MadDjinn]

[B]Default Promotions that need to be set to 'removed after upgrade'[B]
- Penalty on defense (Lancers upgraded to AT guns)
-- Tanks move fast, AT guns don't. So most of the time a tank meets an AT gun, the AT gun will be on defense.
-- Side note, this negative promotion should just be deleted, or reduced to a third of its normal penalty, as it makes any unit with it completely useless to build.

+Sight range for ships (Caravel to Destroyer)

+30% City Attack (trebuchet to cannon)
- Older models being upgraded should not be that much more effective than new models as a base.

+vs. Mounted (pikemen to riflemen)
- This is just borked to think it's still around at that point.

- Ranged promotions converted to melee promotions. (to provide a consistent melee unit set once the ranged unit is no longer acting as such)

Fun Super Units (or how the promotion/upgrade system fails to take into consideration prior default promotions)


I can see my house from here! (Caravel->Destroyer upgrade)
This was known long ago, but I haven't seen it fixed yet.
Caravels get the nice +2 sight range 'special' promotion.
Destroyers get a nice +3 sight range 'special' promotion.
They add them together, rather than replace the +2 sight promotion with the +3 sight promotion.

You'll never not see the enemy coming.

Super Cannons (Trebuchet->Cannon upgrade)
As previously mentioned above, trebuchets that are upgraded to cannons get to have BOTH the +30% and +10% attack vs. cities 'special' promotions. Add in Siege and you've got yourself one mighty wrecking ball. (+65% vs. cities which makes it better than a standard artillery unit) very nice.

they won't feel it coming.


100 tonne horse mower (pikeman eventually upgrade to mech. infantry)
You know about super riflemen already (50 CS vs. a Cavalries 25 CS), but did you know you can get 100 CS vs. mounted units? Yup! Just upgrade that Pikeman to a mech infantry (doable with the right tech choices/GSs/RAs) before the enemy even knows what a tank is, and you can just run around at 4 move (faster than a cavalry) plowing through anyone foolish enough to not delete their horse units before you get there. (add the +move and logistics promotion for even more fun!)

Gunner) Hey guys, look they're on a horse! what should we do?
Driver) I've got this. Attach the 'special' sticks to the front and let's see what happens!
Commander) <groan>

(non)Useful Chopper (Lancer upgraded to Helicopter)
So Lancers have the ability to move after an attack as well as a penalty on defense.
When fully upgraded to a helicopter, it keeps those two promotions. So now you can have a helicopter that can speed across the map, attack, and then go right back into a city to heal. The down side is that the helicopter can be wiped out by a barbarian if it ever gets attacked. (the penality on defense effectively wipes out any chance of the unit surviving in the field)

[the man of doom]

i wish there was some sort of grenadier unit that crossbows would upgrade into

[Oosh]

The Crossbow->Rifle upgrade annoys the heck out of me every time, it is especially bad when playing as the Chinese as they are usually your most experienced (and often most numerous) unit, losing the UU double-attack is hard enough to take (however, understandable) but to have your hard won Lvl 3 Accuracy/Barrage made useless too starts to bring on the red mist!

Edit: I'd like to see Grenadiers* return too, then a further upgrade to something like a Mortar (which should gain Indirect Fire), around the time of Infantry. With 1UPT ranged combat is too important to leave only to siege units, which need to deploy, so early in the game. By the time Rocket Artillery comes along I think it is safe to obsolete them, and merge in to melee path, via an upgrade to Mech Inf.

*These will require some suspension of disbelief since you can not lob a grenade as far as firing a crossbow bolt. Man-portable mortars have been around since the late 1600's, but then what would we call our Industrial era unit, Mortar Mk2?

[the man of doom]

mortars at military science ?
or maybe dynamite

or fertilizer for teh lulz (since the only reason ill get that tech is rite b4 artillery)

[Oosh]

If it were to be an Industrial Era unit it would have to be Dynamite out those three as the other two are Renaissance techs.

If the Civilopedia can be trusted (a ha ha ha) Biology and Railroad don't have any units currently associate with them, but both of them (esp. Biology) would feel like arbitrary placements.

I say lump their, and the Grenadiers, unlock in with the corresponding era's siege units. i.e. Chemistry and Dynamite.

[Edward_TC]

The Crossbow->Rifle upgrade annoys the heck out of me every time, it is especially bad when playing as the Chinese as they are usually your most experienced (and often most numerous) unit, losing the UU double-attack is hard enough to take (however, understandable) but to have your hard won Lvl 3 Accuracy/Barrage made useless too starts to bring on the red mist!

I agree that there really needs to be something done because I get annoyed at losing my range bonuses. But it has been my experience with the Chinese UU that they keep their double attack ability. In fact, sometimes I build a bunch of them without upgrading them when I am on the verge of getting riflemen. I then have a bunch of riflemen with double attack.

But still, there should be some sort of range unit upgrade for crossbowmen and their UU counterparts. I think maybe it should be possible to upgrade them to cannon or artillery. That would make sense to me having a dual upgrade option.

[Valkrionn]

Or at the very least, swap ranged promotions for comparable melee promos; There are generally 1:1 correlations.

[SamBC]

Mortars certainly existed at the time of riflemen, so it could be comparable time and no need for a grenadier in between - because a grenadier as a ranged unit really doesn't make sense. You could always call it a bombardier if you prefer...

Upgrade to a light field artillery, I'd imagine, which could upgrade to rocket artillery. Bombardier/light artillery weaker than cannon/artillery, but no need to prep to fire, no bonus vs cities or penalty to non-cities. Would leave them in the same tactical role as archers/crossbows. If it weren't for the fact I'd have to use the graphics of an existing unit, I'd mod them right now.

[steveg700]

That crossbowmen upgrade to riflemen is indeed positively bizarre. It's a significant capability that's suddenly lost for the rest of the game through the act of advancing your technological advancentment.

At the very least, they should upgrade to cannons, the only other current option for a ranged unit. I'd prefer a new unit, of course.

[Edward_TC]

Mortars certainly existed at the time of riflemen, so it could be comparable time and no need for a grenadier in between - because a grenadier as a ranged unit really doesn't make sense. You could always call it a bombardier if you prefer...

Upgrade to a light field artillery, I'd imagine, which could upgrade to rocket artillery. Bombardier/light artillery weaker than cannon/artillery, but no need to prep to fire, no bonus vs cities or penalty to non-cities. Would leave them in the same tactical role as archers/crossbows. If it weren't for the fact I'd have to use the graphics of an existing unit, I'd mod them right now.

I like the idea of light field artillery that upgrades to rocket artillery. Or maybe they could upgrade to a shoulder rocket carrying infantry. I am sure a better name can be thought of for that unit. But units running around with Bazookas or now with the new rocket system call the Javelin would be nice to see.

Crossbowmen --> Light Field Artillery --> Rocket Infantry --> Modern Rocket Infantry

[SamBC]

Most infantry shoulder-mounted rocket weaponry doesn't operate at the sort of range implied by (modern) ranged units, until some of the most modern stuff.

Crossbowmen --> Bombardiers/Mortars --> Light Field Artillery --> Special Weapons Infantry (or just use Rocket infantry as a convergence)

This parallels the siege progression

Catapult --> Cannon --> Artillery --> Rocket Artillery

and infantry

Longswordsmen (or whatever) --> rifleman --> infantry --> mechanized infantry

Would fit very nicely. If someone wants to give me working models to integrate, I'll happily put it out in a mod. Maybe I'll put it out in a mod that has crap 2D graphics and reuses 3D graphics at some point...

[Oosh]

That would be great, even it were to re-use existing graphics, in the first instance would be awesome to just play test.

I think I would still prefer my previous suggestion, but changing Grenadiers to Bombardiers which makes a lot of sense, so:

Bombardiers: Early mortar weaponry (i.e. American Civil / Napoleonic War kit).
Mortar: Refined concept, gains Indirect ability (i.e. WWI trench mortars)

However, I'm less convinced by the need for an 'Archery'* unit in the Modern Era, as with Rocket Artillery not required to deploy they lose their novelty and would essentially become a low-cost short-range version. Conversely that is not necessarily a bad thing given Rocket Artillery do require Aluminium and I'd suggest this should not require any Strategic Resources just like Mech Inf.

But if there were to be something of that ilk how about basing it on this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:W2_lepzmrs.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiesel_AWC

It is basically Mech. Inf with a mortar bolted on instead of a machine gun.

*Despite the name this is probably the most appropriate Combat Types available in the game.

[Zhenon]

There seems to be a gap in the units. It's as if they took an entire branch out of the unit tree. What's missing?

[MadDjinn]

the more I think about it, the less I think an archery type unit is needed after cannons.

Cannons don't have negative attack values against non-cities. Neither do artillery or Rocket Artillery. But their base damage is 26, compared to a Rifleman (25) or a Cavalry (25) what would you want to add, flavour wise, that can top that?

Once cannons become artillery, you get indirect fire over 3 spaces. That's good enough when you can get 3-4 of them in a group. At which point, you just need a rifleman or some such unit for sighting. (or worker)

The big issue with crossbowmen->riflemen is the wasted promotions. Likely it'll be 'ok' if the promotion types are converted to melee ones.

[Oosh]

They are all valid points, and if you didn't have to deploy Cannon/Artillery I'd agree with you 100%, but I find advancing much slower post-Medieval. Not so for much taking cities but for fighting in the field and rapidly responding to threats.

There's no more; move Archer/Crossbow one point, range attack to soften them up, then charge in with melee. It's just toe-to-toe melee; or set up your siege equip, move the melee to protect the flank, and hope they don't move out of range.

The Renaissance is the biggest drag on those tactics, at least in Industrial era Artillery can fire 3 hexes and indirect, and Fighters are an option too. But they're far more expensive (relative to a unit upgrade) in both time and resources.

Bombardiers & Mortars, Field Cannons & Light Artillery, call them what you will I still maintain the need to later era 'Archery' units.

[Strudo76]

Issue: The Anti-Tank gun comes before tanks are even invented
Replaceable Parts(anti-tank gun) is a pre-req. tech to Combustion (tank). Why would you design a counter to a unit that doesn’t even exist yet? There’s no reason for it to exist. Not to mention gameplay wise, I can get all of my anti-tank guns ready before you even have the hope of using a tank in the first place.

Solution: Move Anti-tank guns to combustion. This could go with the fact that Lancers (prior unit to the anti-tank guns) are obsoleting when Combustion is teched. (and tanks are available)

While I don't object specifically to this, I would point out that the argument of anti tank guns available before being able to build tanks is questionable. Your suggestion is that you wouldn't build an anti tank gun before you can build a tank, but civilization X might need to use an anti tank gun before they themselves can actually build a tank.

I bet nations that can't build an air force don't just sit there saying "We can't manufacture those flying things that keep killing us, so there's no point trying to build a gun that can shoot back"

[Edward_TC]

Yes, but if nobody has built aircraft then why would somebody invite something design to take down something that doesn't exist? I think maybe that certain units should only be build-able if somebody has built what they are design to specifically counter. But then again, that might not work for game balance issues. I wanted to throw out that thought.

[MadDjinn]

While I don't object specifically to this, I would point out that the argument of anti tank guns available before being able to build tanks is questionable. Your suggestion is that you wouldn't build an anti tank gun before you can build a tank, but civilization X might need to use an anti tank gun before they themselves can actually build a tank.

I bet nations that can't build an air force don't just sit there saying "We can't manufacture those flying things that keep killing us, so there's no point trying to build a gun that can shoot back"

This assumes that they already know that flying machines exist.

My point was (for AT) that the counter to a unit type exists before the concept for the unit even exists. You *must* have access to anti-tank guns before learning about tanks. That makes no sense. If there are no tanks, and no one knows about them, why would you build something that could counter them?

[Oosh]

Perhaps it should be on a parallel tech path? e.g. Railroad.

[Strudo76]

This assumes that they already know that flying machines exist.

My point was (for AT) that the counter to a unit type exists before the concept for the unit even exists. You *must* have access to anti-tank guns before learning about tanks. That makes no sense. If there are no tanks, and no one knows about them, why would you build something that could counter them?

There isn't a specific reason why a nation who cannot build a tank doesn't know that another nation has them. If they are being attacked by tanks, they would want to try and counter those attacks with the technology they do have at the time. The units enabled by a tech should reflect what the tech provides, not be based on what else is available before it. I'm not suggesting you are wrong in saying it should be changed, just that the argument you used was questionable. What the game really needs is more techs and more parallel branches. (See comments on quote by Oosh below)

Yes, but if nobody has built aircraft then why would somebody invite something design to take down something that doesn't exist? I think maybe that certain units should only be build-able if somebody has built what they are design to specifically counter. But then again, that might not work for game balance issues. I wanted to throw out that thought.

Again, it only applies if nobody can build an aircraft. If someone can, and that someone is your enemy, you'll likely want to come up with some method of countering that aircraft with whatever tech you do have at the time. I do like your idea of a more dynamic unit enabling system though. Some units, most notably the counters to other units, not being available until anyone (maybe even only if they are known) would be a neat change.

Perhaps it should be on a parallel tech path? e.g. Railroad.

I like this too. And as I said in this post, I think Civ5 needs more techs and more independent paths. I think a counter unit can still be available before a more advanced unit, but on a different path. That would enable a bit more thinking regarding what tech paths to go down. Go down one path to be able to defend against a more advanced unit or down the path to get them first, with the risk of getting stomped on before you get there. Even just independent military offence and military defence paths would enable this.

[MadDjinn]

There isn't a specific reason why a nation who cannot build a tank doesn't know that another nation has them. If they are being attacked by tanks, they would want to try and counter those attacks with the technology they do have at the time. The units enabled by a tech should reflect what the tech provides, not be based on what else is available before it. I'm not suggesting you are wrong in saying it should be changed, just that the argument you used was questionable. What the game really needs is more techs and more parallel branches. (See comments on quote by Oosh below)

You missed my point. I was saying, just like Edward_TC, that if no one has Combustion, there's no reason for having AT units; but you can in the game. It is not predicated on if you're getting attacked by tanks. I never said that. It's all about having to know about a counter unit before the unit even exists (anywhere).

It's almost the same as getting pikes before Knights, though I can forgive that one since there are already horsemen running around. (even though spearmen are 'good enough' to defeat horsemen)

[MadDjinn]

They are all valid points, and if you didn't have to deploy Cannon/Artillery I'd agree with you 100%, but I find advancing much slower post-Medieval. Not so for much taking cities but for fighting in the field and rapidly responding to threats.

There's no more; move Archer/Crossbow one point, range attack to soften them up, then charge in with melee. It's just toe-to-toe melee; or set up your siege equip, move the melee to protect the flank, and hope they don't move out of range.

The Renaissance is the biggest drag on those tactics, at least in Industrial era Artillery can fire 3 hexes and indirect, and Fighters are an option too. But they're far more expensive (relative to a unit upgrade) in both time and resources.

Bombardiers & Mortars, Field Cannons & Light Artillery, call them what you will I still maintain the need to later era 'Archery' units.

Is that really enough though to put it in the game? a unit that can move and ranged attack? As opposed to one that needs a setup?

My real problem with it is that even though it's said, often, that various units have 'x' issues or counter 'x' units, they don't always have promotions that show it. Ie: # Catapults and Trebuchets now weaker against units but stronger VS cities. They aren't weaker against units. (unless somehow their RA value was dropped and I missed it) So by the time they become cannons, they are effectively a solid RA unit.

randomly tangential:
Lancers are said to have a bonus vs cav. They don't. Cav have a weakness to other mounted units. (I'd have to recheck if this was implemented or not) Speaking of which, the patch notes also say that Lancers upgrade to helicopters. They don't. they upgrade to AT guns. (which then upgrade to helicopters)

[the man of doom]

then the cannon and artillery take the took that cats and trebs took from the patch

[player1 fanatic]

Horsemen UU (Companion Cavalry - Greeks)
- upgrades to Knights
- Obsoletes at Metallurgy
- This is one of the weird ones. It obsoletes at a counter to Cavalry/Knights (Lancers), which breaks the normal mechanic.
- It should obsolete at Chivalry to be consistent.

I disagree. Knights, actually, aren't "better" Horsemen. They have better strength, but lower movement Sometimes you do want faster Horsemen, and sometimes they are essential, if you have some UU that is ranged mounted unit (Keshik, Camel Archer), instead of Knight.

Obsoleting at Metallurgy makes most sense. Since after getting Lancers (4 movement), Horsemen are truly obsolete.

Lancer UU (Sipahi - Ottomans)
- upgrades to Anti-tank Gun
- Obsoletes at Combustion
- the Lancer breaks the general rule of unit upgrades. It obsoletes at combustion, and not when Anti-tank guns appear (at replaceable parts).
- It should obsolete when the anti-tank gun appears (replaceable parts)
-- Note: see below for a possible change to this which would leave the Lancer obsoleting at combustion

I guess idea here was also to make Lancers obsolete only after another 4 movement unit gets available. And that's not Anti-Tank Gun.
Tech for Mech. Infantry could've been used too, but Lancers are more similar to Tanks, due to "move after attack" feature.

Siege units
Catapult->trebuchet->cannon->artillery->rocket artillery

This set of units is just fine (now) aside for the ranged combat issues, (different thread) with one glaring oversight. With the addition of the +30% attack vs. cities for catapults/trebuchets and +10% vs. cities for cannons/artillery/rocket artillery, we now have the option to get +40% vs. cities before getting the siege promotion. Basically, upon upgrade, trebuchets turned cannons keep the +30% as well as getting the new +10%. Preference is to drop the +30% vs. cities upon upgrade to cannons.

This can't be fixed easily. Some promotion can be set to not get kept after upgrade, but then it applies to all units. So tagging +30% vs. cities promotion as such, would remove same promotion from Songhai UU, after upgrade, and those kind of promotions, that are tied to UU, are normally supposed to be kept after upgrade.

Ranged units
Archer/Slinger->crossbowmen->Riflemen
Chariot Archers (+UUs)->Knights

The most obvious issue here is the Chariot archers keeping their penalties when upgraded to knights.

This was fixed in one of hotfix patches (terrain movment penalty of chariots doesn't get kept anymore after upgrade).

Caravel->Destroyer->Missile Cruiser
It seems odd to me that Destroyers do not upgrade to Missile Cruisers, given their shared role (anti-air)/protect vs. naval threats. Missile Cruisers are better in every way than the Destroyer, but fulfill the same functions. Aside from an increased combat strength, the two units share similar Ranged attack strength (22 vs 25). (Missile Cruiser shoots at three range though)

Missile Cruiser doesn't share scouting function of Destroyer (increased sight). Exempt that, all Destroyers upgraded to
Missile Cruiser would become super Missile Cruisers, since they would keep extra sight promotion from Destroyer.

Plus, M. Cruisers can't see Submarines (while m. cruiser upgraded from destroyer would be able to do so).

[MadDjinn]

I disagree. Knights, actually, aren't "better" Horsemen. They have better strength, but lower movement Sometimes you do want faster Horsemen, and sometimes they are essential, if you have some UU that is ranged mounted unit (Keshik, Camel Archer), instead of Knight.

Obsoleting at Metallurgy makes most sense. Since after getting Lancers (4 movement), Horsemen are truly obsolete.

That would only make sense, within the mechanics of the upgrade system, if horsemen upgraded to Lancers. (I'm thinking that might have been one of their original ideas) As is, it should follow the standard path.

I guess idea here was also to make Lancers obsolete only after another 4 movement unit gets available. And that's not Anti-Tank Gun.
Tech for Mech. Infantry could've been used too, but Lancers are more similar to Tanks, due to "move after attack" feature.

Again, I think the original idea was that Lancers upgraded to tanks. (since Cavalry was originally a 'dead end' unit) It would make sense, but then they changed it to the anti-tank/helicopter side. Technically, the patch notes say that Lancers upgrade to Helicopters; not anti-tank guns. So maybe someone couldn't figure out how to make them jump over the AT guns. Again, that would make sense as well, but right now it's busted.

This can't be fixed easily. Some promotion can be set to not get kept after upgrade, but then it applies to all units. So tagging +30% vs. cities promotion as such, would remove same promotion from Songhai UU, after upgrade, and those kind of promotions, that are tied to UU, are normally supposed to be kept after upgrade.

Actually it can be easily fixed. There are a huge number of 'special' promotions in the system. All they'd have to do is change one to 'siege_cityattack' and then set it to be removed on upgrade. (going from cats to trebs. wouldn't be a problem with this as the treb. would just have that promotion as default anyways)

This way, other units wouldn't get affected. It's the same thing for a caravel getting upgraded to a destroyer. Now the destroyer has 5 bonus sight. It's not like they can't do it, it's just that they were a bit sloppy on clean up in the upgrade code.

Missile Cruiser doesn't share scouting function of Destroyer (increased sight). Exempt that, all Destroyers upgraded to
Missile Cruiser would become super Missile Cruisers, since they would keep extra sight promotion from Destroyer.

Plus, M. Cruisers can't see Submarines (while m. cruiser upgraded from destroyer would be able to do so).

Well, you'd still be able to produce destroyers, so you wouldn't be without a sub finder option. (if they ever fix the bug where everything can see/shoot at subs)

As well, I'm still a fan of killing default "special" promotions when an upgrade occurs. UU and earned promotions would stay. So this wouldn't be an issue if it was implemented properly.

[player1 fanatic]

That would only make sense, within the mechanics of the upgrade system, if horsemen upgraded to Lancers. (I'm thinking that might have been one of their original ideas) As is, it should follow the standard path.

I think they wanted to give player best of both. To be able to upgrade Horsemen to stronger Knights, as well as to keep being able to still produce Horsemen, if you need fast units. I actually like that.

Actually it can be easily fixed. There are a huge number of 'special' promotions in the system. All they'd have to do is change one to 'siege_cityattack' and then set it to be removed on upgrade. (going from cats to trebs. wouldn't be a problem with this as the treb. would just have that promotion as default anyways)

The problem is that both trebs and Songhai cavalry share same "special" promotion. You would need to make a new promotion for that.

It's the same thing for a caravel getting upgraded to a destroyer. Now the destroyer has 5 bonus sight. It's not like they can't do it, it's just that they were a bit sloppy on clean up in the upgrade code.

+2 sight is shared between caravel and conquistadors.

Well, you'd still be able to produce destroyers, so you wouldn't be without a sub finder option. (if they ever fix the bug where everything can see/shoot at subs)

I kinda agree. If destroyer only abilities weren't kept after upgrading to M. Cruiser, it would be interesting upgrade. And it would pretty much resemble current Horsemen/Knight setup (H->K, but not obsolete H).

As well, I'm still a fan of killing default "special" promotions when an upgrade occurs. UU and earned promotions would stay. So this wouldn't be an issue if it was implemented properly.

Agreed. Those are generally bad for gameplay. Still, big issue here is that many default "special" promotion are shared with "special" UU promotions. So it's difficult to take out one type, without affecting other type. For example, Spanish Terico has +100 vs. mounted, as his special UU ability.

[MadDjinn]

without quoting everything: (Since this all boils down to the same point)

There's a really long list of 'special' promotions. It's not hard for them to separate out the UUs from the 'normal' unit promotions and go from there. Then set all of the non-UU special promotions, as needed, to not be passed along with an upgrade. It's only XML changes and likely minimal code. (if they bothered writing the unit code properly)

[PhailRaptor]

(if they bothered writing the unit code properly)

Have you looked at Diplomacy lately? It's not just the unit code.

[MadDjinn]

Have you looked at Diplomacy lately? It's not just the unit code.

yes, I even wrote a whole thread about it...

[Strudo76]

You missed my point. I was saying, just like Edward_TC, that if no one has Combustion, there's no reason for having AT units; but you can in the game. It is not predicated on if you're getting attacked by tanks. I never said that. It's all about having to know about a counter unit before the unit even exists (anywhere).

You've also missed my point. If you have discovered Combustion (so tanks are available to you), and I've only got Replaceable Parts (without Railroad, Dynamite or Combustion), why shouldn't I be able to make anti tank guns? Why should I have to be as advanced as you to make a weapon to counter your tanks? I understand the argument that if you're the first to discover Combustion, at that point there should be no existing anti tank guns around. As you say, this would make no sense. But once someone (anyone) has Combustion, and therefore possible tanks, then I have a need for anti tank guns even if I can't build tanks. This is why I said I liked Edward_TC's thoughts of having the counter to a unit unavailable to build until someone (anyone or just know civs?) has the tech to build the unit that it counters.

I realise you never said being attacked was required. Was trying to highlight that when under pressure, it seems feasible that a nation would try and produce a count unit to a more advanced unit with what they have available to them. The comments regarding actually being attacked were just to provide a sense of motivation on behalf of the target nation.

[MadDjinn]

well, without having explosives or the concept of moving mechanical/armoured targets, you'd have a hard time explaining why you just built a big 'gun' to shoot at them.

and to bring this back to civ 5 - it's a game and it doesn't work the same as real life. So while in real life a tank drives by and you'd learn something about it, including what works to attack it - even by trial and error - in game that doesn't happen.

........


Back to OP: (for all)

If you have a list of promotions in the game that should be removed upon upgrade, post here and I'll compile the list. Things like the Lancers negative promotion on defense (a city of size 25-30 can almost kill a Lancer in 1 shot). No sense keeping that as the two follow up units don't have it and it would make brand new units 10x more powerful/useful than any upgraded unit.

[player1 fanatic]

^yeah, 1.0.1.141 tried to squash those, yet negative defense of lancer still stayed.

[MadDjinn]

added some promotions that had to go upon upgrade.

[circuitrider]

OP:
"Solution: Move anti-aircraft guns to Radar. This is historically more accurate as Radar systems were needed to make anti-aircraft guns even know where the fighters/bombers were. In game, this also makes sense as the counter to fighters/bombers should come in contemporary tech positions. As Radio and Flight are the pre-reqs for Radar, this works. This could also help solve the issue of the AI spamming AA guns everywhere before anyone has an aircraft as well as using them for Infantry replacements."

There were AA guns before radar. You could see bombers and fighters before radar. In real life, I never have had radar, but I have seen fighters and bombers and still can.

I'm surprised no one has picked up on this statement in the original post.

[MadDjinn]

OP:
"Solution: Move anti-aircraft guns to Radar. This is historically more accurate as Radar systems were needed to make anti-aircraft guns even know where the fighters/bombers were. In game, this also makes sense as the counter to fighters/bombers should come in contemporary tech positions. As Radio and Flight are the pre-reqs for Radar, this works. This could also help solve the issue of the AI spamming AA guns everywhere before anyone has an aircraft as well as using them for Infantry replacements."

There were AA guns before radar. You could see bombers and fighters before radar. In real life, I never have had radar, but I have seen fighters and bombers and still can.

I'm surprised no one has picked up on this statement in the original post.

the 'original' AA guns were targetting balloons. The multigun variety that is capable of handling fighters and bombers (as per the gameplay mechanic) came later. Specifically, they were designed to handle bombers. Even more specifically, they sucked even with radar until about WWII. Even then, they wouldn't be great against modern aircraft (but are in game).

You can 'see' a bomber or fighter, but try hitting it (4 dimensional task) with a shell or flak, etc. not simple. Radar provided the ability to know where it was in time and space, so the calculations were easier.