Slitherine

I didnt understand why the upgrade costs are exatly the same as the costs for purchasing a new unit???

The old unit isnt useless and isnt worthless so i suggest the upgrade must be a bit cheaper than the purchasing of a new unit. Maybe upgrade should cost 75% of a new unit?

@Team: Can you please explain me why the costs are identical? Will this be changed? or is this a form of balancing?

It is cheaper to upgrade to a similar unit type, ME-110C to a D will be cheaper than upgrading an ME-110C to a Stuka. Going from a Panzer 1 to a Panzer 4 will cost more, but upgrading to a different variant of th PZ 4 will be cheaper.
Hope that was somewhat clear for you

deadtorius wrote:It is cheaper to upgrade to a similar unit type, ME-110C to a D will be cheaper than upgrading an ME-110C to a Stuka. Going from a Panzer 1 to a Panzer 4 will cost more, but upgrading to a different variant of th PZ 4 will be cheaper.
Hope that was somewhat clear for you

Yeah, i know this playing now since 0.96 , but i didnt understand why an upgrade from an PzIV to an PzV Panther or an PzVI Tiger costs exactly the same as purchasing a new unit ... the "old" equipment isnt worthless "maybe" it will used to upgrade another unit elswhere ... so why are the costs exactly as new????

I like the system that upgrading in the same tech is cheaper than switching to a different vehicle type ... but why is it the same price as new?

Look at it this way. It is not upgrades which are so expensive. It is that you get new units with a big discount. But we can increase the price of new units by, say, 20% if you insist.

Rudankort wrote:Look at it this way. It is not upgrades which are so expensive. It is that you get new units with a big discount. But we can increase the price of new units by, say, 20% if you insist.

rofl ... thats hard discussing! ...
ok than it seems to be a balance tool for you right?

Steakenglisch wrote:rofl ... thats hard discussing! ...
ok than it seems to be a balance tool for you right?

Well, it is probably too limited to be a real tool, but whatever balancing was done already was done with existing situation in mind. So to change this we need some very good reason, and I don't see it. I would rather say, I see some reasons not to do it.
- From balance point of view I think that if you want a unit with experience and overstrength, but also with best equipment available, it must at least cost you some. In campaign mode price of new units do not matter really, because upgrades is what you are doing most of the time. High prices prevent you from having all the best equipment on all units all the time, this becomes a balancing act.
- I don't want players to employ tactics like "buy PzI first, upgrade to Tiger II for 20% off the price, save". Unlike PG, in PzC you can buy, upgrade and overstrength units as much as you want on deployment phase, so this becomes a real possibility.

OK i agree with this ... i tested the Kursk Map with a cheat (i used the cheat for prestige) and i euipped all units with the best tech ... desicive victory ... than i played the map without this cheat ... only upgrading the two Waffen SS Tanks to Tiger I and one normal tank to Panther .... the same with the Fighters and so on ...

With the mixed equipment the game was much more fun, and the identification with the units was higher .... outcome also decisive victory

Why not take the original cost of unit off price of upgrading, or maybe 50-75% of original cost? Seams rather harsh to make upgrades full price.

FWIW

GT