[.98] Nonsensical upgrade costs. Bug or design?

I've been wondering the same thing. It really makes no sense, that upgrading a unit is more expensive than training a unit from scratch.

It does make sense, because you can upgrade a level 10 unit or you can rush a level 1 unit. Clearly the level 10 unit is going to be far more powerful than having an extra level 1 unit. In addition, your cost for metal is greatly reduced - if you rushed a level 1 unit with light plate you'd still need to pay 12*5 metal.

The costs aren't balanced for upgrading a level 1 unit vs rushing a level 1 unit.

Okay, but isn't this devaluing your existing units? Shouldn't there be an incentive to keep using your units instead of replacing them with new ones?

Yes, therefore there are two big incentives to do exactly that. See my previous post.

I agree with OP.

The upgrade cost should be identical to the rush costs of the material ALONE, as it is basically a set of armor being made outside of production que, so therefore rush costs is proper, but not anything more! If the player prefers to upgrade lvl 1 or lvl 10 units should not matter imo.

Okay, maybe I just don't understand this, but isn't it almost always better to use the best equipment available instead of just having a high level? Training a new unit is cheaper than upgrading a existing one. Plus, you can choose a higher unit-size. So, wouldn't that mean, that this is the best choice? Especially if you consider the bonuses a Fortress can provide?

It is far more valuable to have a unit with high level gain the bonus instead of a fresh unit. The upgrade system, as you said, is probably meant to give an incentive to keep your troops around for a long time. That doesn't mean they can sit on their asses. If you take the time to level your units like you level your heroes, you'll find that upgrading them is better than rushing new units. Look at the screenshot! The rider unit is level 11! Upgrade that gear and you'll get a unit that can take out two or maybe even three freshly trained units.

And again, the metal cost is vastly different.

Good post Tuidjy, I also hope the upgrade UI becomes better at some point (Sometimes I don't want to upgrade my Monks robe to a chainmail, but I want to upgrade the shield.

Still agree that upgrading is too expensive, although costing weirdly less metal.

Since the trait you have is supposed to halve the upgrade costs, I would much rather field 2 new cavalry groups and save the 100 gildar than upgrade the old ones ARMOUR only.
My fortresses tends to get better anyways, so rushing new units will get all the new fortress upgrades too.

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

I fall down on Heavenfalls side here. A high level unit is well worth upgrading to a higher cost.

+1

Upgrade costs should reflect the cost of the stuff being upgraded.  Period.  Making higher level units pay more for the same equipment is gibberish and leads to completely unintuitive prices.

Applying a multiplier to upgrade costs based on unit level only makes sense if there's some advantage to having poorly equipped units (like they leveled faster).  But that is not the case, the opposite is true (A more expensive unit with chainmail and a better shield is more survivable than the cheaper unit with a wooden shield and leather and therefore much more likely to achieve a high level.) 

If you manage to get your wood shield & leather unit to a high level, why should you be punished with exorbitant costs?

Yes indeed!

Another thing; I'd love it to cost time as well. Taking a few turns for a unit to train with it's new weaponry. 

I agree that a high level unit is worth upgrading, I just don't see why it should cost more.  You are paying for the same gear, if anythig, it should cost less to upgrade.  The idea that upgrading an already existing unit should cast more than creating a new unit is silly.  

I'm not going to say that it might not need to be tweaked, but the cost shouldn't just be the value of the metal. The value you gain by upgrading a units 'stuff' is much more valuable than just the metal costs and that should be balanced in the upgrade cost. Besides, look at it this way, you are also paying the cost for the unit to retrain to be able to make best use of those new items, instead of tripping and falling because of the weight or stabbing the guy next to them with that new differently balanced weapon.

In essence, you are paying the rushing cost + material value + *refit and re-train* costs (i.e. experienced unit gets even deadlier).

Pretty much ^^

Sincerely
~ Kongdej

I have absolutely no problem with having higher level units costing a bit more to upgrade their armor and weapons.  I just wish you could choose which armor and weapons they will receive, rather than it being a blanket upgrade.

I agree with Heavenfall and fenwe.  In some ways retraining takes even more time (abstracted with cost) then training.  Although as an alternative, maybe you could put a unit into a city for a few turns for retraining as opposed to an increased gildar cost.  Either the units if attacked during this period would use the old equipment, or use the new equipment with significant penalties.

And I totally agree with being able to upgrade different pieces individually rather than the generic "upgrade all upgradeable armor pieces to the maximum level on the same path" or "upgrade the weapon to the maximum available on the same path".  However I think the weapon upgrades should have to be the same type as the original, and any upgrade must not put encumbrance over 100%.

Also, the weapon types system definitely needs to be tweaked so one weapon does not upgrade to a different type of weapon as currently exists.  The different categories should be staves, swords, maces and axes.  Maybe also daggers if they are made better.

But either way, I think there needs to be poison damage for daggers for units with Path of the Assassin.

Sound logic. If they upped metal and crystal costs to as much as you pay for new units, I'd be fine with gildar being equal to rushed cost for those items.

IMHO, you're trying to post-facto justify that the prices are weird.  I can see the logic in saying that upgraded units are not experienced in their new upgraded equipment, but it still doesn't follow that it should cost significantly more to upgrade them.  It would seem more logical, in that case, to apply an experience penalty to upgraded units.

I also don't understand why upgrading a unit is more expensive than training a new unit.

It would be reasonable, in my opinion, to have to pay the material cost of the equipment plus a fraction less than one of the gildar cost of the new unit.  This way, there is a greater incentive to upgrade the units you already have.

I also think that rush-trained soldiers should get some sort of penalty for the first several turns of their existance - perhaps an accuracy or dodge penalty.  After all, rush-training essentially means that you took whatever equipment you had in storage and gave it to a bunch of draftees, then kicked them out the door and said, "Go fight for me."  Why are these troops as good to start with as the guys that you took the time to actually train and properly equip?