Upgrade or Expand: which is the better choice

    This site uses cookies. By continuing to browse this site, you are agreeing to our Cookie Policy.

    • Upgrade or Expand: which is the better choice

      Having taken a break from the game for some time, it was nice to come back to see that all your units do not just automatically upgrade when you research a higher level on the research tree, and that you have to use resources and spend time to upgrade a Level 1 battleship to Level 2. However, I do find that I am using up a lot of resources to upgrade.

      So the question is, which is the better use of your resources, to build a completely new unit, or upgrade all your existing ones?

      Say you have a stack of 4 Destroyers, and you want to upgrade them from Level 1 to Level 2. You could probably use those resources to build an entirely new unit, and have 4 level 1 Destroyers and one new Level 2 one, instead of four Level 2 Destroyers.

      What do the old veterans on this forum think? Which do you guys do?
    • I prefer to upgrade existing, otherwise those units become somewhat obsolete. I wait to upgrade any damaged units until they can be combat effective. Upgrading badly damaged units is a waste of resources.

      I prefer Comintern or Pan Asian, so getting my starting infantry to level two or three early in the game to protect my artillery is critical.

      Also if you play as Allied doctrine, upgrading is more resource friendly.
    • Interestingly, this choice just came up for me in my current game.

      The cost of upgrading my Lvl 4 Battleship to Lvl 5 is 1035 Food, 1380 Metal and 690 Oil. The cost of building a new Lvl 5 Battleship is only 2070 Food, 2760 Metal and 1380 Oil. The manpower costs are relatively 1105 to upgrade an old unit, and 2210 to build a new unit.

      So, the cost of building a new Lvl 5 unit would be exactly the same as the cost of levelling up two Lvl 4 Battleships.

      The question therefore becomes, is it better to have two Lvl 5 Battleships (upgraded from the older ones), or one Lvl 5 Battleship (newly built) and two older Lvl 4 ones (so total of three units, two older ones and a new one)?

      Of course there is a time delay for building the new battleship, but even the upgrade takes over 4 hours, during which I could be using my older units in my campaigns. Also, a lot of the time spent building that new unit will be while I'm offline, so not all of it is going to be wasted campaign time.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by MartinB ().

    • To put the question in perspective, a Lvl 4 Battleship does 22 damage against ships, and has 4.4 attack and defence value against subs. A Lvl 5 Battleship does 29 damage against ships, and has 6.1 attack and defence value against subs.

      So, two Lvl 4 units would have a combined damage of 44 against ships and 8.8 against subs, as opposed to 29 damage against ships and 6.1 against subs, for a single Lvl 5 unit.

      The only advantage the Lvl 5 Battleship would have would be a higher speed.
    • I never upgrade units until at least day 5. I only upgrade certain units and only if I have enough of them. There are some units I like to spam so I don’t upgrade those, like infantry or light tanks or armored vehicles. I do like to upgrade worships and artillery.
      Player Name: MosheDyan68
      ID: 30148568

      Have fun. Stay young. Follow Jesus.
    • Okay, but it's not just about saving resources, but about the most judicious use of your very limited resources.

      Just had another level up, this time with artillery. Level 3 artillery takes the following to upgrade to level 4:-
      355 Food, 835 Goods, 200 Metal and 595 Manpower. And you pay $795.

      To build a new Level 4 Artillery unit, the cost is:-
      710 Food, 1670 Goods, 400 Metal and 1190 Manpower. You pay $1590.

      So the cost of building a new Level 4 Artillery is exactly the same as the cost of levelling up two old Level 3 Artillery units to Level 4. Therefore, you could use those resources to get one new Level 4 Artillery unit, and still have your two old Level 3 units.

      Two Level 3 Artillery units do 11 damage to armour (5.5 each) and 6.4 to infantry (3.2 each). One Level 4 unit does 7.5 damage to armour, and 4.4 to infantry.

      So, for the same amount of resources, you can have a stack of two Level 3 units and one new Level 4 unit, instead of two upgraded Level 4 units. The only disadvantage is that you have to wait a bit longer to build that new unit.
    • Pilgrim2 wrote:

      I never upgrade units until at least day 5. I only upgrade certain units and only if I have enough of them. There are some units I like to spam so I don’t upgrade those, like infantry or light tanks or armored vehicles. I do like to upgrade worships and artillery.
      Okay, so your philosophy is to expand (use the resources to build new units instead of upgrade all your old units), instead of to upgrade.

      This is exactly what I am arguing here, it seems to me that this is in fact the best use of your resources, which are always a limiting factor (unless you want to spend money to give yourself unlimited resources).
    • Upgrade multiple lvls in one go.

      Too time consuming also to produce new ones.
      If you upgrade a 10 stack arty from lvl1 to lvl2, all of them are gonna upgrade in around 2hrs.
      Producing is more resource friendly but you can't produce 10 artys in one go like upgrading, you can if you build 10 ordinance foundries but no one does that. Most build 2 so if you were to produce those 10 lvl2 artys, that would probably take an entire day.
    • Interesting discussion! I also lean towards the expansion policy, but not completely. There are several very good use cases for upgrading, so there is no out-of-the-box answer to your question and it all depends on the circumstances in your empire.

      You are right that the sheer damage-output-to-cost ratio is in favor of expansion. However, this leaves several important factors out of account:
      - HP: upgrading gets you some extra HP as well, which should be included in the sheer net damage output calculation; so it is slightly less bad than you wrote above.
      - Upkeep: your two L4 battleshipss eat double the amount of the one L5. Upkeep is usually overlooked since it is such a silent thing, but it certainly counts and you will certainly "feel" a huge L1 army.
      - SBDE: when you're using big stacks, you may not be able to include BOTH L4's in the 10-unit maximum for combat calculations. The L5 is "contributing" more to an oversized stack.
      - For stealth and revealing units, level is vital for their function. Later on in the game, a L1 naval bomber simply won't reveal any subs anymore.
      - Speed: the new unit is faster.

      As mentioned by others, time is a very important factor as well. Producing units can get excruciatingly slow at higher levels, and you'll need to invest in a lot of factories to get build times down to decent levels; this can also become a major drain on resources and city build slots (you also want production enhancers and recruitment centers, after all).

      Then there's the distance factor. When you are fighting far from home, you may find you can get the extra punch of the upgraded unit (almost) immediatly, while building AND transporting a new unit to the front (possibly across a dangerous sea or something?) may take several days.

      Another situation may be something like this: you get caught off-guard by an enemy you have no viable defense for. For example, you have invested in a battle fleet and you find he is using loads of subs. You more or less suddenly realize that you need destroyers or naval bombers, but you never researched them (or just L1). You want a LOT of them. What you can do now is, do a massive amount of quick builds at L1 (don't research L2 just yet!), then when you have the amount you want, quickly do a series of researches to take your tech to (say) L4 and upgrade them. It still takes a few days, but it is much faster than researching the tech first and then do all the slow builds.

      Finally, some rules of thumb for "easy going" situations where all the above doesn't apply:
      - Never upgrade units below 75%;
      - Always upgrade (fit!) units when they can get two levels;
      - Prioritize the (few) slowest units in mixed stacks (the entire stack will gain speed);
      - When possible, upgrade overnight rather than in the daytime;
      - Don't upgrade when you have planned the NEXT upgrade already in your research schedule.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.
    • K.Rokossovski wrote:



      - For stealth and revealing units, level is vital for their function. Later on in the game, a L1 naval bomber simply won't reveal any subs anymore.
      - When possible, upgrade overnight rather than in the daytime;

      - Don't upgrade when you have planned the NEXT upgrade already in your research schedule.
      Stealth units upgraded. I like that. That would be a real frustration to move in and BOOM high levels in the forests. Nice!
      Player Name: MosheDyan68
      ID: 30148568

      Have fun. Stay young. Follow Jesus.
    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Interesting discussion! I also lean towards the expansion policy, but not completely. There are several very good use cases for upgrading, so there is no out-of-the-box answer to your question and it all depends on the circumstances in your empire.

      You are right that the sheer damage-output-to-cost ratio is in favor of expansion. However, this leaves several important factors out of account:
      - HP: upgrading gets you some extra HP as well, which should be included in the sheer net damage output calculation; so it is slightly less bad than you wrote above.
      - Upkeep: your two L4 battleshipss eat double the amount of the one L5. Upkeep is usually overlooked since it is such a silent thing, but it certainly counts and you will certainly "feel" a huge L1 army.
      - SBDE: when you're using big stacks, you may not be able to include BOTH L4's in the 10-unit maximum for combat calculations. The L5 is "contributing" more to an oversized stack.
      - For stealth and revealing units, level is vital for their function. Later on in the game, a L1 naval bomber simply won't reveal any subs anymore.
      - Speed: the new unit is faster.

      I'm not arguing that you should never upgrade your units, only that there is no reason to upgrade all your units when you level up and that there are huge advantages to expanding instead of upgrading.

      Some points:

      HP: This is wrong. Upgrading gets you extra HP, but you dont get the same HP as two old units. My Lvl 4 art has 23 HP, my lvl 3 has 18, so two lvl 3 artillery units stacked would have 36, as opposed to 23 for one lvl 4. So expanding instead of upgrading does not give you less HP, it gives you more, because a stack of two upgraded level 4 units would have less HP than a stack of two un-upgraded, plus one new level 4 unit.

      Upkeep: not true that the two Lvl 4 ships take twice the amount of the one Lvl 5. The upkeep costs are as follows:
      Lvl 4 85 food, 95 manpower, 113 metal, 57 oil
      Lvl 5 104 food, 111 manpower, 138 metal, 69 oil
      So the two Lvl 4 units use up more to upkeep, but then you have two units that have higher damage and higher hit points than one Lvl 5 unit. Bigger fleet, bigger cost.

      SBDE: This is a good point, but you hardly ever use large stacks in this game. There are times when you need them, but they are few and far in between. If you have a large stack of ships, many of them will be destroyers for anti-sub, which do not contribute to bombardment battles between surface fleets. Four battleships stacked with ten destroyers do the same damage as four stacked with four destroyers. The only time is when you move in for close combat, but this is poor naval tactics, and I hardly ever use it, unless going in for the kill at the end of an exchange of salvoes.

      Stealth is a good point. Speed is one I mentioned earlier, and is important especially for naval combat.

      The post was edited 1 time, last by MartinB ().

    • Naval units are just an example, it works the same for land and air. And many people use 10+ stacks.

      And I didn't say you were arguing anything; I just hoped to contribute to the discussion. It is much more complicated than "always upgrade" or "never upgrade", that's for sure.
      When the fake daddies are curtailed, we have failed. When their roller coaster tolerance is obliterated, their education funds are taken by Kazakhstani phishers, and their candy bars distributed between the Botswana youth gangs, we have succeeded.
      - BIG DADDY.
    • K.Rokossovski wrote:

      Naval units are just an example, it works the same for land and air. And many people use 10+ stacks.

      And I didn't say you were arguing anything; I just hoped to contribute to the discussion. It is much more complicated than "always upgrade" or "never upgrade", that's for sure.
      In general, I find that players who like using large stacks are easier to beat. You can always out-manouevre them. Current game I m on, I had one guy stack 17 units in his most forward city, maybe thinking I would stupidly waste resources trying to fight that stack. Instead I just went around it and ravaged the rest of his core provinces.

      Only time I use a larger stack is when I stack fighters with bombers, the reason being that when you damage a ground unit, it is your bomber damage that counts, but if you fight an air unit, the fighters contribute most to your defence value.
    • I like to over-stack units in the hopes my opponent will do the same. Then I send armored cars to grab up undefended territory. I also like to use artillery so over-stack more as a defense against bombers and to simplify movement. To engage, I generally bombard then withdraw to the maximum extent possible before actually getting caught in melee combat.
    • MartinB wrote:

      SBDE: This is a good point, but you hardly ever use large stacks in this game. There are times when you need them, but they are few and far in between. If you have a large stack of ships, many of them will be destroyers for anti-sub, which do not contribute to bombardment battles between surface fleets. Four battleships stacked with ten destroyers do the same damage as four stacked with four destroyers. The only time is when you move in for close combat, but this is poor naval tactics, and I hardly ever use it, unless going in for the kill at the end of an exchange of salvoes.
      I always make large stacks. In land, I do 30+ stacks centered around artys: 10 range units, 10 def melee units (mostly inf), 10 aa, some stealth detection.

      In sea, I always build a main fleet on big maps. 10BB, 10CC, 10DD.

      MartinB wrote:

      In general, I find that players who like using large stacks are easier to beat. You can always out-manouevre them. Current game I m on, I had one guy stack 17 units in his most forward city, maybe thinking I would stupidly waste resources trying to fight that stack. Instead I just went around it and ravaged the rest of his core provinces.
      I don't think that really warrants a 'no big stack' approach to the game.

      There are many measures to prevent small chevauchee style raiding parties from sweeping your heartlands. Planes, positioning on chokepoints, counter maneuvers, a good strat depth, the -50% ms penalty, splitting, etc.
      Yes, big stacks can fall prey to them but it's not like there's nothing you can do.

      Most importantly however, is that a good stack can only be beaten by another big stack. 2-3 all-rounder 30 stacks and a plane stack can easily hold a front and slowly but surely push it. It might require multiple retreats and repositionings to secure just a single province, but it's very formidable to kill. Unless it is opposed by an equally capable stack, it just turns into this invincible and inevitable slumbering mass of doom.

      I wouldn't really say players who use big stacks are easier to beat. Maybe that is technically true since majority of players don't really know how to play the game and just build ineffective stacks like a 20 stack of med tanks, good stacks however are a completely different thing.

      I'd rather face players who doesn't build big stacks than those who do even though 9/10 it's those who build impotent stacks because quality and competitive stacks are a headache to kill.
    • Martin, your flank the stacks maneuver is evil! That being said, one of two things happen. 1) he will counter by moving into your territory, 2) he will chase you, 3) he is about to go AFK and won't even notice :D

      I usually have the counter before he builds the huge stack. I watch the news reports to see what a threat is building.
      I- Right now I am Maine. I am watching Arkansas move through Tennessee and head my way. All of his conquests so far have been with infantry. So I have built anti-infantry to counter him. (hope it works)
      Player Name: MosheDyan68
      ID: 30148568

      Have fun. Stay young. Follow Jesus.