experience for units in battle

[Gustav Kuriga]

I think that units should have a stat called experience (which starts at 0, those slimey red shirts) that only increases in battle. It would effect CS (and other possible effects that I would leave to the devs to figure out) to a greater extent than training or cohesion, because those who have seen battle know much more about fighting; rather than those who have just practiced on the practice field, which is what training more properly represents (training currently represents both experience from the battlefield and training from the practice field, making it more of a misnomer, or at the least a misused term).

This would make experienced units much more indispensable than they currently are, leading Marshals to think twice before engaging in a battle which would lead to the destruction of their army. This would lead to more strategy as armies try to outmanuever rather than outright outpower their opponents in order to catch them piecemeal.

It would also allow outnumbered but more experienced armies to defeat armies from realms that haven't seen many battles (already possible, but not by much as currently armies can be purely trained to high levels of CS) because of peace or by trying to sit on the sidelines for too long.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

They have such a stat. It's called Training for units. On the noble side of things: Leadership.

And yes, I saw what else you wrote. However...why add another layer to an already murky system? Cohesion and morale even factor in strangely.

[MaleMaldives]

I think it would be nice to have, because they way it is now you can recruit a unit and sit back and train them till training and cohesion is 100%. This is as elite as you can get your troop depending on how good their equipment is, but they have not fought a singe real battle yet. Something a true veteran elite unit should have done plenty of time as field experience is possible more valuable then training.

[Bael]

This is very much what I was suggesting in this thread: http://forum.battlemaster.org/index.php/topic,425.0.html

Obviously by another name, but the concept is similar.

I suppose the core concept is: should there be a difference between those who have actually fought, and those who have only trained.

[MaleMaldives]

I suppose the core concept is: should there be a difference between those who have actually fought, and those who have only trained.

Yeah it is called experience, courage is a personality trait. I think Gustav Kuriga probably just took your idea and made it better.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Yeah it is called experience, courage is a personality trait. I think Gustav Kuriga probably just took your idea and made it better.

I appreciate the compliment, but don't put it in such a way that he feels his suggestion wasn't as worthy of notice. After all, I got my inspiration from it!

They have such a stat. It's called Training for units. On the noble side of things: Leadership.

And yes, I saw what else you wrote. However...why add another layer to an already murky system? Cohesion and morale even factor in strangely.

Did you not read my explanation about Training? As it currently is, training from battle has only a marginally higher maximum than from training via practice field. What I am suggesting would have a much more significant effect.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

If you're suggesting a factor to increase training increase on the field, then that's fine. Although, that kind of exists as well. Training outside of battle only increases training % up to 80%,  or until unit reaches 100% cohesion. After that, it's battles all the way. By the way, that 20% does matter...

If you're suggesting an entirely new set of variables (or whatever they really are) just for something that can be adequately achieved already, I would have to think it is unnecessary.

[De-Legro]

It is also supposed to be faster to gain 100% stats from battles then from training.

[Gustav Kuriga]

If you're suggesting a factor to increase training increase on the field, then that's fine. Although, that kind of exists as well. Training outside of battle only increases training % up to 80%,  or until unit reaches 100% cohesion. After that, it's battles all the way. By the way, that 20% does matter...

If you're suggesting an entirely new set of variables (or whatever they really are) just for something that can be adequately achieved already, I would have to think it is unnecessary.

I do believe it was mentioned somewhere that 96% was the upper limit, including battles. You can continue to increase training once at 100% cohesion as well, I just did that recently with a unit of mine. What you seem to not be getting is that I am trying to say that training is something that can be increased both inside and outside (to a point, but it can still be done) of battle. Experience, as I am stating it here, would be solely the result of battle and would have a greater effect on CS and morale on the battlefield. This would represent that the unit is going from green recruits whose only previous fighting was with wooden swords and shields against rival squads, to veteran units who have seen all the blood and carnage of war and can be counted to stand their ground.

As experience has a greater effect than training, this would mean that units and armies of realms who have to constantly fight will be superior to those from realms at peace with everyone, even if their training and equipment for their units are equivalent.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

And what you aren't getting from my words is the question of "What significant improvement would this bring that addresses a significant flaw in the current system?" You bring good points in terms of "realism", but I am not sure if you are maintaining awareness of how the playerbase as a whole would take it. Sure, people can adapt in time, but how much of a difference would it really make? What exactly is so lacking in the current way that training describes the unit's experience, cohesion their ability to work together, and morale their mental state?

Are we to suggest next that we should add something else to account for random in-fighting in units, hence a "Dissent" stat? Maybe we should add a "Psychological Stability" stat to see which units can resist losing morale? Or a "Liver of Steel" stat to see how much entertainment you can give them. Oh, surely there are Olympic sprinters in some infantry, or Kentucky Derby racehorses in some cavalry, let's give a "Speed" stat. Shall we have "Navigation" to determine how well they find good/bad routes on travels without scouts? These are extreme examples, but when it comes down to it, I'm sure someone out there can justify those aforementioned passionately.

In other words, how would you justify the potential benefits versus the added complicating factors in an already unpredictable combat system?

[De-Legro]

While I understand the purpose I would question two things

• Do we really need ANOTHER stat in a lightweight casual game
• Is is wise to give large CS boost to realms that are at war?While it might encourage war, it would also potentially encourage people to go to war against MUCH smaller realms first, to form super units before declaring on a more difficult target.

Something similar could be achieved simply by limiting how far cohesion and training could increase from non-battlefield conditions. That way only units that have fought since hitting that cap will get to true veteran status.

[Gustav Kuriga]

Simple. It would reward realms militarily for fighting smart. By having a significant reason for conserving men, it would make Marshals and Generals think more strategically than "walk army here, sit until other army comes, large battle that wastes many units, refit". Realms that have been winning battles will usually have less losses, leading to their armies becoming more experienced and thus more powerful as a whole.

Also, especially for Dwilight, it would reflect a colony's early fight to clear the wilderness and set up a civilization (if they can survive long enough, that is).

Of course, I'm not stuck in a rut and would be willing to seek changes or compromises to the feature I am suggesting if that would make the devs more likely to implement it.

[songqu88@gmail.com]

That's the thing De-Legro might have alluded to. It can be gamed more so than the current stats can be in the way it's described right now.

If we're talking Dwilight, then that could potentially give a major advantage to the established realms that can conservatively take out monsters. Colonies do not have such a luxury. To my knowledge, there never has been a colony that managed to preserve their original forces through the first two months. You'd probably more likely see a realm struggling to fend off monsters, being unable to get "experience" up enough for it to matter before monsters just kill them all. Then a big realm that can afford to have several large archer units pick off monsters and get "free" experience can send in some super archers with units each filled with Odysseus and Robin Hood caliber individuals.

[De-Legro]

Simple. It would reward realms militarily for fighting smart. By having a significant reason for conserving men, it would make Marshals and Generals think more strategically than "walk army here, sit until other army comes, large battle that wastes many units, refit". Realms that have been winning battles will usually have less losses, leading to their armies becoming more experienced and thus more powerful as a whole.

Making it even tougher for the realm that lost that significant battle to get back into the game, facing off against even tougher units. This is always the problem with systems that "reward" winning battles. We will either get the situation were it becomes impossible for the losing realm to recruit and fight of the winners due to the effect of the experience gains, or to counter that the gains to CS will be so small so as to remove the gulf, that it becomes pretty pointless anyway.

[MaleMaldives]

While I understand the purpose I would question two things

• Do we really need ANOTHER stat in a lightweight casual game
• Is is wise to give large CS boost to realms that are at war?While it might encourage war, it would also potentially encourage people to go to war against MUCH smaller realms first, to form super units before declaring on a more difficult target.

Something similar could be achieved simply by limiting how far cohesion and training could increase from non-battlefield conditions. That way only units that have fought since hitting that cap will get to true veteran status.

First I don't think a stat the said experience X% would be very hard for newcomers or anyone to understand or handle. Who knows how much CS it would add as of now. I think it would be a nice realistic stat even though it is tried to implemented through training bonuses after battles. But your example is also something that is realistic. Germany in WWII sent pilots to the spanish civil war to gain experience, and I could probable research other examples. A realm is already encouraged to go to war with a smaller realm first to take their lands to gain strength to take on a bigger realm. I think it could work if training was for example 50% battlefield and 50% through actually training except the problem is there are some recruitment centers that have very high training. On a slightly side note I think cohesion should go up way more after a battle. I think people in war conditions get very close that they are dying alongside with and expect to mutually watch each others backs.