unit veterenacy

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

    • unit veterenacy

      I'm curious as to why the game doesn't have any sort of experience system (or at least I can't seem to find it), where troops that have participated and won battles obtain some experience per kill. (To my awareness none exists, even though there is a kill count for units).

      This would serve to offset the cost of defense, because if you are invaded, and successfully fend off an invasion, all you have are a bunch of injured soldiers and casualties. You are essentially set-back from a military perspective, and successful defense of invasion yields practically no rewards. Troop experience would be one such way to remedy the defender's curse.

      This also makes gameplay more dynamic, you are encouraged to spend time healing your valuable experienced troops rather than focusing on pumping out more.

      Finally, it adds a dimension of realism to the game. Battle hardened troops perform better than their freshmen counterparts.
    • Well perhaps not necessarily; a snowballer's snowballing happens because more cities means means more troops means more cities means more troops and so on. One would presume the composition of such armies is biased in favor of masses of freshly trained units due to the supposed exponential increase in training capacity due to conquest, so the benefit of experience might not fall in these armies' favor.

      On the other hand, nations who are invaded early and manage to fight tooth and nail to repel the invaders will have something to show for it apart from a wrecked economy and a weak army, and might actually be more resilient to the next invasion rather than quitting pre-emptively.
    • This would encourage not being in a coalition to be able to "feed" each other units to level them up, so you would be able to get experienced troops. Therefore people, that play solo would have an even smaller chance of winning. Yes, allxing with others is a core element of this game, but being exponentially stronger with more allies is not really intended (yes, your economy growth is exponentialy bigger with allies, but even when no one is attacking anyone a player in a team would still (alone!) have a faster power growth than a solo player.
    • 737373elj wrote:

      The main problem would be that it is incredibly difficult to code
      I don't think so. There is already code, which detects, when you engage into combat to write that into the event log. You just need to add there, that both units receive experience(xp). Or when you only get xp when killing, units already have a count of killed units which requires some sort of code where you could also add some xp. And if you get xp by winning battles(destroying the other stack), there is also already a way to detect this too, because that is also mentioned in the event log.
    • Already proposed. And due to the "old code" it is impossible to implement without hudge recoding. A lot of coding actually because right now how it is implemented will not allow experience on individual unit lvl.
      There are many problems, just to mention some.
      Units need to merge, units need to lvl up, units need to un-merge, to heal and what about stack limits (efficiency)...?
      Basicly you will get new units of the same type and lvl if you just add experience.
      For example regular infantry lvl 1.
      You have 1 without exp and 1 with exp. Both lvl 1, but 2 different units.
      So what happens when you merge them?
      You have 2 different units, not a stack composed of the same units. Units with different stats. Sure it can work but it is not practical.
      Also because you will have less experienced units in stack, those would act as single units loosing stack advantages like more hp per same unit type in stack.
      That means strategy will change.

      For example you have 5 strike fighters in stack. 4 are the same exp, 5th has more exp. Unit will not merge with others in stack. Yes it will be in stack but solo like if you add 1 asf + 4 sf.
      That means this 5th sf with more exp and better stats will suffer more in fights thus loosing its advantage (higher exp).

      Then when you lvl up those infantry units to lvl 2 they loose kill stats meaning will loose exp as well, or not?

      Also it would be better to have several lvl's of exp for units. But that means more different units of same type.
      Like inf lvl 1 with exp lvl1, inf lvl1 with exp lvl 2, etc...

      I would like to see experience implemented in the game. It would add a lot of depth.
      But it is very hard task. I am not sure they have enough troops :rolleyes: for that.
    • Zemunelo wrote:

      For example you have 5 strike fighters in stack. 4 are the same exp, 5th has more exp. Unit will not merge with others in stack. Yes it will be in stack but solo like if you add 1 asf + 4 sf.
      That means this 5th sf with more exp and better stats will suffer more in fights thus loosing its advantage (higher exp).
      Couldn't you do that in the same way you deal with health?

      when the 4 merge with the 5th, the exp of the 5th is shared among the 5 units. Which in a way, it would reflect reality again: if you have a veteran in your team, everyone in the team benefits. Yes, you 'lose' the individual exp factor, but again it's the same concept that applies to health today.
    • Actually you can't. Because hp (or health as you call it) can easely be merged between same unit type.
      But experience is not what you say. It is not only a number like hp is. Exp should reflect to stats meaning unit is pretty much new unit. Faster, more def, more att, maybe better in some terrain, longer range, etc.
      How can you merge 2 different units?
      They can be in stack, like 2 separate units but you can't merge them.
      How to un-merge them latter?

      I don't say it is impossible, just that it is hard if you have to change existing code. The code that was originally written for different game (Call of War).
      They already changed a lot but still share most of the code.
      If you go and check their website you will see they have small team. That's why I said "they don't have enough troops" :D
    • playbabe wrote:

      I see, so you simply want an obvious reward when you successful combats other then winning the game.
      That's my issue. For an attacker, successful combat yields the goals which are initiated by that combat. The defender by succeeding, merely denies the attacker his objectives. (bar a swift counterstrike which is not always possible.)
      In a two player game, denying your opponents' goals is tantamount to achieving your own, because of the zero sum nature of it all. This is not the case in a multiplayer game.

      In practice, if I see an opponent attacking me early on in the game, I prefer to just quit and start another game rather than fight, because even if I do fight and crush the attacker, I will be set behind by the losses with nothing to compensate while the other un-attacked opponents zoom ahead, making some types of victory practically impossible.

      Furthermore, there can be no reward apart from winning the game. All the chevrons in the world are mere tools in pursuit of victory. Hence the goal is not "an obvious reward"; it is rather an incentive to defend instead of just leaving.