Combat Experience

I have read your proposal 7 months ago and what you said is really logic and i support it. Unfortunately I also remember a game developer explaining that these kind of mechanics are way to advanced to implement. Bytro Labs prefers to invest these kind of resources in new maps and events. However there is a major balancing upgrade in the making. The new knowledge tree is now being tested in the Beta games and is the first of many to improve the game.

I have to agree, although being a big fan of the experience system and the combat bonuses as implemented in a 25 years old pc game, that was perhaps the pioneer for all WWII games. Unfortunately there are too many differences here, especially in the upgrade system that would allow these units to remain in the front line in future wars (not to mention the ambiguity on the victorious unit, created by the use of stacks).

Thanks for the support guys

Maybe a form to control the experience could be put points to improve the troops, including all the things before saying...

And be more hard to achive it even more lvl the unit had...

What You Seem To Be Suggesting To Me

You are suggesting that over multiple battles, a certain unit type (Armored Cars, Militia, etc.) will become more powerful. So an armored car that is fighting for a player who had 100 past battles where armored cars we included, is stronger than an armored car of a new recruit.

Criticism

This puts new recruits at a disadvantage compared to veteran players. It is unfair if a veteran has an armored car 1.5x stronger than that of a new recruit, if this was possible, even with 1 million armored cars used, the system would be flawed (hackers could easily abuse it too).

My Best Version Of This Idea

I suggest you limit how much better the units can be AND reset these stats annually (as long as the game starts before the new year, the stats carry over).

There would have to be a function (equation) for this: DO NOT CONTINUE IF YOU FEAR MATH!

You would want a function that would approach a multiplier of 1.1x as the number of units used approaches infinity. The base (aka what it starts at) would be 1x. So the y-intercept would be (0 battle units, 1x multiplier (no boost)). If somebody wishes, they could ask me to continue further, but I see no purpose in continuing this right now.

<>

<>

<>In the end, it's probably in the best interests of everybody that we just leave it be, otherwise the developers would be wasting their time on something that is overly complicated to an unnecessary tool.

I wonder if it could ever work. A lot of units in the game do damage by engaging into frontline battles and thus they receive damage. So as their experience goes up their HP goes down. The effectiveness of these units will still diminish slightly with the HP of the unit going down or it will go down a lot as it does now. Then, you combine this unit with another fresh unit and they average out. When you take em apart again and the veterans mix with the newbs, now you have 2 units and you have no way of knowing which one counts as the ''veteran'' and which one does not. So how would you solve this? Not letting units of the same type not automaticly merge when in the same area?

Sounds like this would give a lot of problems to how the game currently works.

I thought the suggestion was for gaining experience for armored cars (or any other unit type) across the board, not just for one batallion.

Marcos Sicilia wrote:

This soldiers, (the ones who survive the continues assaults or attacks), must be rewarded with a logical experience in battle. Becoming veterans, but with the impossible way to be equal to the elite troops, or others that have an initial percentage, in what combat stadistic means.

Edepedable wrote:

I wonder if it could ever work. A lot of units in the game do damage by engaging into frontline battles and thus they receive damage. So as their experience goes up their HP goes down. The effectiveness of these units will still diminish slightly with the HP of the unit going down or it will go down a lot as it does now. Then, you combine this unit with another fresh unit and they average out. When you take em apart again and the veterans mix with the newbs, now you have 2 units and you have no way of knowing which one counts as the ''veteran'' and which one does not. So how would you solve this? Not letting units of the same type not automaticly merge when in the same area?

Sounds like this would give a lot of problems to how the game currently works.

This, I recall to you, is part of the developers, I only suggest the idea.

Lukenick wrote:

I thought the suggestion was for gaining experience for armored cars (or any other unit type) across the board, not just for one batallion.

Lukenick wrote:

What You Seem To Be Suggesting To Me

You are suggesting that over multiple battles, a certain unit type (Armored Cars, Militia, etc.) will become more powerful. So an armored car that is fighting for a player who had 100 past battles where armored cars we included, is stronger than an armored car of a new recruit.

Criticism

This puts new recruits at a disadvantage compared to veteran players. It is unfair if a veteran has an armored car 1.5x stronger than that of a new recruit, if this was possible, even with 1 million armored cars used, the system would be flawed (hackers could easily abuse it too).

My Best Version Of This Idea

I suggest you limit how much better the units can be AND reset these stats annually (as long as the game starts before the new year, the stats carry over).

There would have to be a function (equation) for this: DO NOT CONTINUE IF YOU FEAR MATH!

You would want a function that would approach a multiplier of 1.1x as the number of units used approaches infinity. The base (aka what it starts at) would be 1x. So the y-intercept would be (0 battle units, 1x multiplier (no boost)). If somebody wishes, they could ask me to continue further, but I see no purpose in continuing this right now.

<>

<>

<>In the end, it's probably in the best interests of everybody that we just leave it be, otherwise the developers would be wasting their time on something that is overly complicated to an unnecessary tool.

The troops gain experience in battle while they are fighting and survive the attack/defend, only the experience is getting by the unit if only if their counterkill turn up 1, 2,3,4,etc, 0 means 0 experience.

What you suggest in put a limit, I said it before, but yeah, you explain better what i want to say. A porcentage that how many more you defeat enemy troops, this is getting low, so for example:

1 armored car kill 1 unit, dont level up, maybe he need more, maybe 5, then the troop know how to fight in a real situation, so the second time he is fightings improving his tactics, and need 10 to level up and then successively...

(If the troop die, you lost the progress, thats logic)

At the end what gonna happen with this suggest?

Marcos Sicilia wrote:

At the end what gonna happen with this suggest?

As Edepedable explained, in order to gain experience, melee units (regiments) has to (due to the CoW combat system) suffer casualties (killed soldiers), the surviving soldiers of the regiment have gained experience -- then >>

>> During healing, general experience of the regiment (CoW unit) will decreas because fresh and inexperienced recruits are brought into the regiment (a CoW unit is a regiment, but acts as one unit) -- the more experience a unit (regiment) has accumulated the more casualties the unit (regiment) has suffered, the more new recruits are needed and so more experience the regiment has lost after healing, because every one percent of healing has to reduce the general experience ..

>> When merging with fresh, inexperienced units (regiments), the soldiers (as usual here in the game) are evenly distributed to all present regiments (CoW units) -- the rest is the same as above in healing ..

>> When pooling regiments of different experience and different life points, already considerable numbers of new calculations would be required depending on the number of units .. .. whitch with every percent healing, with each hit, with each extinguished unit (regiment), with each additional regiment (CoW unit) etc. would have to take place again ..

.. this is, distance fighting units, pardon, I mean -divisions, could of course gain experience without own losses, but experience of the melee units (regiments etc..) can not really be a fixed value and without changes to the unit- or combat system, experience would be not more than just another little-X-factor ..

.. so, why so much effort -- rather take a unit more to the fight and everything is well ..

Restrisiko wrote:

Marcos Sicilia wrote:

At the end what gonna happen with this suggest?

Units in CoW are not single units, but for example a single CoW-infantry-unit is already a complete regiment.

As Edepedable explained, in order to gain experience, melee units (regiments) has to (due to the CoW combat system) suffer casualties (killed soldiers), the surviving soldiers of the regiment have gained experience -- then >>

>> During healing, general experience of the regiment (CoW unit) will decreas because fresh and inexperienced recruits are brought into the regiment (a CoW unit is a regiment, but acts as one unit) -- the more experience a unit (regiment) has accumulated the more casualties the unit (regiment) has suffered, the more new recruits are needed and so more experience the regiment has lost after healing, because every one percent of healing has to reduce the general experience ..

>> When merging with fresh, inexperienced units (regiments), the soldiers (as usual here in the game) are evenly distributed to all present regiments (CoW units) -- the rest is the same as above in healing ..

>> When pooling regiments of different experience and different life points, already considerable numbers of new calculations would be required depending on the number of units .. .. whitch with every percent healing, with each hit, with each extinguished unit (regiment), with each additional regiment (CoW unit) etc. would have to take place again ..

.. this is, distance fighting units, pardon, I mean -divisions, could of course gain experience without own losses, but experience of the melee units (regiments etc..) can not really be a fixed value and without changes to the unit- or combat system, experience would be not more than just another little-X-factor ..

.. so, why so much effort -- rather take a unit more to the fight and everything is well ..

My idea is have veterans like "the elite" of the normal troops. An example that I´m thinking now is the As pilots, they become more accuracy with every hour of dogfights or air-earth attack; being a proffesional or an expert if you want in the handling of his "war machine".

And is perfect when you are out of manpower for example, or you have battle weeks or months (in game time) and your last troops can be reorganized and relocated to be more competents in the battlefield.

But knowing that the developers are improving the game so quick, it would be nice see this kind of things, like others I proposed before:

1940 map, Change the war effects, or my idea to solve manpower´s deficiency .

Just re-realeasing my old part on the community to be implemented maybe in the nexts versions

Take, for example, Easy Company 506th PIR 101st Airborne, an elite unit. After returning from Normandy after the D-Day landings, they needed to replace the losses they had suffered, almost 50% of the compliment. All the experience the survivors had accrued was offset by the inexperience of the replacements. As the veterans said in their testimonies, it was usually the replacements that got killed/wounded as their "greenness" caused them to make mistakes. The unit succeeded because of their veteran core but they were only marginally better than their original compliment owing to the mix of vets and newbies. Replacements might replenish the numbers of troops but they also dilute its efficiency.

i really like the idea and have previously suggested the same but was shot down big time as being told too hard to implement - i still dont see why - if you click on a unit it even tells you how many enemies its destroyed - surely if the present system collates this data its should be easier for the same system to allow for a modifier to cater for its 'experience' every 10 kills it gets a slight modifier?

anyway yep love the idea but you'll simply be told no can do by the other players and doubt you'll get response from mods

look up my 'veteran troop bonus' thread

Kasserine pass - info from wiki -

The battle was the first major engagement between U.S. and Axis forces in Africa. Inexperienced and poorly led American troops suffered many casualties and were quickly pushed back over 50 miles

like i said ppl always pick scenarios to help there own argument rather than looking at other ppl opinion and its merits

Edepedable wrote:

now you have 2 units and you have no way of knowing which one counts as the ''veteran'' and which one does not.

WascallywabbitCDN wrote:

Take, for example, Easy Company 506th PIR 101st Airborne, an elite unit. After returning from Normandy after the D-Day landings, they needed to replace the losses they had suffered, almost 50% of the compliment. All the experience the survivors had accrued was offset by the inexperience of the replacements. As the veterans said in their testimonies, it was usually the replacements that got killed/wounded as their "greenness" caused them to make mistakes. The unit succeeded because of their veteran core but they were only marginally better than their original compliment owing to the mix of vets and newbies. Replacements might replenish the numbers of troops but they also dilute its efficiency.

But you can see along the history how the best trained troops and with more "combat experience" in the battlefield always have form distintive groups in every military brach.

If you want to use the idea of the replacement to not complicate yourself do it I´m fine with that, but have no enough real aplication in this game. The veterans are the veterans another example:

- mountains battalions/divions/troops or whatever you want to call it; were always lower in number and a high trained section in all the armies in the world. They were proffesionals and they not always could be replaced by other soldiers... another examples... the fliying aces... proffeisonal and hard to replace...

Paratroops were the elite of the elite of WW2, that is why I used them as my example, but you are entitled to your opinion. Best of luck in your pursuit.

yeah I know, but that dont quit mine. The example of "the replacement" only is valid to the ones that dont give an opportunity to the specialize soldiers. if you want to perfect the game you have to visualize what´s absence. And with the update of the 1.5 I get hope on the devs if they would rethink some points in the mechanics and implement new ones to slowly become the community again stronger and not only to "P2W" players or newbies who dont last more than 3 hours in the game...

Think men, this is a Risk game but with mobile models and realistic situations in real time. There must be strategy and experience, and there´s lack of both.