Hello, I'm sure this has been recommended before, so I shall keep it short, sweet and simple.
If you've ever played Civilization 6, my idea sort of follows the same premise. So let's say you get 5 kills with an armored car, that would grant you enough unit experience to PURCHASE a minor perk / upgrade for said unit. (yes, it will cost resources to upgrade, because we don't want to make this too easy and affordable, especially for crack-shot players, yeah?).
The perks would only be MINOR as to not make someone who's already doing really good, even better. The minor perks would be something like:
1. Spend 1 perk point to heal your unit completely
2. Increase damage by 5%
3. Increase HP by 5%
4. Increase speed by 5%
(you see where I'm going with this?)
See, 5% really isn't a game breaking upgrade. It's just enough to let the user feel good for maintaining a unit long enough to receive the perk point.
Maybe if the unit is kept alive long enough and gets 10 kills he could get 2 perk points. AND MAYBE, JUST MAYBE at higher perk tiers you could get some cooler stuff like:
1. All units in the upgraded units group receive a 5% damage or health boost
or
2. Grants the unit a 100% terrain bonus in your chosen terrain.
Make the game cool like that. I guarantee you there's not going to be one soul who opposes this! 
Staff Sergeant CoolBreeze_
303rd Logistical Studies Group - Fort Bragg, NC
i dont really agree with it . We already have research to upgrade troops and this would make arty / bombers too op as they can take out troops without receiving much dmg , this would just make them broken. Now everyone would group all their units as a stack against ai to gain exp. Also, ppl will just spam arty and bombers if this was implemented . Why would I go tanks when I could just have super buff 10 stack of arty.
Also , ik someone is going to pull the “historically accurate “ card . So, let me just shut it down . There is no way in a million years will the game be 100% historic. It will just make the game un-fun. Some examples of this are tanks losing a lot of hp in mountains/ hills , units losing health randomly ( desertions) , needing supplies to be transferred, if no supply= unit lose hp etc etc.
yeahTgufyru wrote:
i dont really agree with it . We already have research to upgrade troops and this would make arty / bombers too op as they can take out troops without receiving much dmg , this would just make them broken. Now everyone would group all their units as a stack against ai to gain exp. Also, ppl will just spam arty and bombers if this was implemented . Why would I go tanks when I could just have super buff 10 stack of arty.
I think it would be cool, but should belong in its own game mode map, that would be cool to try out
Very strongly opposed, due to snowballing effect for the strong players, the abuse possible with AI, and the fact that it is too "micro".
klick bite a la "And then he saw something, you would not belive..." please klick page two ....
Just the fact you said that makes me want to oppose this. I mean, this is the "announcement-demand" behaviour where a user announces another user's future action without considering the will of that user. So you're basically not considering the other users and just saying they will do that, that and that, like if they were all the same and easily predictable.CoolBreeze_ wrote:
Make the game cool like that. I guarantee you there's not going to be one soul who opposes this!
Friendly tip, don't do that. It makes people oppose you.
"Experience" and upgrades is a nice idea, but imagine how this could be used. You could concentrate it on a certain group of units and increase the importance of micro-management, making it worse for more strategy-based players. Like, just surprise the opponent with experience and if he doesn't micromanage his units to oppose it effectively (quickly merge behind etc), you gain advantage.
You may argue that 5% isn't much, and it truly isn't. It's so little that the complication it brings to the game has more negative impact than the feature itself has positive. You could fix this by increasing the importance of those perks, but that'd then cause the micro-management problem I stated above.
But, I wouldn't mind if they gave each unit an identification number and determined its kills (by averaging), so it isn't like now, when you merge units and the kills are equally distributed, and you can't tell the exact units apart anymore.
Again though, it's pretty complicated and adds nothing to the game. 
After thinking more about this suggestion and reading posts above, I agree that it has a lot of flaws and overall would not be a great add-on to the game. Although I believe it’s a cool idea and would be interesting to try out, it just would not work well since the game is already developed and it’s mechanics seem to be working well. Good post though man, it is great to have suggestions like this in the community!
Not a good idea. Like it or not, this is a game meant to be generally historically accurate. The soviets didn't gain Hp after fighting for months in Stalingrad. US soldiers didnt gain a damage bonus after fighting in D-day.
Please log in to post a reply.
