XP For Military Units

[Alex]

There's been a lot of talk about how to put more of an incentive on war for bigger nations. Here's what I'm thinking is a potential solution:

 

We add a new modifier that affects the strength of your units in battle, and that is experience. Sending your troops into battle hardens them and makes them better fighters for the next battle is the basic concept.

 

Basically, it would consist of small alterations to a number that would be the modifier for each unit type in battle. For example, it would start at 1 for everyone.

 

You have 10,000 troops with 0 experience, so they fight as they normally would. Let's say that you fight a battle, and get an Immense Triumph. This gives you a 0.000003 increase per (surviving) troop to your modifier. Now that you've fought the battle, maybe 500 of your troops die, and now your modifier goes from 1 to 1.0285. That's essentially making your troops 2.85% stronger for the next fight.

 

Now every time you buy new troops, this modifier would lessen. So let's say you buy 3,000 new troops, a proportion is set up so that your new modifier is:

 

9500         X

------  =  --------

12500  1.0285

 

In this case, the new modifier would be 1.0225625

 

It's a pretty straightforward concept, and could be applied to all units. I figured for utter failures, you wouldn't change your XP at all you'd get .0000005, for Pyrrhic victories you'd get a .000001 increase, .000002 for moderate success, and .000003 for an immense triumph.

 

The idea behind it is that it would make nations that fight and wage wars stronger militaries than nations that idly sit and do nothing. I don't think it would be too dramatic of a change, but it might become more noticeable as time goes on.

 

Thoughts?

[Dark Specter]

i like the idea of xp effecting your forces...... But shouldnt some one gain xp whether they win or lose? i think you should gain xp when you lose as well but make the xp you gain from losing much less then what it would be if you win

[Alex]

i like the idea of xp effecting your forces...... But shouldnt some one gain xp whether they win or lose? i think you should gain xp when you lose as well but make the xp you gain from losing much less then what it would be if you win

 

Not a bad point of view. Perhaps an utter failure would give you .0000005 per soldier (half of a Pyrrhic victory).

[Atzuya]

Wouldn't this allow people to essentially 'grind' for the exp? If we get points from surviving soldiers, regardless of the damage done or the size of enemy's ground forces, I can pay someone with just 1 active barrack to have a war with me, effectively giving my 45k soldiers a lot of bonus for every ground attacks I have.

 

Also, this can give people 'snowballing' effect, as soldiers with better experience will be more likely to gain experience against enemy with an equal size, and so on and so on...

[Speaker Faris Wheeler]

This totally supports Princess Bubblegum, so much for the decreasing army.....

Edited January 21, 2015 by Morgan Fraser

[Arthur James]

how do you count the experience?

Do you count it Since the day1 of the nation or day1 of your new system set through Causality and killed??

What is the maximum limit of experience? 255/255 or none?

I wonder someday 1 experienced soldier can takedown 1 unexperienced tanks (expecially some newbie is in)

I now fear this system gives P.B. huge advantages.

Edited January 21, 2015 by Arthur James

[Atzuya]

Exp should be gained from destroyed infrastructure, and it gradually decreases overtime. That way people can't grind it silly-nelly and you have to actually destroy something to gain exp

[Pax]

+1 to it degrading over time.

 

Also, if you run out of units of a certain type, it should reset that type's modifier to zero. Can't exactly say your units are battle-hardened when all the experienced ones died, right?

Edited January 21, 2015 by Pax

[Filthy Fifths]

boring.

[Keegoz]

I can already see this being abused. I also agree that it would help PB quite a bit in raiding small nations

[Arthur James]

 

+1 to it degrading over time.

 

Also, if you run out of units of a certain type, it should reset that type's modifier to zero. Can't exactly say your units are battle-hardened when all the experienced ones died, right?

 

P.B. won't affect by this if she keep exercising the war...

so in the end, the only thing that beneficial are those who maintain expert in war.

 

I suppose Sheepy would added the limit of Max. experience....it wonder be no good if we have 1 experienced soldier killed one unexperienced tank with immersed triumph! Then I won't waste my steels on building tanks (its only advantage is no food consumption) OR

 

the more experience you get, the faster the rate it decline exponentially eventually you can't reach even higher..

 

(ANYway, I suppose it is a form of abuse)

Edited January 21, 2015 by Arthur James

[Phiney]

Would rather something simpler like was suggested elsewhere. Something like you just in general gain unit strength for destroying more infra, and lose it by waring less often. Or tie it to nation perks and bring those in (they are on your to do list) and make nation perk points only gainable by destroying peoples infra and unrelated to score.

[Princess Bubblegum]

This will encourage more raiding, not necessarily more alliance wars (which I think is what people really want).

Edited January 21, 2015 by Princess Bubblegum

[Aphelion]

Military XP doesn't really do much and won't provide much of an incentive. If I am a non-warring nation, then I won't bother getting any non-economic related bonuses.

I agree with Phiney. I think it has also been suggested before:

Destroyed infra = XP that can be spent on national perks

If you destroy an opponents infra, you get XP. When your infra gets destroyed you get even more XP. This way, nations who are getting beaten actually receives compensation by getting more XP.  This also discourages XP farming as you basically need to get your nation stomped to get it. This actually makes war more attractive as it is the only way to obtain those national perks (some of which should offer economic bonuses) that can give you an edge in the long run.

If the goal is to encourage more alliance wars instead of raiding, then I suggest putting a declare war option on alliances. When an alliance declares a war on another, both of its members who battle the opposing alliance gets twice the rate of XP for destroying infra.
 

[ataraxis]

Why would you want to give an incentive to *lose* wars more than *winning* them?

[Vellocet]

It's a great idea at first thought. However, I fear that this new feature will only favor the hardened veterans, who've been through many wars, when attacking/defending against a nation of same size and military strength, that has zero experience gained in military whatsoever.

[Aphelion]

Why would you want to give an incentive to *lose* wars more than *winning* them?

 

I think having it the other way around will just create a wider gap between big and smaller nations. Especially when big nations get their hands on missiles or nukes, they'll be blowing infra up and farming XP faster than those small nations still playing with tanks and soldiers.

 

Getting more XP when you lose infra provides a small incentive for being stomped. People who get raided have finally have something to smile at. This also makes XP farming harder - I mean who'd want their infra intentionally blown up?

 

 

It's a great idea at first thought. However, I fear that this new feature will only favor the hardened veterans, who've been through many wars, when attacking/defending against a nation of same size and military strength, that has zero experience gained in military whatsoever.

 

That's the point of this suggestion. To give an incentive for warring nations and make war more attractive.

[Grillick]

This will encourage more raiding, not necessarily more alliance wars (which I think is what people really want).

This is exactly the problem with this suggestion.

[Vellocet]

That's the point of this suggestion. To give an incentive for warring nations and make war more attractive.

The flaw here is that a few months down the road, new nations are founded, new alliances are formed... Then all of a sudden BAM! *Vellocet smashes his fist against the palm of his other hand* They get utterly destroyed by an older alliance with a **** ton of XP from previous wars, just because. We're hypothetically speaking here. I'm just saying that this may turn into an unfair advantage for veterans, albeit the idea still appeals to me. It might even work wonders for the war aspect of the game.

[Phiney]

Actually if introduced now it'd be the opposite. Big nations that havnt had the opportunity to get these perks whilst warring to get where they are are at a disadvantage (which is absolutely fine).

[Tim Armstrong]

Now we can only see 30 days in war history. If a change like this is implemented we would need to be able to see more history to be able to calculate/gauge the strength of potential targets, as well as to build our military up to effectively protect our nations. 

[Grillick]

Now we can only see 30 days in war history. If a change like this is implemented we would need to be able to see more history to be able to calculate/gauge the strength of potential targets, as well as to build our military up to effectively protect our nations. 

Not if all XP expired after 30 days.

[elsuper]

I think having it the other way around will just create a wider gap between big and smaller nations. Especially when big nations get their hands on missiles or nukes, they'll be blowing infra up and farming XP faster than those small nations still playing with tanks and soldiers.

 

Maybe don't provide xp from using missiles or nukes?

[SoS]

This will encourage more raiding, not necessarily more alliance wars (which I think is what people really want).

Maybe "power rings" captured can benefit the whole alliance.

[Alex]

Would rather something simpler like was suggested elsewhere. Something like you just in general gain unit strength for destroying more infra, and lose it by waring less often. Or tie it to nation perks and bring those in (they are on your to do list) and make nation perk points only gainable by destroying peoples infra and unrelated to score.

 

Tying the XP to infrastructure destruction might work better than by victory type, but the fact of the matter is that infra destruction is multiplied by the victory type anyway.

 

I would say that perhaps adding a limit to the XP gained by how many opponents you're fighting (perhaps no more XP per soldiers than the amount of enemies your facing, for example 100,000 troops on 10,000 troops would only gain 10,000 worth of XP for the battle instead of the full 100,000). Also, having a hard cap on total XP would be important, something between 1.5-2 I'd expect. 

 

The issue with nation perks is that there's not going to be an unlimited amount of perks. My idea of what fair nation perks are is likely different than your thoughts, and I just don't think allowing more perks (a permanent change) is a good idea for fighting wars. That gives too much of an advantage to aggressors, imo.

I also agree with the idea of the XP decaying over time.

 

It's a great idea at first thought. However, I fear that this new feature will only favor the hardened veterans, who've been through many wars, when attacking/defending against a nation of same size and military strength, that has zero experience gained in military whatsoever.

 

That would be the idea, for example an economic powerhouse that is neutral or stays away from war would not be as strong against an opponent who's troops have seen quite a bit of bloodshed.