gautam Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 How about applying the modifiers to amount of soldiers killed rather than the amount that survive? Basically, if A (has 8k troops)attacks nation B (0 troops). This usually results in a loss of 3 soldiers to the attacker. So A would get modifiers applied to 7997 soldiers. This would be equal to not fighting at all but still recieving the bonus which is illogical. In the long run, a nation constantly farming the same inactive nations would overpower the nations who have been neutral all along. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Raiders farming defenseless nations will always gain more experience compared to those who are having an alliance wars with this system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Arthur James Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 how do I know what my army experience is in the middle of the game? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gautam Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 Raiders farming defenseless nations will always gain more experience compared to those who are having an alliance wars with this system. But that would just mean the army acts like bandits, attacking the defenseless people. They dont gain experience in warfare but looting. Since the modifiers increase the effectiveness of their fighting, raiding empty nations shouldnt grant bonus unless they actually have some fighting to do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) But that would just mean the army acts like bandits, attacking the defenseless people. They dont gain experience in warfare but looting. Since the modifiers increase the effectiveness of their fighting, raiding empty nations shouldnt grant bonus unless they actually have some fighting to do. So me attacking a busted-up enemy in an alliance war shouldn't give me any experience, after I spent like millions to drain them out of soldiers and tanks? Madness The entire idea on how one should gain experience in the first place should be reworked Edited January 23, 2015 by Atzuya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
gautam Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 So me attacking a busted-up enemy in an alliance war shouldn't give me any experience, after I spent like millions to drain them out of soldiers and tanks? Madness You spend millions so the loot/spoils should make up for that, not exp for the army. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Atzuya Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 You spend millions so the loot/spoils should make up for that, not exp for the army. Have you been in a war? Like, a war between three or more alliance that can potentially stretch for two weeks? There is no loot left anywhere, nearly all meager sum of cash on both sides will be scrapped to buy war resources and building tanks/planes/whathaveyou. In that kind of war you easily lose three to sixteen million in damages to loot... two million, at best. Maybe more if you're fighting against some incompetent fool. You should learn the difference between raiding sitting ducks and punching a armed-to-the-teeth nation to the face. The system Sheepy suggested, even if it was intended to reward the latter, would just put the the former on the higher seat. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Kern Posted January 23, 2015 Share Posted January 23, 2015 (edited) just to give my idea: what about talking about %age of veteran in the army. - the maximum limit could be set by the amount of military improvement you have.(like 0,5 % infantry veterancy per barrack, with some national project able to raise it to 0.75 or 1 % per barrack, for example) - each veteran gain 50% more firepower. so if you got 10 barrack full of soldiers, you would have 30000 soldier from which 5% could be veteran (1500 veteran). therefore, if your army reach maximum veterancy, instead of having the fire power of 30000 soldier you got the firepower of 30750 soldiers. (that firepower count could happen before ammo are used, so an army with veteran could use more ammo.) - after a battle there could be two check: 1) based on your loss compared to your army initial size, you lose same %age of veteran. (if you lose all your troops in a battle, you lose all your bonuses) 2) based on the enemy loss compared to your initial force, you would gain some %age veterancy (gaining more veterancy when engaging army around the size of your's +some small default %age for the fire baptism of the new recruit). - as your army would be aging, battle-hardened veteran would, at some time, retire and be replaced by new soldiers, so the amount of veterancy you have could be reduced over time. that way: - the bonus would be greater for big nation with big armies, but the challenge would be to get in a battle that can raise your army's veterancy.(as raiding defense less or nearly defense less nation would not increase your army veterancy that much) - the bonus got a limit and could never allow scenario like "a single 'experienced' soldier defeat an 'inexperienced' tank". Edited January 23, 2015 by John Kern Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SoS Posted January 24, 2015 Share Posted January 24, 2015 Have xp gained based on relative battle strength. Equal strength adds 1 xp. Stronger/weaker gains more/less than 1 xp. Even the loser should gain xp. And would probably gain more xp as they are likely weaker. It shouldn't decay over time. It should drop as you recruit more military. As has been the system in every worthwhile military sim. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.