Military Experience

[Matthew Colebourne]

So instead of adding more unit types, why not take the classical RTS concept of unit experience? As in: units that have fought in and won a war will become more effective in the next war.

 

Now, obviously you can't keep track of 50,000 (or more) unit's individual experience points. However, perhaps soldiers could be altered to only be available in battalions/chunks of 500 or a 1000 men.

 

An even easier way to account for battle experience and adding a little depth is to just give a division wide bonus. Suppose I achieve three immense triumphs with my ground forces in a war: maybe I get a +5% offensive bonus for X turns that applies to all my ground troops?

 

As much as I like the war system now, it's a bit lacking in depth. I'd be against adding more units as more units = more complexity and more complexity != more depth.

 

Still, having your previous war experiences have some positive (or negative) effect on your war effectiveness might make wars that much more dynamic, strategic, and interesting.

 

Thoughts?

[Caillou]

I feel like this would just promote raiding more, you can start of winning from very early on and make your soldiers worth more over time. It put's pacifist and neutral people at a disadvantage.

[Isolatar]

Most people decom their whole military after a war so they can help rebuild, implementing this would be pointless and would slow down the game even further

Edited July 1, 2015 by Isolatar

[Moreau]

Unless you can build tranning camps and make them more effective...