Unit Exp: campaigns

[kirkgregerson]

I totally agree with this...the 'army-wide' experience increase is more "historical", but as gamers, we love to see our individual units getting better, "nurturing" them (meaning, giving them the easiest battles!), etc. I don't think either way is right or wrong...one way is more historical, the other is--possibly--more fun. Heck, I think it would be great if it was an option in the game!

Don't agree with this at all. Yes, some units did have some shifts in personal. Overall certain units, especially in the German army became more veteran or elite because they were called upon over again over again to handle 'putting out fires' on the front. It's sheer nonsense if you think that there was even a deliberate attempt to average out unit exp across German army formations. There were plenty of German units that had merely a static role or were posted on a quite front and thus never really gained the exp that would 'harder' them to battle. Yes, over time most German formations took extreme causalities and due to the training of the incoming replacements had a diminishing effect on their overall exp level. Which is expected.

What I'm asking for is that units gain exp in battles and keep it with respect to taking on replacements as needed.

Please do a little research before saying such a ridiculous statement about armies leveling out experience by continuously shuffling around personal. How could you even think that any army would attempt to break up core units and the soldiers that have been fighting with each other over years. If you read just a few books on the platoon level(pick any nation) you'll soon seen the overall theme of men wanting to get back with their buddies on the front. Yes, in rare cases men did want transfers or could be asked to take promotion to help flush out a new unit. But the general staff was not proactively moving personal around to try and balance out exp across all units.

Many books about the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS formations that had gained elite stats:

http://www.ospreypublishing.com/store/German-Army-Elite-Units

[abulbulian]

I completely agree with Kirk about historically how units gain and lose experience. Yes, some units had turnover for replacements and transfers, but the idea that core formations under go 35% turn over is fiction. There might have been some adjustments after Case White and even before Barbarossa. But, if you had to choose which was more accurate between units gaining their own exp over always raising all units exp by % regardless of their accomplishments. Which do you think makes more sense.

Here's a simple example for those having trouble grasping the concept.

I had an infantry div in Case White stationed in the north to protect the Danzig area. It fought in no battles and almost didn't move. On the other hand the 4th Pz Div fought in many battles took low casualties and never lost a battle. So some of you actually think the inf div that did nothing in Case White should start Case Yellow with the the same exp level as the 4th Pz Div? [&:]

lol, 'Child Please' -- had to steal that from ochocinco

[kirkgregerson]

Last suggestion is maybe since we're suppose to be 'in command' is to let the player decide how to handle experience. Maybe some people want to level out experience so let them do it. Others like me may want units to retain their exp gains and maintain the core personal. We play these games so we don't have to follow the same paths as history. So let the player have the control. More fun that way. [:D]

[bwheatley]

I think while it is a "nice to have" to have the stats managed a little more low level it's not really a game breaker. But that said we're all entitled to our own opinions and if vic can figure out the logic and implement it great. If not then folks who don't like it just have to figure out if they are going to be willing to spend their money on the next game. It's really that simple.

As for the people getting into flame wars really?? I like matrix games because typically we don't get into crap like that here. Don't feed trolls, don't be snarky, treat others as you'd like to be treated, etc etc. It's a rule i don't always follow but a good one.

Hopefully vic can figure out the logic or find some compromise that works to satisfy everyone. I still think the community is better off for the game even if it is not "perfect"

[colberki]

bwheatley -This is a very good design. But it should be clear to Vic that MANY of his customers want this one aspect of the designed changed closer to what we expect - I think on this aspect, Vic missed the plot both from a historical realsim and gamer wish list perspective. Even if the programming was difficult, I like to see Vic to make the change. I am private banking - if so many customer want this feature AND clearly my competitors also offer this feature, I would ask the Tech Dept to implement it - to let loyal customers become frustrated and walk away makes ZERO sense.

From my take of the DCWtP forums to date, this thread, albeit the occasional unwelcome flame wars, is continuing because passionate gamers know Vic has a winning game design but its missing one key aspect that we like and have enjoyed in other great games. Great game designers Sid Meier and Gary Grigsby know how to design great games that fulfill their desire to create but also know how to please and retain their loyal fans. I hope Vic and Matrix will not take your suggestion to tell us to "take it or leave it". Your advice suggests its OK for Vic not to have us as repeat customers - wow no one in my private bank would ever suggest that just because a customer pestered us for a feature that we did not quite have yet that we dont want their business anymore. Hopefully, Vic does not think we are disrespectful. [&o]

I have never posted so much in one place in my whole life! Reason is because, I do like this new game from Vic very much. I am playing a restart of the campaign on 1.01 beta just in case there's any doubt! [:)]

Finally, we dont want to walk away and we are keen to buy the next game from Vic and Matrix games. We are fans of DCWtP.

[Grymme]

Experience is IMO an expression that can have many meanings. Its an expression that is fuzzy to say the least. When people say that a division can have an cohesive experience, but not an army or a corps i fail to see the principal difference. Where does the border go. Can a unit of a 100 men share "experience" or is the limit a 1 000 men, 10 000, 100 000 or 1 000 000.

Also. Experience can be a positive factor, but it can also be a negative factor. For example attribitung a win to the wrong factor can in itself lead to an "experience" which later decreases the value of the unit/doctrine. Units whoose designation that have been in a lot of combat but changed personell many times during that time, are they experienced?

What i want to say with this is that i would be very carefull in accusing someone who doesnt share your own opinion of being ridicilus. Especially when quoting Osprey as a source of historical information and at the same time claiming that the Waffen SS units were an elite in the sense of being "experienced".

[Barthheart]

ORIGINAL: colberki

...But it should be clear to Vic that MANY of his customers want this one aspect of the designed changed closer to what we expect...

Not sure how MANY want it changed. So far there is a vocal group but are they the majority? Who knows?

I for one like the system as it is. It results in a nicely crafted and balanced game. Never once in all the alpha and beta testing did anyone bring up the idea of carrying some "super" units over to the next scenaro.

Yes that was a very great feature of Panzer General. But this is a completely different style of game.

But to each his own. If Vic can come up with some kind of system where both are possible then we all win. But if it turns out to be one or the other then I'd like it to stay as is. I'd rather Vic spend his time creating the next in what could become a great series.

[kirkgregerson]

Grymme, that book was only one example. Also, I didn't say that all Waffen SS units were considered elite. Please don't take what I posted and skew it or take it out of context.

I'm not sure in how many ways I can explain this to some people. It's not an impossible concept to grasp and some are taking it to a very obtuse and almost irrational level.

To repeat and clarify. If given a choice to attempt in modeling experience for the German Armed Forces as they campaigned from Poland, France, Balkans, N Africa, Soviet Untion, etc. Which would you choose, if ONLY given two choices:

A) Units that gained experience* from winning battles would retain it only to the detriment of taking replacement when casualties occurred.


B) All units would gain a set % level of experience increase based on winning (or loseing) a set campaign
(i.e. Case White, Case Yellow).

*by experience I mean exactly what the game is attempting by having it as a stat, nothing more and nothing less.


So your either in the A) camp or B). That is my simple point. Currently the game is developed around B) which I have an issue with.

So please don't read anything more into this concept I'm proposing for the game. If it's too hard to code by Vic's account, then so be it. That was not my point.

[bwheatley]

ORIGINAL: colberki

bwheatley -This is a very good design. But it should be clear to Vic that MANY of his customers want this one aspect of the designed changed closer to what we expect - I think on this aspect, Vic missed the plot both from a historical realsim and gamer wish list perspective. Even if the programming was difficult, I like to see Vic to make the change. I am private banking - if so many customer want this feature AND clearly my competitors also offer this feature, I would ask the Tech Dept to implement it - to let loyal customers become frustrated and walk away makes ZERO sense.

From my take of the DCWtP forums to date, this thread, albeit the occasional unwelcome flame wars, is continuing because passionate gamers know Vic has a winning game design but its missing one key aspect that we like and have enjoyed in other great games. Great game designers Sid Meier and Gary Grigsby know how to design great games that fulfill their desire to create but also know how to please and retain their loyal fans. I hope Vic and Matrix will not take your suggestion to tell us to "take it or leave it". Your advice suggests its OK for Vic not to have us as repeat customers - wow no one in my private bank would ever suggest that just because a customer pestered us for a feature that we did not quite have yet that we dont want their business anymore. Hopefully, Vic does not think we are disrespectful. [&o]

I have never posted so much in one place in my whole life! Reason is because, I do like this new game from Vic very much. I am playing a restart of the campaign on 1.01 beta just in case there's any doubt! [:)]

Finally, we dont want to walk away and we are keen to buy the next game from Vic and Matrix games. We are fans of DCWtP.

Totally good point but sometimes you have a deadline and you are one guy and you gotta decide between putting the time into a feature you don't know if you can do or other features. I'm confident he'll add it eventually but he can't promise it until he knows he can work around the issues. And i agree i love the games he makes too and matrix as well.

[abulbulian]

Yes, I love Vic too and these little guys. But now I digress [:)]

[Grymme]

Kirk. I just think that you are being rude to several people and using a lot of "strong" words and capital letters without much thought to it.  In one of yout first posts you call the game "ridiculous" and "bogus", when Parruski takes offence you insult him and then you attack TPM and call his statements "ridiculous" while at the same time making statements about nations never breaking up units or shuffling around personell which at least as i can see it is just false. In fact many nations throughout history have continously broken up units and shuffled around personell, both before, during and and after WWII. Just one example is the US officer policy during the Vietnam war.
 
Im not saying the game should be this way or that way, just pipe down a little.
 
.

[borsook79]

just my 2c - I like the way it works now. Proper exp carry over system would require a lot of balancing of later scenarios in the campaign, this way there is no way of having "uber" units.

[kirkgregerson]

Grymme,

It wasn't me that started any personal attacks, rather Parruski. He had nothing of substance to add to the thread other than comments about me personally and not "entertaining" him with my post. I took offense to that. My opinions are just that opinions. Yes, I do feel strongly about them. Furthermore, your comment:

Im not saying the game should be this way or that way, just pipe down a little.

Is actually what your trying to accuse me of. However, I didn't try and anubody what to do. You're now part of the problem and couldn't even answer my last question about what you prefer (A or B). We don't need any more hypocrites IMO. Just people with comments about what they like or dislike in the game concerning unit experience gains.

Look at Borsook post, he at least has an opinion on what he likes. I can respect that.

[TPM]

Don't agree with this at all. Yes, some units did have some shifts in personal. Overall certain units, especially in the German army became more veteran or elite because they were called upon over again over again to handle 'putting out fires' on the front. It's sheer nonsense if you think that there was even a deliberate attempt to average out unit exp across German army formations.

I wouldn't say that it's sheer nonsense...I'll admit, I haven't read any German Army books that go into this, but I don't think it's a stretch to say that in some situations they might have mixed inexperienced troops with experienced ones to help out the noobies, etc. That sounds reasonable to me, but again, I don't have any facts on this, so if you know the opposite to be the truth, fine. Either way, I don't think it's just "crazy talk" to suggest such a thing...I mean, for Christ's sake, Vic designed the game this way, maybe he knows what he's doing....

Please do a little research before saying such a ridiculous statement about armies leveling out experience by continuously shuffling around personal.

Again, it doesn't seem that ridiculous to me...and I don't think posting an opinion about something light in nature on a game forum should require research, etc. We're all just talking here, there's no need to get all uppity about it, and there's no need to infer that someone's opinion is ridiclous. Look, I think you're opinion is cool, I think it's a good idea, there's no problem here.

How could you even think that any army would attempt to break up core units and the soldiers that have been fighting with each other over years.

Heck I don't know, it sounded good when he said it...geez, sorry.

If you read just a few books on the platoon level(pick any nation) you'll soon seen the overall theme of men wanting to get back with their buddies on the front.

No offense, but I hardly think this statement proves the point..."men wanting to get back with their buddies" means that experience wasn't spread around? Seems a little anecdotle...

In any event, there's no need to get uptight about these things, I agree with you that handling experience the way you would like it would be very cool to have in the game. The only issue I have with that way of doing it is that there is the possibility of creating these insanely powerful units by having them only fight in battles that they will easily win, etc....that to me seems kind of gamey and ahistorical.

Now, listen, don't go off on me for saying that, it's just something I'm saying off the top of my head and I haven't researched it at all!![:D]

[boshar]

If the game would model EXP as in Kirk's option B wouldn't that also mean that we have to kill the 'Personnel reshuffle' card (you get a massive 10 EXP from that card!)

The wording on the Personel reshuffle card (Sometimes officers get a little to comfortable with their current assignment and need some new challenges to perform to their potential. Reallocate command talent to create a more efficient and effective unit.) also suggests that the game models more that 'just' combat experience in these EXP points.

As I see it EXP gained from the reshuffle card models the commanding generals influence / effect. As I mentioned before a lot of the generals commanding the Panzer divisions changed between case white & case yellow. With the army growing as fast as the German army the existing generals will have to lead ever larger formations. A good Panzer division general can be a bad Army Corps leader so it is by no means a given that his (reshuffle card) EXP should follow him to the new job our stay at his old unit. (different leaders / different methods).

The base level increase in EXP is not the best campaign feature I ever saw but if option B is hard to implement I would rather have the development time spend on interface or AI improvements.

[McBearCat]

Hi Everyone,

My two cents worth...I bought the game 4 days ago and have played through 3 scenarios and I really love the way that Vic designed the game. I would hate to see him make changes based upon earning experience based upon these battles. The time period of these campaigns seem MUCH too short for soldiers to gain valuable experience. I mean...sheesh...this is called Decisive Campaigns and how much experience can troops earn while clobbering the french and the polish? I love having the "RPG Affect" allowing us to assign experience as we see fit after battles. But I would prefer, as I believe Vic referenced, to do it during the course of the full war...not based upon the short, decisive battles this game is designed around.

Thanks for a fun game Vic!!

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: McBearCat

Hi Everyone,

My two cents worth...I bought the game 4 days ago and have played through 3 scenarios and I really love the way that Vic designed the game. I would hate to see him make changes based upon earning experience based upon these battles. The time period of these campaigns seem MUCH too short for soldiers to gain valuable experience. I mean...sheesh...this is called Decisive Campaigns and how much experience can troops earn while clobbering the french and the polish? I love having the "RPG Affect" allowing us to assign experience as we see fit after battles. But I would prefer, as I believe Vic referenced, to do it during the course of the full war...not based upon the short, decisive battles this game is designed around.

Thanks for a fun game Vic!!

Well, I would have to somewhat disagree with this...I haven't read that much (see post above), but from what I have read, it does seem that the German army and airforce gained pretty valuable experience in Poland and France...not to the point where they're just kicking everyone's ass all over the place, but they did gain the upper hand when it came to land-air cooperation, using mechanized forces properly, etc. We're probably not really in disagreement that much...my point is, they did gain some valuable experience, how much is hard to quantify, not to mention try to model in a game...

[GlobalExplorer]

The time period of these campaigns seem MUCH too short for soldiers to gain valuable experience. I mean...sheesh...this is called Decisive Campaigns and how much experience can troops earn while clobbering the french and the polish? I love having the "RPG Affect" allowing us to assign experience as we see fit after battles.

But they already DO gain experience! Which is then, unfortunately, discarded after the scenario, because the programming is much easier.

If I follow you reasoning, perhaps it would even be better to remove the exp gain in the scenarios altogether!

[GlobalExplorer]

if so many customer want this feature AND clearly my competitors also offer this feature, I would ask the Tech Dept to implement it - to let loyal customers become frustrated and walk away makes ZERO sense.

Your advice suggests its OK for Vic not to have us as repeat customers - wow no one in my private bank would ever suggest that just because a customer pestered us for a feature that we did not quite have yet that we dont want their business anymore. Hopefully, Vic does not think we are disrespectful. [&o]

You make a very good point here, and imo Matrix should read this carefully. This attitude that you describe is something that has always angered me extremely.

I call it the 'no boss syndrome'. People who do only what they think is right, without a boss to kick them in the butt from time to time.

[Tordan69]

The concept of experience is an interesting one when it comes to implementing it in a game. Most, if not all, factors have been mentioned such as what kind of experience are we talking about? For the foot soldier there will be a certain gain of personal "skill" during the first combat action he takes part of. That skill increase will slow down rather quickly and his efficiency will after a while start to go down due to fatigue, stress and such. On the squad, platoon, company and up the total "skill" will likewise increase when it gains experience in combat. Here the level will more likely stabilize and have smallish fluctuations due to casualties, replacements and re-assignments. I´d speculate that when this state is reached the level of competence of its commander and command staff has more impact on the overall effect you´ll get out of the (larger) unit. As the german army made use of its lessons learned from the Polish campaign I´d say that the major changes were done at the higher levels of command. The low level tactics were fairly established during WW1.

In my roundabout manner I´m saying that experience in a game should be handled rather carefully and definitely not allow the player to nurture specific units by say sending them against weak opponents thus gaining "fake" experience. Also, a unit starting from pre-war should definitely gain experience, but up to a certain level and then stabilize there. Over time things like decreasing quality of replacements, fatigue and such should also be reflected in a lessened level of experience, or rather expertise. I don´t own this game, but I can understand if people expect units to at least not loose experience/expertise between campaigns. On the other hand the level of experience shouldn´t be all that great between say german and french forces. How to strike a good balance, that must be a rather hard nu to crack.

Spreading of expertise. I´m far from an expert in how it was done, but I´d be surprised if most armies didn´t have a system of picking experienced people and using them as teachers at various training facilities? This would mirror the spreading of experience across units that I understand is used in the game? Few units stay coherent enough over time to continuously gain experience, mostly specialized such as special forces type units.