Unit Exp: campaigns

[kirkgregerson]

I agree with anybody that understands modeling experience gains and lose for units over time is not an easy mechanic to implement in a game.

I would like to apologize for offending anybody or their opinions. I really enjoy this game and because of the potential it has I get over emotional on some ideas I have to hopefully improve the game for all. As well as make it more 'historical'/'actual' if possible for those of us that are WW2 history buffs.[8|]

Without getting into all the abstracts of experience gains/loses for units, I just want to tackle the experience attribute that WtP has for each unit. My suggestion was to maybe see if Vic could move away from the set % increase to all units between campaigns and use a more lower level experience gain/lose model. I'm just proposing that:

1) units retain experience gained in a campaign (Case White, Case Yellow, etc.)
2) units lose experience as they are diluted with replacements

* I can dispel the myth/fear that any units will get 'uber'. It was to great lengths (using 'Personal Reshuffle' card) to get a few of my Pz Div to around 40 after Case White. They might get to 60-70 after Case Yellow. Not sure that is 'uber', but it does seem to be veteran. Which makes sense to me after two hard campaigns. Looking at the German commandos (card) that can land at Eben-Emael which have 90 exp (elite), I'd say 70 is high end veteran going off this scale of 1-100 in WtP for experience.


Thus, if your units take a beating but gain experience the net experience gain will probably be not that great. This was typical of the German units on the east front 42 and onward. I agree my proposal for unit exp is not perfect and the concept of the expanding German army sucking off veteran NCOs and officers to flush out new divs is very valid.

What is comes down to is this is a 'forum' and one avenue to make the game better. We are the customers and the ones playing the game and buy the games. We can't force Vic to do anything in regards to game 'enhancements', but we can express our desires. In some cases if enough people are asking for the same thing, maybe the developer(s) will make the change in a patch. This is the age of patches for games, sometimes they can be irritating but overall they do and should make the game better. [8D]

[schwaryfalke]

Hi,

Im coming in late on this debate,but the C) option has not been mentioned.
Currently only the extremes have been mentioned (exp tracked by unit or a global %).
What about applying a % at the corps/division level.This would limit the Uber unit issue and may be easier to implement from a programming perspective.

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: kirkgregerson

I agree with anybody that understands modeling experience gains and lose for units over time is not an easy mechanic to implement in a game.

I would like to apologize for offending anybody or their opinions. I really enjoy this game and because of the potential it has I get over emotional on some ideas I have to hopefully improve the game for all. As well as make it more 'historical'/'actual' if possible for those of us that are WW2 history buffs.[8|]

Without getting into all the abstracts of experience gains/loses for units, I just want to tackle the experience attribute that WtP has for each unit. My suggestion was to maybe see if Vic could move away from the set % increase to all units between campaigns and use a more lower level experience gain/lose model. I'm just proposing that:

1) units retain experience gained in a campaign (Case White, Case Yellow, etc.)
2) units lose experience as they are diluted with replacements

* I can dispel the myth/fear that any units will get 'uber'. It was to great lengths (using 'Personal Reshuffle' card) to get a few of my Pz Div to around 40 after Case White. They might get to 60-70 after Case Yellow. Not sure that is 'uber', but it does seem to be veteran. Which makes sense to me after two hard campaigns. Looking at the German commandos (card) that can land at Eben-Emael which have 90 exp (elite), I'd say 70 is high end veteran going off this scale of 1-100 in WtP for experience.


Thus, if your units take a beating but gain experience the net experience gain will probably be not that great. This was typical of the German units on the east front 42 and onward. I agree my proposal for unit exp is not perfect and the concept of the expanding German army sucking off veteran NCOs and officers to flush out new divs is very valid.

What is comes down to is this is a 'forum' and one avenue to make the game better. We are the customers and the ones playing the game and buy the games. We can't force Vic to do anything in regards to game 'enhancements', but we can express our desires. In some cases if enough people are asking for the same thing, maybe the developer(s) will make the change in a patch. This is the age of patches for games, sometimes they can be irritating but overall they do and should make the game better. [8D]

Well said, I agree with all of this, in particular points 1) and 2). It seems that most of us are probably in agreement that there should be experience increases for individual units to reflect their combat experiences, but not to the level where you can "nurture" a unit to become super powerful (I'm thinking of artillery formations in Advanced Tactics that got out of control). The fact that cannot be denied is that units in battle gain battle experience, units not in battle do not.

In regards to customers expressing their desires for the game, mark me down as someone who thinks that experience increases for individual units (in relation to combat) carried across scenarios should be added to this game, as opposed to the current system (at least as an option maybe?). It's definitely not a deal breaker for me, but it does have historical backing, and it would improve (if only somewhat) the enjoyment of what is already a great game.

2 cents, as usual!

[NefariousKoel]

Keeping buttloads of experience in any strategy game's campaign for too long tosses the challenge right out.

Perhaps you enjoy the snowball effect from your superhumans rolling over everything in sight, but I don't.   The only way to combat such is by tailoring each step of the campaign to be more difficult but that is still imperfect as any deviance from the target advancement still throws a wrench in the game balance.

I don't mind that it's been smoothed out over time as long as the game doesn't become a cakewalk or, conversely, an impossible race to catch up due to such a feature.

[TPM]

ORIGINAL: NefariousKoel
Perhaps you enjoy the snowball effect from your superhumans rolling over everything in sight, but I don't.  

I think it's been cleared up that what most of us are proposing is NOT what you're describing above.

[parusski]

Good advice from Grymme about chilling out.

Now, you have a serious problem Kirk. You are very rude, as Grymme put it. You also seem detached from the reality and sequence of events.

You asked for other opinions. I gave my opinion. You did not like what I thought or how I said it. That would have been fine had you(not I)not instantly insulted me. My very first post to "YOUR" thread had no insulting words towards you as a individual. Your first response to me was bizarrely out of all proportion to what I said.

Now try to follow Kirk. You responded to my first post by writing "obviously your brain can't handle anything over a few sentences." Are you really capable of knowing another man's mind? You really knew how intelligent I am from this, my original post??:
"Show stopper? Nah, more like THREAD STOPPER. I had brain freeze reading this. To quote you I even said "WTF".
Actually I yawned.
I am enjoying the game to much to worry about an issue like this so soon after release."

Do you get it Kirk? I responded to your call for opinions, I was flippant and you lost control of your bowels.

But maybe Grymme and I are just wrong, you don't need to "pipe" down. Just keep attacking and insulting. That is usually the way to win people over.

And every time someone pm's me that you insult me I am coming back to "..my post..", as you put it, and taking up space, lots of space. I was happy to let you have your very on thread, so I left. Until you decided to start insulting me when I wans't even around, and flat out distort the issue by saying, as my children did around age 6, "It wasn't me that started any personal attacks, rather Parruski." That is a howler.

Goodbye again. I have a sad feeling I will be back.

[Franck]

I need to chimey in here to say that I have found Kirk attitude to be really disruptive, abrasive and not what you would expect in a game forum run by a serious company.

To Matrix:
If you plan on letting people just insult other members like he is doing, I'm sorry but the way you moderate your forums is bizarre to say the least


To the issue at hand (exp in campaing), not that I should respond to that with how insulting the first poster as been to many people here:
I don't really mind if it stays like it is

[Tordan69]

Why do I get images of grumpy old men? Seriously, rude and abrasive behaviour in this thread is easily seen from more than one side. What one guy intends as tongue in cheek can easily be seen as offensive by another. If you're offended by someone, do make a point and describe what you found offensive then carry on. Right now we're headed towards huge amounts of kindergarten behavior and epeen machismo. No, you can't always have the last word. How about this, allow your hurt feelings to be buried by this post made by a "neutral" bystander? If you have serious issues, take it up with the mods directly and allow the discussions here remain on topic, purdy please?

[BodyBag]

Old men? I see two little boys, age 12

[Franck]

Old men? I see two little boys, age 12

How is this anything else then trying to be mean, abrasive or rude (P.S. I do not know if it's directed at me or not... But it's still rude (to whoever it's directed at) for no reason, why even do that?)?

Honestly, I didn't attack anyone on a personal level and tried to make a point that I wouldn't expect human to be attacking each other over the internet for so little (and I actually never saw Paruski attack someone personally in his replies).

I have made that point, and I'm getting out of that discussio n... You want to keep throwing empty commentsaround fine.


@Tord Hoppe:

I'm sorry to say I didn't have any hurt feelings. I just had to get in here and state the fact that Kirk just seemed abrasive and insulting to me. This is only my opinion (again my opinion), but I don't believe Parusski deserved to be called an idiot over that single response of his. Then I directly answered the question from the original poster. Which was my contribution to the thread. He wanted to know if it mattered to me that the experience is spread equally. I said: NO!

Anyways, I already said I'm out of here... I really can't spend the effort to argue against someone about how you should not be rude/impolite or abrasive. The world would be a better place if everyone could try and remember that.

[BodyBag]

ORIGINAL: Franck

Old men? I see two little boys, age 12

How is this anything else then trying to be mean, abrasive or rude (P.S. I do not know if it's directed at me or not... But it's still rude (to whoever it's directed at) for no reason, why even do that?)?

Honestly, I didn't attack anyone on a personal level and tried to make a point that I wouldn't expect human to be attacking each other over the internet for so little (and I actually never saw Paruski attack someone personally in his replies).

I have made that point, and I'm getting out of that discussio n... You want to keep throwing empty commentsaround fine.


@Tord Hoppe:

I'm sorry to say I didn't have any hurt feelings. I just had to get in here and state the fact that Kirk just seemed abrasive and insulting to me. This is only my opinion (again my opinion), but I don't believe Parusski deserved to be called an idiot over that single response of his. Then I directly answered the question from the original poster. Which was my contribution to the thread. He wanted to know if it mattered to me that the experience is spread equally. I said: NO!

Anyways, I already said I'm out of here... I really can't spend the effort to argue against someone about how you should not be rude/impolite or abrasive. The world would be a better place if everyone could try and remember that.

If you could step down from your high horse for a moment, maybe you would discover that my remark was not directed at you, but the two original posters.
I was stating my point that they were acting like kids over a minor detail in the game.
So how is that statement more "empty" than your drivel?

Do try to get over yourself...

[Tordan69]

Franck mate, my post wasn't aimed directly at you, however the essence of it is aimed at all of us. Be nice to your fellow man and... well, that's pretty much it
Have a nice day all!

[Franck]

@Bodybag:

I never meant to insult you or whatever. If you look at my post I didn't think that your post was directed at me:

(P.S. I do not know if it's directed at me or not...

Now that I reread my post I do understand how it could have been interpreted as being rude. I never meant to be rude. I'm sorry if that's how you took it.