Discussion: experience for leaders and armies

[luk3Z]

I hope FTG will be a good game.
This is my little suggestion what can be add if EU2 engine allow to do that.
These changes could really enhance gameplay

 

[BurningEGO]

I hope FTG will be a good game.
This is my little suggestion what can be add if EU2 engine allow to do that.
These changes could really enhance gameplay

Why use "experience" if you have to keep recruiting troops?

 

[luk3Z]

Why use "experience" if you have to keep recruiting troops?

We have to treat exp as belong to Leader or Army.
If we talking about Leader he should have always constant exp (he can die in battle but it should be randomly for example 1% chance to die).
If we talking about army we should have to use ratio to change exp during merge armies etc. and change lvl of exp (lvl 3 is too low). For example: if we have 5k infantry we add 5k infantry and exp decrease about 50%. Other example: we have 5k infantry we add 5k cavalry and exp decrease about 60% because it is other type of unit
Of course artilery can't gain any exp (but all is possible)
We can do many thing if we have access to game engine

 

[chefkoch]

I hope FTG will be a good game.
This is my little suggestion what can be add if EU2 engine allow to do that.
These changes could really enhance gameplay

Interesting but i won't add the summary of casualities. I think i lose always more men through attrition then in combat. To know how many soldiers an army has lost would just be an useless information. (Or useful only in AARs)

The rest/sleep thing could be an army-individual maintenance-level thing. In peacetime, my armies are always on 50%. If i have armies in Europe and Asia and a war breaks out in Europe, then i usually turn the slider to 100%. Thats good for the war in Europe but i don't want to pay full maintenance for the not needed troops in Asia. With an army-individual maintenance-level i would turn the global slider on 100% and turn manually the not needed armies back to 50% or i would just "wake up" the armies that are needed.

The numbers of battles would be nice for the experience of the random leaders. Monarchs and pre-defined leaders have already their historic rank etc.
10 won battles could be needed to add one point to the leader stats (movement, fire, shock, siege and then again movement etc.pp.). 10 lost battles and the leader loses one point. If a leader has won 10 battles but lost 1, he need 11 won battles to gain one statpoint. The required amount of won battles you need for one point could be increased every level to make it more difficult to train a field marshal.

1-1-1-1 could be the stats of a fresh recruited unit led by a captain. (10 won battles for one point required)
2-2-2-2 if a captain won 40 (4x10) battles, he would be promoted to major. (15 won battles for one point are now required)
3-3-3-3 -> after 60 (4x15) won battles, the major gets a promotion to lieutenant colonel. (now 4x20 battles)
4-4-4-4 -> colonel (now 4x25 battles)
5-5-5-5 -> brigadier general (now 4x30 battles)
6-6-6-6 -> major general (now 4x35 battles)
7-7-7-7 -> lieutenant general (now 4x40 battles)
8-8-8-8 -> general (now 4x45 battles needed to get one point)
9-9-9-9 -> field marshal

(The names and the rank symbols are just fancy effects)

That way, the player could train a random leader to a very useful leader. The EU3 faction would have their random leaders but it would take a long time to train e.g. brigadier generals (min. 180 won battles) or field marshals (min. 880 won battles!) and it wouldn't be too ahistorical.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

I hope FTG will be a good game.
This is my little suggestion what can be add if EU2 engine allow to do that.
These changes could really enhance gameplay

I saw other started to discuss this. Only thing to remember is not too complicated features that will not bring much to the game in the end.

But this is the kind of ideas we want to discuss for the future of the game and consensus before inclusion.

And yes, always possible to change gfx.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

According to luk32's idea: moved posts

 

[BurningEGO]

...and it wouldn't be too ahistorical.

It would be ahistorical - that way you can easily make uber generals out of weaklings. Generals that no one ever heard of, being better then napoleon himself...

Besides, the AI is famous for sending crapload of tiny armies around the globe, which would only make it too easy to get uber generals. Crushing 1k men with 30k is usually piece of cake.

It would also have its repercussions online - i already foresee people farming the AI to get uber generals.

 

[chefkoch]

It would be ahistorical - that way you can easily make uber generals out of weaklings. Generals that no one ever heard of, being better then napoleon himself...

Besides, the AI is famous for sending crapload of tiny armies around the globe, which would only make it too easy to get uber generals. Crushing 1k men with 30k is usually piece of cake.

It would also have its repercussions online - i already foresee people farming the AI to get uber generals.

I would bet there is more than one general in history who was better then Napoleon and no one knows him because he was not randomly the leader of his country.

Everybody can exploit things and what you have described is nothing else then exploiting a feature. And easily? You would need hundreds of won battles to get a leader into the general-ranks. The 10 is only a suggestion, you could also start with 50 won battles as requirement for the lowest level. Then your leader would need thousands of won battles to be a general. Still too easy? Besides that, fighting your wars only with a small number of armies could be a boomerang.

 

[BurningEGO]

I would bet there is more than one general in history who was better then Napoleon and no one knows him because he was not randomly the leader of his country.

Since when was Napoleon made the leader of France, "randomly"? If he was a normal person without any skills, i doubt he would have gotten there.

Besides that, fighting your wars only with a small number of armies could be a boomerang.

I wasnt speaking about the player, but about the AI.

The AI rarely musters huge armies and rarely keeps them together to make such a feature viable. Unless of course, that in FTG they managed to improve the AI to make what you proposed viable.

As it is, why should a general get experience from defeating these tiny armies of 1000 men for example, if he got about 50.000 men on his side? I keep seeing the AI crawling over the entire place with tiny-small-medium sized armies, and rarely with a big stack.

And even if such a system would be viable, it sounds too EU3esque, too ahistorical. I dont like it, but tastes cannot be discussed.

 

[Olav2]

I kind of like chefkoch's proposal. It's sometimes frustrating to start military campaigns without leaders. But I also agree with BurningEGO - maybe some constraints could be in order? For example, random leaders can only be promoted when there aren't any historical leaders in the army, and there can only be one promoted leader... and experience levels can be capped at e.g. 4.

Edit: It would be fun to see how many soldiers you and the enemy have lost after a battle. Doesn't EU3 have this feature? Shouldn't be too hard to implement, no?

 

[luk3Z]

In my opinion promoted leaders from 1-1-1-1 to 2-2-2-2 is too fast.

To avoid too powerful leaders we should bring in some limits for example:

- 1 point for leader on every 1 lvl of exp:

/ after reach lvl trigger -> leader promoted with random +1 point: maneuver, fire, shock, siege /
/ after lose lvl trigger -> leader degrade with random -1 point: maneuver, fire, shock, siege /

- win 15 battles for lvl 1
- win 40 battles for lvl 2
- win 80 battles for lvl 3
- max exp lvl 3
- leaders don't live forever: chance to die in battle 1% or more

Edit:
- historical leaders max lvl 5 + win less battles for lvl
- non historical leaders max lvl 3 + win more battles for lvl

I think this should bring us some balance

 

[BurningEGO]

Wouldnt it be better for leader's experience to be tied to the amount of men killed? Or perhaps maybe a mix between victories/men killed.

Also if such option is to exist, please give us the option for "classical EU2 warfare". Would also be good if you could implement this "idea" only for human-to-human wars for multiplayer purposes (that way human players wouldnt be able to farm the AI in order to get strong leaders).

Would also be good if we could edit the parameters, whatever they might be.

 

[unmerged(40707)]

Other problem is time: what does mean winning 40 battles in 100 years?

 

[BurningEGO]

Other problem is time: what does mean winning 40 battles in 100 years?

Isnt the system they are proposing tied to a determined leader? If so, no leader lives 100 years.

 

[luk3Z]

Wouldnt it be better for leader's experience to be tied to the amount of men killed? Or perhaps maybe a mix between victories/men killed.

Also if such option is to exist, please give us the option for "classical EU2 warfare". Would also be good if you could implement this "idea" only for human-to-human wars for multiplayer purposes (that way human players wouldnt be able to farm the AI in order to get strong leaders).

Would also be good if we could edit the parameters, whatever they might be.

Name of leader and his stats (skill points) have to be a variable but in EU2 it is not, so:

We should create list of id with all combination of stats for the same leader 1-1-1-1, 1-1-1-2, 1-1-1-3 ... x-x-x-x according to max from DP and historical leaders, because leader do not change but only his skill +1. Random point for lvl should be fair and balance game. So if leaders ID is 10000 the next ID (+1 from lvl) of he same leader should be 10001-10004 (random from this ID will be the same leader with lvl +1 etc.)

Ok for example:

for more balance for non-historical:
- lvl 0 + win 20~40 battles for lvl 1 (random)
- lvl 1 + win 40~60 battles for lvl 2 (random)
- lvl 2 + win 60~90 battles for lvl 3 (random)

for more balance for historical:
- lvl 0 + win 15~30 battles for lvl 1 (random)
- lvl 1 + win 30~50 battles for lvl 2 (random)
- lvl 2 + win 50~80 battles for lvl 3 (random)

or we can replace historical to non-historical (we need test it because historical leaders learning pretty fast )

- max exp lvl 3 for non-historical
- max exp lvl 5 for non-historical
- leaders don't live forever: chance to die in battle 1~3% or more

Other problem is time: what does mean winning 40 battles in 100 years?

Yes time is problem now. This mean 40 enemy leaders have to die for +1 lvl up on our non-historical leader in worst case (20~40 battles for lvl 1 random) (enemy do not retreat)
My numbers are too high (it is example only / proof of concept).
/ if id enemy leader die -> win battle +1 /.
Leader's experience tied to the amount of men killed would be good too
We have now few ways to create exp leaders

Edit:
Today I heard that HoI units gain exp. I buy HoI but I never play it so I don't know how exp working in HoI

 

[chefkoch]

In my opinion promoted leaders from 1-1-1-1 to 2-2-2-2 is too fast.

To avoid too powerful leaders we should bring in some limits for example:

That was just a random number (4x10) to start the discussion and to demonstrate how the system could work.

In my opinion, the only useful limits are life span and the required won battles. A level-cap is not necessary with this.

/Edit: "Or perhaps maybe a mix between victories/men killed."

If i stay with my suggestion from this evening, from lvl 1 to lvl 2, you could need 4x10 won battles and at least a death toll of 200.000 enemies. This would be in average 5.000 death hostile soldiers per battle.

Other problem is time: what does mean winning 40 battles in 100 years?

Hm, random Conquistadors and Explorers die after a certain time. We could create two classes of random leaders. One class that is immortal (in sense of life span) as it is now. This are the untrained and fresh recruited Captains (lvl 1) and the Majors (lvl2). If such a officer has reached rank 3, he could be put in another class and in this he has the same life span as the random Conquistadors and Explorers. With this, the game would have 2-2-2-2 immortal officers as it has right now and short living but well trained Generals. The higher the rank is, the shorter the remaining life span. Could be a good simulation of a military career. This would also prevent 9-9-9-9 officers but leaves the slight chance for them to be possible for a very short time. Who foughts in ~25 years with the same army 500 battles?

 

[luk3Z]

That was just a random number (4x10) to start the discussion and to demonstrate how the system could work.

In my opinion, the only useful limits are life span and the required won battles. A level-cap is not necessary with this.

/Edit: "Or perhaps maybe a mix between victories/men killed."

If i stay with my suggestion from this evening, from lvl 1 to lvl 2, you could need 4x10 won battles and at least a death toll of 200.000 enemies. This would be in average 5.000 death hostile soldiers per battle.

(...)

Who foughts in ~25 years with the same army 500 battles?

Yes it is fair, realistic and good idea.
Leaders to lvl up required: xx numbers won attack/defend battles during x years/months + eventually xxxxx enemy soldiers killed (but it is to discuss).
I thinking about Military Academy to faster train leaders - you pay some gold for train leader on lvl 1 and this leader can lvl up on battles (something like promote a governor)
Who foughts - it is good question

 

[cool-toxic]

Or one could with the Military Academy recruit(or it acts like a trigger for random gains) these kind of leaders. And maybe get to name them ?

 

[SeedSnatcher]

Or one could with the Military Academy recruit(or it acts like a trigger for random gains) these kind of leaders. And maybe get to name them ?

That could work. Are you suggesting these guys supplement historical leaders or...?

 

[Third Angel]

Well, personally I'm happy with historical leaders but now, I'm only one of those EU3 haters and I don't play MP so... as long as these experience-gaining random leaders you're talking about don't replace the historical ones and I don't have to use them, I have no problem with whatsoever you guys come up with.