Army Experience needs a revamp

[jura28]

I've never had a problem to redesign my templates prior to the war. Of course I'm not gonna have all of them, like all types of divisions, in 1939, but that would be boring

 

[GrimerX]

I like the model of having to work to get the template you want. I don't like having to keep division templates around or having to remember to make copies to save on XP though. That's just not enjoyable.

One way without changing mechanics is to have the machine figure out the optimal path for you based on previous templates (and auto-copy/hide unused ones,etc.)

Here is another idea to capture the spirit. I'm not an expert on history so somebody will have to chime in for that angle . This is just a look at mechanics.

Goals:

• Gate design effectivity on XP
• Do not introduce a new XP concept (eg, don't go back to theoretical + practical experience)
• Do not _block_ the player from experimenting or planning ahead or fielding a new unit type

Proposal:

• Flat cost for creating a new template. <-- Allows to design where you want to get to and not worry about copying/maintaining previous templates
• New division types take a 'new division type' malus in org, breakthrough and defense. This malus is reduced by gaining XP *with* those division types <-- represents time and experience needed to operate effectively
  • Malus is on the template, not individual division
  • Initial malus is flat rate but based on how big of a change
    • -x% if the highest cost change is 5xp
    • -y% if the highest cost change is 10xp
    • etc.
  • Perhaps some generals have a growth mindset and offset this malus or accelerate it's reduction (proportional to divisions under their command)
• Templates that are unused (no fielded divisions) accrue the malus back to starting point. <-- Ages out old templates

And somewhat orthogonal but Generals that have to manage too many division templates take a malus, to represent the challenge of dealing with many unique divisions. This could be as simple as n * level or whatever.

Thoughts?

 

[ummd]

A small aside:

Allowing templates to be modified freely makes the manpower stopgap requirements for Germany useless. You could easily dump the necessary manpower in the field just by making the Inf divisions 40w in 1936.

 

[Sourlol]

I am of the opinion the only things broken about xp are the following:

1. Air and Navy do not have an exercise feature to hike attrition while gaining xp
2. Deleting your entire army and training one division for max XP gain is bullshit and needs to be de-incentivized
3. I'm not super keen on the ability for a player to dump 200-300+ xp on their freshly researched tank.

I think these are in the correct order of importance.

In regards to xp for template redesigns, I think the system is great. There is Army XP throughout the NF trees. Proper forward thinking will allow the player to exercise his troops, use a army advisor and spend NF army xp to build divisions with the tools he has at his disposal.

This isnt a symetric game. USA is not France, is not Germany, is not Tannu Tuva. All nations are bound by their unique set of circumstances. France having 25 Army xp without an advisor or exercise is intentional. The player needs to decide what to do, I would argue Engineers are worth 10 of your points, now you have 15, buff up your mtn divisions with engineers? now 5. Mtn divisions are at 24, Inf divisions are at 18 with support art (and the recent engy company you added), youve also got 2 different light tank templates (hopefully you deleted a few of the 4xLARM divisions to free up tanks).

Those are real choices. You are supposed to be constrained, forced to make meaningful tough choices. That is good design.

 

[bobre]

I am of the opinion the only things broken about xp are the following:

1. Air and Navy do not have an exercise feature to hike attrition while gaining xp
2. Deleting your entire army and training one division for max XP gain is bullshit and needs to be de-incentivized
3. I'm not super keen on the ability for a player to dump 200-300+ xp on their freshly researched tank.

I think these are in the correct order of importance.

In regards to xp for template redesigns, I think the system is great. There is Army XP throughout the NF trees. Proper forward thinking will allow the player to exercise his troops, use a army advisor and spend NF army xp to build divisions with the tools he has at his disposal.

This isnt a symetric game. USA is not France, is not Germany, is not Tannu Tuva. All nations are bound by their unique set of circumstances. France having 25 Army xp without an advisor or exercise is intentional. The player needs to decide what to do, I would argue Engineers are worth 10 of your points, now you have 15, buff up your mtn divisions with engineers? now 5. Mtn divisions are at 24, Inf divisions are at 18 with support art (and the recent engy company you added), youve also got 2 different light tank templates (hopefully you deleted a few of the 4xLARM divisions to free up tanks).

Those are real choices. You are supposed to be constrained, forced to make meaningful tough choices. That is good design.

Nope.
Design is terrible and very exploitable via 1 division training which leads to tedious micro. Game is already very biased toward Axis and restricting template creation even further fuel stomping potential.
Removing 1 div play will lead to almost 1 sided games.

 

[bERt0r]

I like the model of having to work to get the template you want. I don't like having to keep division templates around or having to remember to make copies to save on XP though. That's just not enjoyable.

One way without changing mechanics is to have the machine figure out the optimal path for you based on previous templates (and auto-copy/hide unused ones,etc.)

Here is another idea to capture the spirit. I'm not an expert on history so somebody will have to chime in for that angle . This is just a look at mechanics.

Goals:

• Gate design effectivity on XP
• Do not introduce a new XP concept (eg, don't go back to theoretical + practical experience)
• Do not _block_ the player from experimenting or planning ahead or fielding a new unit type

Proposal:

• Flat cost for creating a new template. <-- Allows to design where you want to get to and not worry about copying/maintaining previous templates
• New division types take a 'new division type' malus in org, breakthrough and defense. This malus is reduced by gaining XP *with* those division types <-- represents time and experience needed to operate effectively
  • Malus is on the template, not individual division
  • Initial malus is flat rate but based on how big of a change
    • -x% if the highest cost change is 5xp
    • -y% if the highest cost change is 10xp
    • etc.
  • Perhaps some generals have a growth mindset and offset this malus or accelerate it's reduction (proportional to divisions under their command)
• Templates that are unused (no fielded divisions) accrue the malus back to starting point. <-- Ages out old templates

And somewhat orthogonal but Generals that have to manage too many division templates take a malus, to represent the challenge of dealing with many unique divisions. This could be as simple as n * level or whatever.

Thoughts?

I like your train of thoughts. It would be much more reasonable to have an XP/Effectivity meter for each template. Changes to a template lower the meter while fighting/exercising of divisions of said template fill it up.
If a template's meter is not full, newly trained divisions receive a training/unit experience malus -> after full training they still spawn green or alternatively just increase their training time.

 

[LostAlone]

I think that there definitely needs to be some more thought put into how the division designer and army xp interact. While I appreciate the intention; that countries that gained early experience fighting before the war get 'better' divisions to use that feels awful as a gameplay mechanic. That the player knows how to design better divisions but still can't make use of that sucks. Unlockable pre-set division templates would be much better for that, so at least the player doesn't feel cheated by being locked into the early templates, they'd be more like research topics and at least that feels 'fair'.

Assuming we get to freely design divisions then we should actually get to do so. If we aren't supposed to do that, that's fine, but then don't give us the chance to do that.

 

[HaruhiFollower]

That is where the misconception is, combination is not interaction. Divisions just average (or sum up) the individual stats of each components. They are still not interacting in the sense that 1 marine + 1 tank does not make and hybrid which is neither a tank nor a marine. It just makes a tank + marine, that is, one does not affect the other.

Even with simple summing/averaging there would still be interaction, as adding just 2-3 heavy tanks to a marine division greatly boosts its breakthrough while keeping most of the marine bonuses. After you match the attack values of a single opposing division the returns on investment from extra tanks are greatly diminished. With armor and piercing being weighed towards the highest value in the division the interactions are even stronger.

 

[REDDQ]

I also don't agree with the OP that divisions templates should be free. There are mods that do that if you want to play like that but I find it not very exciting. Trying to get a bit of xp prewar is a big part of the preparation to war and gives you something to do before 1939 so I think it is fine.

Putting all your armies on training exercises is not terribly exciting. Neither is Spain civil war with the amount of divisions you will send.