Discussion: experience for leaders and armies

[luk3Z]

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 ?

Military Academy could be new building in town but it is not necessary (look below):

These leaders are normal army but can gain experience and they are more expensive.
2nd way is make all leaders in game to gain experience and do not create leaders like above.
3rd way is make army exp too

 

[unmerged(148338)]

Why don't you change the number of winning battles to number of soldiers killed? It would end the exploiting of the AI tiny armies.

 

[Jedrek]

Personally, I'd have nothing against having a possibility to have some randomly created non-historical low-rank officers. Sometimes it's a shame to send out Ney or Napoleon only to put down a simple rebellion in some backwater province. Personally, I liked the EU3 system of army/naval tradition - that would keep the random leaders with reasonable statistics.

Historical leaders can be used to reflect some especially talented individuals - like Napoleon, Frederick II, Gustav Adolph, hetman Chodkiewicz and so on. Plus I believe there should be a possibility for every monarch to become a commander, with stats based upon his MIL skill.

I may be EU3 hater, but this doesn't mean I hate everything about her - it's just the graphics and the loss of any atmosphere

 

[unmerged(127071)]

Plus I believe there should be a possibility for every monarch to become a commander, with stats based upon his MIL skill.

and what becomes of the nation's monarch after he has been killed in battle? or if his army is completely annihilated in the middle of Siberia?

I found it very a historical in eu3. No monarch in eu2's time span ever sailed at the head of an army to colonies in America, or went to china, or too far from their nation or for a long amount of time for that matter. The only time I can think of a monarch traveling any considerable distance at the head of an army during eu2 time frame was during the Napoleonic wars, and that was Napoleon when he invaded Russia.

A monarch leaving the court at the hands of power hungry ministers and contenders to the throne to lead an army in some distant land should generate considerable civil strife at home

 

[BurningEGO]

I found it very a historical in eu3. No monarch in eu2's time span ever sailed at the head of an army to colonies in America, or went to china, or too far from their nation or for a long amount of time for that matter. The only time I can think of a monarch traveling any considerable distance at the head of an army during eu2 time frame was during the Napoleonic wars, and that was Napoleon when he invaded Russia.

As it is in EU2, you can sail to americas with a monarch anyway. I remember sailing more then once with Selim to Mexico.

I also remember loosing monarch leaders in battles, and that didnt kill my monarch (for some wicked reason i lost Shah Rukh in 80% of my games as the Timurid Empire in some random battle... sometimes even at the first one!).

A monarch leaving the court at the hands of power hungry ministers and contenders to the throne to lead an army in some distant land should generate considerable civil strife at home

Why? There are situations where monarchs went to other continents and their population in their homelands kept peaceful. I remember more then one example in portuguese history, at the very least.

 

[chefkoch]

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 ?

This sounds more like hiring a mercenary-officer. What if this building would have the effect, that fresh recruited armies don't start with Captains (1-1-1-1) but with Majors (2-2-2-2). This should be only a regional effect.

 

[luk3Z]

This sounds more like hiring a mercenary-officer. What if this building would have the effect, that fresh recruited armies don't start with Captains (1-1-1-1) but with Majors (2-2-2-2). This should be only a regional effect.

Regional effect will be realistic, so it is good idea, but not trained leader have to be poromoted too during his experience (maybe in event) ?
The problem is: do we need Military Academy as separate (new) building?
Furthermore what stats will have our leader trained in MA (Mil. Academy) (1-1-1-1) (2-2-2-2) or other ?
BTW I make my wish about weather effect on Wishes topic:
http://forum.paradoxplaza.com/forum/showpost.php?p=10106865&postcount=130
I think it would be a good idea because it can show more reality (like a snow)

 

[cool-toxic]

I would have these leaders side by side with historical leaders. Actually now that I think about it I think we should introduce the Leadership from Vicky and add the same concept for recruiting leaders, though historical leaders should always appear. Thus you gain leadership for the battles won and casulties and wars fought and policies. Then the leadership is spent on admirals or generals and you then choose which army they should appear in.

By admirals and generals we could make it so you first train one Captain, then you can upgrade your captains to Majors etc. This would save us from that exp thing and an awful load of info saved to each and every army.

 

[unmerged(83121)]

I would have these leaders side by side with historical leaders. Actually now that I think about it I think we should introduce the Leadership from Vicky and add the same concept for recruiting leaders, though historical leaders should always appear. Thus you gain leadership for the battles won and casulties and wars fought and policies. Then the leadership is spent on admirals or generals and you then choose which army they should appear in.

By admirals and generals we could make it so you first train one Captain, then you can upgrade your captains to Majors etc. This would save us from that exp thing and an awful load of info saved to each and every army.

Great idea if I understand it correctly. I mean, we can indeed have some leadership pool (erned by aforementioned means), and spend it to promote generic officers to upper ranks, e.g. by pressing some tiny button next to officer's name.

 

[Teodor]

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.

Agreed!

 

[unmerged(83121)]

I agree too, I think historical leaders should be unaffected by this system, and it should be balanced so that it was somewhat challenging to produce several Napoleons in a decade from these experience points.

 

[cool-toxic]

Great idea if I understand it correctly. I mean, we can indeed have some leadership pool (erned by aforementioned means), and spend it to promote generic officers to upper ranks, e.g. by pressing some tiny button next to officer's name.

Yes this is what I mean. And have historical ones on the side. But I would like a limit for the generic leaders like 3-3-3-1.

 

[Jedrek]

I remember having sort of "Death of a monarch" random event in EU1, which replaced the current monarch with a regency with some crappy stats and (IIRC) lowered stability.

As for monarch's death in combat - I always explained this with the monarch surviving the battle, but being severly wounded and never able to lead his armies again.

 

[luk3Z]

I agree too, I think historical leaders should be unaffected by this system, and it should be balanced so that it was somewhat challenging to produce several Napoleons in a decade from these experience points.

Agree. But notice that skills of historical leaders during years may: drop / up / stay the same (like in history).
So we should consider lose skills of leaders too during span of time.

Yes this is what I mean. And have historical ones on the side. But I would like a limit for the generic leaders like 3-3-3-1.

Yes, we need limits for non-historical leaders to prevent ruin gameplay by them if they become too strong.
I think max limit on stats should be 3-4-4-1 because you may have 2-3-3-1 from DP.

 

[chefkoch]

Yes, we need limits for non-historical leaders to prevent ruin gameplay by them if they become too strong.
I think max limit on stats should be 3-4-4-1 because you may have 2-3-3-1 from DP.

No, such caps are not needed. The only thing that is needed is to make it harder to reach higher ranks combined with a realistic life span for the leaders. The stats of recruited leaders is right now 2-2-2. Setting a limit at only 3 or 4 is not even worth the work of doing the experience stuff.

An overview of my suggestions to this topic:

 

[cool-toxic]

No, such caps are not needed. The only thing that is needed is to make it harder to reach higher ranks combined with a realistic life span for the leaders. The stats of recruited leaders is right now 2-2-2. Setting a limit at only 3 or 4 is not even worth the work of doing the experience stuff.

An overview of my suggestions to this topic:

A 3-4-4-1 leader is much better than a 2-2-2-0 leader. It is worth the work like in Vicky.. Your proposal is too time consuming and too difficult to balance. And 9 in siege? Which historical leaders has more than 2 or 3 in siege?

 

[chefkoch]

What about this with respect to the short life span of the higher ranks?

 

[Toio]

Why don't you change the number of winning battles to number of soldiers killed? It would end the exploiting of the AI tiny armies.

As the rebel armies which are under a certain number auto disappear, so should this happen to the human player only

 

[BurningEGO]

Agree. But notice that skills of historical leaders during years may: drop / up / stay the same (like in history).
So we should consider lose skills of leaders too during span of time.

Quite frankly i dont think experience should decay. We are speaking about leaders experience here. Besides the requirements are already pretty high, so why bother with decay.

 

[luk3Z]

As the rebel armies which are under a certain number auto disappear, so should this happen to the human player only

Yeah, maybe should we implement EXP only for human players (AI is too stupid for this) ?

What about this with respect to the short life span of the higher ranks?

If we will have random point (+1) for lvl this will not be actual.
If we train new Leader (for example 24 months) then "system/trigger" should recognize our DP and add some (+1 ?) for skill of our new Leader.

Quite frankly i dont think experience should decay. We are speaking about leaders experience here. Besides the requirements are already pretty high, so why bother with decay.

Experience don't but skills yes. For example: if you always play 5k against 30k and always you lose so after x years you reach 100 lost battles. So, why your Leader wouldn't be demoted (-1 point of random skill) ?
In my opinion all Leaders should gain EXP but if they will be trained in Academy they should be promoted faster and gain higher lvl.
BTW always should be possibility to kill Leader in battle (for example 0,5~1%).

Experience: number of battles won/lost, success defends, killed enemies etc.
Skills: (movement, fire, shock, siege)